how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..

 

[PMZ]

ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..

You can do whatever you want because you are irrelevant.

 

[PMZ]

you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not.

You seem to be nearly a singular believer in negative feedbacks. While there is still much to be learned about positive feedbacks the consensus is there are many and they are powerful.

Leading to this.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

 

[itfitzme]

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a most likely value of about 3°C, based upon multiple observational and modelling constraints. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}

The transient climate response is better constrained than the equilibrium climate sensitivity. It is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely greater than 3°C. {10.5}

There is a good understanding of the origin of differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity found in different models. Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor. {8.6}

New observational and modelling evidence strongly supports a combined water vapour-lapse rate feedback of a strength comparable to that found in AOGCMs. {8.6}

Key Uncertainties:
Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change. {8.6}"

Anyone know what the numerical value is for "likely" and "very unlikely"?

 

[itfitzme]

Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
Very likely > 90%
Likely > 66%

So what is most likely if it's between two likely values?

And very unlikely less than? Is that very likely more than?

That seems like better than 90% probability that ECS is greater than 1.5C

 

[westwall]

And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred. After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0. Your mantra is proving false....




COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

 

[SSDD]

funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-

In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

Interesting how disinterested some people can be over deliberate and blatant scientific fraud if that fraud is in favor of their political agenda, isn't it?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.

It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old. Another year and another selected data points that "just look funny".

Sure ya did.. You ran every one of them.. And MY -- you "ran the regression analysis" too... How damn impressive.. Was there a REASON to run regression on a simple data prep that just requires temporal averaging or filtering? Was it LINEAR or Polynomial? Why add predictive lines to a historical record? Do you have the coefficients for a "hockey stick" shaped regression analysis?

Wow -- you wrote the program too?? What ---- Excel isn't good enough for this simple plotting and prep? Don't have a license to MathCad or SciCad? Is it open source? Can I have it? Might be better than some of Hansen's work..

Let's forget about YOUR claimed attempts or somebody else's data prep problem and just LOOK at the official USHCN record from GISS.. Fair ENOUGH?

Here's the difference that data cooking makes from 1999 to 2012.. You shouldn't have any problem telling which one is recently cooked version..

Ever hear such a bald faced lie from anyone other than rolling thunder?

 

[SSDD]

I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem. How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.

They don't need to "know". They have the perfect pseudoscientific tool at their fingertips and the whole of climate science uses it lavishly....assumption.

 

[SSDD]

Really? Show us your work then..

Fat chance of that.

 

[SSDD]

This is what you get from folks that don't known how differences and stats works. They fight tooth and nail, the whole process, that everyone else has already figured out. Like no one has thought of any of it before.

Of course they thought of it before...and spent millions deflecting attention away from it.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for you to show us your work there not so artful dodger....

Once more...Fat chance. He is obviously a liar. I think that is a requisite of being a warmer.

 

[mamooth]

And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred. After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0. Your mantra is proving false....

Your link didn't support your claim. You know that, right?

Your link just showed a temps a little behind the mean, which everyone already knew, because of the persistent arctic cyclone. Nothing about your link said or implied "latest ever".

So, did you have any evidence that actually supports the claim you made?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

 

[mamooth]

How about a link there....

Never a problem, for the reason-based community.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

The NOAA takes the data from "good" and "bad" stations, as defined by crank Watts in his surfacestation.org project. There's no difference between the temperature records of the two sets. Myth debunked.

Now, I did make a mistake by saying urban areas had warmed less, when I should have said they warmed identically. If y'all want to salvage some pride by the usual screaming of LIARLIARLIAR, feel free. I'm up for giving y'all those little victories you need to stave off the darkness.

This paper demolishes your assertion...

No, it doesn't. That paper just says urban areas are warmer. That's a totally different topic than whether urban areas are warming faster than rural areas and causing the perceived temp increase. That crank theory has been conclusively debunked.

See, urban areas are corrected for in the temp record. Always have been. But there's a deliberate misinformation campaign from the denialist camp to claim that's not so, one of their many disinformation campaigns.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
---
The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis. The urban adjustment of
Hansen et al. [1999] consisted of a two-legged linear adjustment such that the linear trend of temperature before and after 1950 was the same as the mean trend of rural neighboring stations. In the new GISS analysis the hinge year is a variable chosen to be that which allows the adjusted urban record to fit the mean of its neighbors most precisely. The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only “unlit” stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments.
---

 

[mamooth]

ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..

You'll want to be putting a lid on the socking accusations real fast.

 

[gslack]

ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..

You'll want to be putting a lid on the socking accusations real fast.

2 threats in 2 threads from you now... I call it as I see it, and you don't make the rules admiral.

I think you need to take a break before your breakdown goes any further pal.. Now you're threatening me in threads. Seriously get a grip before you go too far...

 

[IanC]

How about a link there....

Never a problem, for the reason-based community.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

The NOAA takes the data from "good" and "bad" stations, as defined by crank Watts in his surfacestation.org project. There's no difference between the temperature records of the two sets. Myth debunked.

Now, I did make a mistake by saying urban areas had warmed less, when I should have said they warmed identically. If y'all want to salvage some pride by the usual screaming of LIARLIARLIAR, feel free. I'm up for giving y'all those little victories you need to stave off the darkness.

This paper demolishes your assertion...

No, it doesn't. That paper just says urban areas are warmer. That's a totally different topic than whether urban areas are warming faster than rural areas and causing the perceived temp increase. That crank theory has been conclusively debunked.

See, urban areas are corrected for in the temp record. Always have been. But there's a deliberate misinformation campaign from the denialist camp to claim that's not so, one of their many disinformation campaigns.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
---
The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis. The urban adjustment of
Hansen et al. [1999] consisted of a two-legged linear adjustment such that the linear trend of temperature before and after 1950 was the same as the mean trend of rural neighboring stations. In the new GISS analysis the hinge year is a variable chosen to be that which allows the adjusted urban record to fit the mean of its neighbors most precisely. The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only “unlit” stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments.
---

I, for one, was amazed at how little the quality of the temperature stations made to the trend. and we could further discuss what that 'crank's" paper actually shows but I would rather talk about UHI.

Phil Jones foisted a fraudulent UHI paper on the world in 1990 that claimed next-to-zero impact on temps, o.oo5C per decade I believe, and suggested that just adding this amount to the error bars was sufficient correction. I don't use the term fraudulent carelessly. Jones was called to the carpet, his co-author was brought up on scientific fraud charges at Columbia(?), but because this was done at a time when consensus ruled only an unknown grad student in China was held responsible. I am pretty sure I have an old thread with the details.

UHI is real, as anyone who lives in a city can testify to. it cannot be specifically seen in the temp record or picked up by 'homogenation techniques' like Iceland's 1960's cold weather that crippled their economy but has since been sent down the memory hole, at least by GISS. Hansen and Ruedy's UHI adjustments are unusual in that they increase and decrease temps at almost the same rate! you would think that it would be a oneway adjustment down.

other divisions of NASA have investigated and quantified the UHI effect, and one ongoing study has shown that even the presence of a building nearby in a rural setting has a noticeable effect. we are all waiting for an update but it is odd how slow information comes out when it is in the wrong direction.

 

[IanC]

you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not.

You seem to be nearly a singular believer in negative feedbacks. While there is still much to be learned about positive feedbacks the consensus is there are many and they are powerful.

Leading to this.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

Nature is a big believer in negative feedbacks, and governor responses that quickly return disruptions to the system to stasis.

climate models are only as good the program and the inputs. the grids are getting smaller and smaller but they are still huge compared to the size of a thundercloud that can pump a month's worth of CO2 blockage in under a minute (just an estimate). radiative effects are of small magnitude but dispersed over large areas and constant. thermal convection and H2O based energy transport is of large magnitude, local, and intermittent. which is not well handled by coarsely defined grids in a model.

some models, and the ideas behind them are a total joke. like the idea that CO2 backradiation of IR is driving heat under 700m deep in the oceans (apparently bypassing the first 700m) when it can be measured that IR doesn't make it past the first millimetre!

equatorial ocean water seldom gets above 29C and never above 31C. there are daily, monthly, yearly, decadal, multi-decadal interlocking mechanisms that shed the heat towards the poles. but somehow CO2 overwhelms them all. righttttttt

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.

It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old. Another year and another selected data points that "just look funny".

Sure ya did.. You ran every one of them.. And MY -- you "ran the regression analysis" too... How damn impressive.. Was there a REASON to run regression on a simple data prep that just requires temporal averaging or filtering? Was it LINEAR or Polynomial? Why add predictive lines to a historical record? Do you have the coefficients for a "hockey stick" shaped regression analysis?

Wow -- you wrote the program too?? What ---- Excel isn't good enough for this simple plotting and prep? Don't have a license to MathCad or SciCad? Is it open source? Can I have it? Might be better than some of Hansen's work..

Let's forget about YOUR claimed attempts or somebody else's data prep problem and just LOOK at the official USHCN record from GISS.. Fair ENOUGH?

Here's the difference that data cooking makes from 1999 to 2012.. You shouldn't have any problem telling which one is recently cooked version..

Ever hear such a bald faced lie from anyone other than rolling thunder?

Heck -- you gonna get me to say something NICE about RollingThunder?? That poster really NEVER asserts that he has VERIFIED anything he posts. So -- that's a lot more ethical than lying about all the independent data wrangling they've done..

 

[flacaltenn]

How about a link there....

Never a problem, for the reason-based community.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

The NOAA takes the data from "good" and "bad" stations, as defined by crank Watts in his surfacestation.org project. There's no difference between the temperature records of the two sets. Myth debunked.

Now, I did make a mistake by saying urban areas had warmed less, when I should have said they warmed identically. If y'all want to salvage some pride by the usual screaming of LIARLIARLIAR, feel free. I'm up for giving y'all those little victories you need to stave off the darkness.

This paper demolishes your assertion...

No, it doesn't. That paper just says urban areas are warmer. That's a totally different topic than whether urban areas are warming faster than rural areas and causing the perceived temp increase. That crank theory has been conclusively debunked.

See, urban areas are corrected for in the temp record. Always have been. But there's a deliberate misinformation campaign from the denialist camp to claim that's not so, one of their many disinformation campaigns.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
---
The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis. The urban adjustment of
Hansen et al. [1999] consisted of a two-legged linear adjustment such that the linear trend of temperature before and after 1950 was the same as the mean trend of rural neighboring stations. In the new GISS analysis the hinge year is a variable chosen to be that which allows the adjusted urban record to fit the mean of its neighbors most precisely. The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only “unlit” stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments.
---

I, for one, was amazed at how little the quality of the temperature stations made to the trend. and we could further discuss what that 'crank's" paper actually shows but I would rather talk about UHI.

Phil Jones foisted a fraudulent UHI paper on the world in 1990 that claimed next-to-zero impact on temps, o.oo5C per decade I believe, and suggested that just adding this amount to the error bars was sufficient correction. I don't use the term fraudulent carelessly. Jones was called to the carpet, his co-author was brought up on scientific fraud charges at Columbia(?), but because this was done at a time when consensus ruled only an unknown grad student in China was held responsible. I am pretty sure I have an old thread with the details.

UHI is real, as anyone who lives in a city can testify to. it cannot be specifically seen in the temp record or picked up by 'homogenation techniques' like Iceland's 1960's cold weather that crippled their economy but has since been sent down the memory hole, at least by GISS. Hansen and Ruedy's UHI adjustments are unusual in that they increase and decrease temps at almost the same rate! you would think that it would be a oneway adjustment down.

other divisions of NASA have investigated and quantified the UHI effect, and one ongoing study has shown that even the presence of a building nearby in a rural setting has a noticeable effect. we are all waiting for an update but it is odd how slow information comes out when it is in the wrong direction.

Which is why the simplest "population density" adjusted data preps from UAH agree BETTER with satellite than any of the mangled GISS or UEA preps.. Not difficult really. We are talking about thermometers for petes sake.