CO2 Sensitivity Experiments

[IanC]

recent additions to the literature since 2010-

no change in IPCC model estimates though.

crickham- why do you think the IPCC decided not to give a best central estimate?


transient climate response is even worse-

Figure 3 shows an evident mismatch between the observational best estimate and the model range. Nevertheless, AR5 states (Box 12.2) that:
“the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well, increasing our confidence in the assessment of uncertainties in projections over the 21st century.”
How can this be right, when the median model TCR is 40% higher than an observationally-based best estimate of 1.3°C, and almost half the models have TCRs 50% or more above that? Moreover, the fact that effective model TCRs for warming to 2081–2100 are the 10%–20% higher than their nominal TCRs means that over half the models project future warming on the RCP8.5 scenario that is over 50% higher than what an observational TCR estimate of 1.3°C implies.
Interestingly, the final draft of AR5 WG1 dropped the statement in the second draft that TCR had a most likely value near 1.8°C, in line with CMIP5 models, and marginally reduced the ‘likely’ range from 1.2–2.6°C to 1.0–2.5°C, at the same time as making the above claim.
So, in their capacity as authors of Otto et al. (2013), we have fourteen lead or coordinating lead authors of the WG1 chapters relevant to climate sensitivity stating that the most reliable data and methodology give ‘likely’ and 5–95% ranges for TCR of 1.1–1.7°C and 0.9–2.0°C, respectively. They go on to suggest that some CMIP5 models have TCRs that are too high to be consistent with recent observations. On the other hand, we have Chapter 12, Box 12.2, stating that the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well. Were the Chapter 10 and 12 authors misled by the flawed TCR estimates included in Figure 10.20a? Or, given the key role of the CMIP5 models in AR5, did the IPCC process offer the authors little choice but to endorse the CMIP5 models’ range of TCR values?

Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its/the CMIP5 models? TCR ranges? « Climate Audit

I dont expect you to believe me, Lewis, or anyone else that doesnt agree with your way of thinking. but I do think you should expose yourself to the various sides of the question of global warming. if you find a fault or lack of logic in your opponent, then you should examine your own arguments, and those of your allies, for the same faults and lack of logic. I cannot see how anyone can claim that the debate is over and that the science is settled, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Crick]

I have to get to work early but tell me, in your first graph, is Lindzen and Choi (2011)'s 'output' being included in your group of "14 best estimates"? It would appear that it is. Who selected the "best estimates" and how did they do it?

 

[SSDD]

I wish there were a few honest and reasonable posters on the consensus side to debate with. instead we have hacks like Abe and assholes like mamooth.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. There is a pretty good, and remarkably accurate post over at Jo Nova discussing why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with warmers.....Titled Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have...a rational discussion.

Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have? a rational conversation! « JoNova

You can't have a rational conversation about climate and possible problems with the hypothesis with a warmer any more than you can have a rational conversation about religion and possible problems and contradictions between the bible and reality with a fundamentalist...or inconsistencies within islam with a radical islamist. The mind set is the same. You challenge the faith, you are a heretic deserving death...and I am not kidding about death. Tell me you can't hear the wish to be able to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them in their posts. Tell me honestly what you think would happen if they were given free rein to deal with skeptics as they wished.

 

[SSDD]

Depends entirely what you or anyone else might mean by "realistic fit".

Sounds familiar....depends on what your definition of is is.

 

[Crick]

Let me guess. The IPCC and the lead authors of AR5.

 

[SSDD]

Let me guess. The IPCC and the lead authors of AR5.

So you didn't have to get to work early....You just had no answer to ian. Typical. We all know that you live in your grandmother's basement and haven't worked a day in your life.

 

[IanC]

I have to get to work early but tell me, in your first graph, is Lindzen and Choi (2011)'s 'output' being included in your group of "14 best estimates"? It would appear that it is. Who selected the "best estimates" and how did they do it?

there are 14 new papers since 2010. the authors state a range and give the best estimate. of course if you had simply read the caption to the graph you would already know that. there is no outside panel of judges declaring something the 'best', simply the authors giving the best estimate according to their work. why do you think the IPCC decided not to include their 'best estimate' for climate sensitivity in AR5, after giving one in the first four reports? they declared the uncertainty to be more constrained than ever before yet.......

 

[IanC]

I will answer my own question. Estimated Climate Sensitivities fall into two clusters. one cluster is formed by papers based on real world data, the other cluster is based on computer model output. if they gave a figure that matched the models then they would have to explain why the real world papers were ignored. if they gave a figure that lay in between (or heaven forbid, matched) the real world data models, then they would have to explain why they were still projecting out to 2100 temperature increases that only exist within climate models. so instead they increased the range, dropped the best central estimate, and have 'plausible deniability' that just about any figure will be 'consistent with' their findings.

 

[SSDD]

I will answer my own question. Estimated Climate Sensitivities fall into two clusters. one cluster is formed by papers based on real world data, the other cluster is based on computer model output. if they gave a figure that matched the models then they would have to explain why the real world papers were ignored. if they gave a figure that lay in between (or heaven forbid, matched) the real world data models, then they would have to explain why they were still projecting out to 2100 temperature increases that only exist within climate models. so instead they increased the range, dropped the best central estimate, and have 'plausible deniability' that just about any figure will be 'consistent with' their findings.

Got to keep that hypothesis unfalsifiable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

recent additions to the literature since 2010-

no change in IPCC model estimates though.

crickham- why do you think the IPCC decided not to give a best central estimate?


transient climate response is even worse-

Figure 3 shows an evident mismatch between the observational best estimate and the model range. Nevertheless, AR5 states (Box 12.2) that:
“the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well, increasing our confidence in the assessment of uncertainties in projections over the 21st century.”
How can this be right, when the median model TCR is 40% higher than an observationally-based best estimate of 1.3°C, and almost half the models have TCRs 50% or more above that? Moreover, the fact that effective model TCRs for warming to 2081–2100 are the 10%–20% higher than their nominal TCRs means that over half the models project future warming on the RCP8.5 scenario that is over 50% higher than what an observational TCR estimate of 1.3°C implies.
Interestingly, the final draft of AR5 WG1 dropped the statement in the second draft that TCR had a most likely value near 1.8°C, in line with CMIP5 models, and marginally reduced the ‘likely’ range from 1.2–2.6°C to 1.0–2.5°C, at the same time as making the above claim.
So, in their capacity as authors of Otto et al. (2013), we have fourteen lead or coordinating lead authors of the WG1 chapters relevant to climate sensitivity stating that the most reliable data and methodology give ‘likely’ and 5–95% ranges for TCR of 1.1–1.7°C and 0.9–2.0°C, respectively. They go on to suggest that some CMIP5 models have TCRs that are too high to be consistent with recent observations. On the other hand, we have Chapter 12, Box 12.2, stating that the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well. Were the Chapter 10 and 12 authors misled by the flawed TCR estimates included in Figure 10.20a? Or, given the key role of the CMIP5 models in AR5, did the IPCC process offer the authors little choice but to endorse the CMIP5 models’ range of TCR values?

Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its/the CMIP5 models? TCR ranges? « Climate Audit

I dont expect you to believe me, Lewis, or anyone else that doesnt agree with your way of thinking. but I do think you should expose yourself to the various sides of the question of global warming. if you find a fault or lack of logic in your opponent, then you should examine your own arguments, and those of your allies, for the same faults and lack of logic. I cannot see how anyone can claim that the debate is over and that the science is settled, but that is just my opinion.

so we can with 95% certainty that a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperatures anywhere from 0 to 6 degrees.

Mackey said it best Hmmmmmmkay

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[SSDD]

recent additions to the literature since 2010-

no change in IPCC model estimates though.

crickham- why do you think the IPCC decided not to give a best central estimate?


transient climate response is even worse-

Figure 3 shows an evident mismatch between the observational best estimate and the model range. Nevertheless, AR5 states (Box 12.2) that:
“the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well, increasing our confidence in the assessment of uncertainties in projections over the 21st century.”
How can this be right, when the median model TCR is 40% higher than an observationally-based best estimate of 1.3°C, and almost half the models have TCRs 50% or more above that? Moreover, the fact that effective model TCRs for warming to 2081–2100 are the 10%–20% higher than their nominal TCRs means that over half the models project future warming on the RCP8.5 scenario that is over 50% higher than what an observational TCR estimate of 1.3°C implies.
Interestingly, the final draft of AR5 WG1 dropped the statement in the second draft that TCR had a most likely value near 1.8°C, in line with CMIP5 models, and marginally reduced the ‘likely’ range from 1.2–2.6°C to 1.0–2.5°C, at the same time as making the above claim.
So, in their capacity as authors of Otto et al. (2013), we have fourteen lead or coordinating lead authors of the WG1 chapters relevant to climate sensitivity stating that the most reliable data and methodology give ‘likely’ and 5–95% ranges for TCR of 1.1–1.7°C and 0.9–2.0°C, respectively. They go on to suggest that some CMIP5 models have TCRs that are too high to be consistent with recent observations. On the other hand, we have Chapter 12, Box 12.2, stating that the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well. Were the Chapter 10 and 12 authors misled by the flawed TCR estimates included in Figure 10.20a? Or, given the key role of the CMIP5 models in AR5, did the IPCC process offer the authors little choice but to endorse the CMIP5 models’ range of TCR values?

Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its/the CMIP5 models? TCR ranges? « Climate Audit

I dont expect you to believe me, Lewis, or anyone else that doesnt agree with your way of thinking. but I do think you should expose yourself to the various sides of the question of global warming. if you find a fault or lack of logic in your opponent, then you should examine your own arguments, and those of your allies, for the same faults and lack of logic. I cannot see how anyone can claim that the debate is over and that the science is settled, but that is just my opinion.

so we can with 95% certainty that a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperatures anywhere from 0 to 6 degrees.

Mackey said it best Hmmmmmmkay

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Probably should start with a negative number instead of zero...CO2 being a radiative gas may help the atmosphere radiatively cool itself more quickly than would be possible if convection and conduction were the only means available..

 

[jc456]

Does anyone here remember Gore's CO2 experiment from his 24 hour telethon?

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

AGWCult Thumb on the Scale Science "Experiment"

hahahahaahaaha....I forgot how bad that experiment was. hahahahahaahahahahaaha.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone here remember Gore's CO2 experiment from his 24 hour telethon?

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

AGWCult Thumb on the Scale Science "Experiment"

hahahahaahaaha....I forgot how bad that experiment was. hahahahahaahahahahaaha.

Crick swears it's for real

 

[jc456]

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

AGWCult Thumb on the Scale Science "Experiment"

hahahahaahaaha....I forgot how bad that experiment was. hahahahahaahahahahaaha.

Crick swears it's for real

I wonder how he can explain the yellow material under the thermometers then when the ones in the jars were on blue globes? hahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahaaha. That's too fnn funny...haahahahaahahahahaahaha. The yellow background under the themometers, what a hoot.

And.....sorry I was still laughing, the fact there wasn't any reflection of the light on the thermometers as well. Hey, I watched Mary Poppins over the weekend, the bit in the movie, I love to laugh..... hahaha loud and long and clear........

 

[mamooth]

I wish there were a few honest and reasonable posters on the consensus side to debate with. instead we have hacks like Abe and assholes like mamooth.

Ian is a loyal acolyte, showing off his righteous anger at those heretics who dare doubt the conspiracy theories of DearLeaderMcIntyre.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I found the AGW Experiment!!

 

[jc456]

I wish there were a few honest and reasonable posters on the consensus side to debate with. instead we have hacks like Abe and assholes like mamooth.

Ian is a loyal acolyte, showing off his righteous anger at those heretics who dare doubt the conspiracy theories of DearLeaderMcIntyre.

Then where's the experiment?

 

[mamooth]

You're actually dumb enough to think a single experiment in a test tube can reproduce the whole earth?

That's what I mean about the question being obviously stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're actually dumb enough to think a single experiment in a test tube can reproduce the whole earth?

That's what I mean about the question being obviously stupid.

So you're saying the system is too complex to replicate in a lab, but yet you have absolute confidence that you've eliminated all the variables except for a 120PPM increase in CO2?

Which one is it, it can't be both

 

[mamooth]

No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.