Revised AGU Statement on Climate Change
The AGU has issued its revised statement on climate change, approved by the fifteen member committee chaired by Gerald North with one (predictable) dissent.
Human induced climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.
Climate chan ge is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human induced climate change.
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.
Adopted by the American Geophysical Union
December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.
The 15-person panel that reviewed and updated the position statement included the following:
- Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami (approve)
- John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (approve)
- Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication (approve)
- Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
- Peter Huybers, Harvard University (approve)
- Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute (approve)
- Gerald North, Texas A&M University (approve, panel chair)
- Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University (approve)
- Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado Boulder (dissent)
- Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (approve)
- Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA (approve)
- Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics (approve)
- Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
- Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (approve)
The mood of the attendees had shifted. It was much sourer about the few in the atmospheric science community still running interference for inactivism. People were being called out in private, but also in public and not just in sessions dealing with education and communication and blogging.
It is now clear to the climate science community that keeping your head down has not been an effective option for climate scientists for quite a while (see Kathryn Hayhoe). The denialists and their funders are coming for you in the Niemoeller sense, sooner or later. This means that many in the community have woken up. Those who do not, or believe they cannot, are feeling guilty about not supporting the science they are part of. Those folks need to be encouraged and supported and come out.
Posts
238 comments:
1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»My congrats to the committee on a strong and clear statement.
... And yet in the same week we have a paper on CO2 sensitivity close to zero, Antarctic ice overtaking Brazil, and the Northwest Passage looking like Chris Christie's arteries. Who does one believe?
Hardy Cross
Hardy:
If climate sensitivity were near zero, there would never be any changes in temperature in the past, no glacial ages, and little change in temperature with changes in solar output.
I would suggest you pay attention to the scientists in the American Geophysical Union, not to some internet 'experts'.
I first read this in Judith's blog, and she gave her usual air of the reasonable scientist frustrated with how the entire scientific establishment has been infected with the CAGW disease.
I must say that Pilke's statement is much more reasonable than most of the denialosphere, and it seems not too different from the AGU actual statement, but it of course plays down the possibility of serious consequences.
I was surprised to find this in my yahoo news on their front page. And equally surprised to see Pilke's dissent and Curry's role highlighted. But on balance it was a pretty good article
My congrats to the committee on a strong advocacy statement with very little if any actual science.
Yeah, this will work (not).
Why do I keep humming "Crumblin' Down".
I do understand Eli and company's reaction though (past, present and future). The one thing they did adopt from their least favorite President George W. Bush, "you are either with us or against us."
Off to go play hockey on all that Artic Ice that refuses to melt so far. I know the melting season is not over and WEATHER changes could change and create dramatic melt in August, we shall see. I certainly hope not, you?
1
Oh. You must have missed the role of our Sun in all that.
Hardy Cross
I am really quite pleased that the inactivists are being called out. While there will always be a few extreme views (not to mention nutjobs proclaiming 'iron sun' and the like) in any field, it is absurd to allow them influence orders of magnitude larger than their number or the quality of their evidence.
Overall, I would consider the revised AGU statement reasonable and very very well supported by the data.
KR
Uh-oh. 14/15 is approx. 94%. Experimental error?
6% experi-mental error.
Hardy
Don't tell me the clowns are pushing their ice recovery shtick again? Anything for the gullible ..... What do NSIDC say?
@James Cliborn: As it happens, Roger Pielke Sr. does half agree with the AGU Statement.
So that makes 14.5/15 * 100 = 97%
Right on the mark.
So 97% of climate scientists are political policy advocates. Well duh.
Sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
Dog bites man.
2+2 = 4
Prediction, by the end of the decade CAGW will be only laughed about it past tense.
1
"Prediction, by the end of the decade CAGW will be only laughed about it [sic] past tense."
"Only", huh? Want to put your money where your mouth is? I have some interesting and very reasonable terms.
Bernard J.
Bernard J. --- I too have an idle US$50,000 or so, Count me in.
Oh dear, priests vote for the existance of god... no doubt there, and turkeys voting against christmas.
What a surprise.
Conservationist-scientist
I do not gamble or directly associate with fanatics of any sort, sorry.
1
Ahhh, so it's not really a "prediction" at all. Just bravado and bullshit. Of the fanatical variety.
Bernard J. to anonymous troll 1: "Want to put your money where your mouth is? I have some interesting and very reasonable terms."
Money talks...
anonymous troll 1: "I do not gamble or directly associate with fanatics of any sort, sorry."
bullshit walks.
As always, thanks for the clarity, and the piss and vinegar. Used to prod a few people still voting for moderation.
Climate sensitivity of 0C. It's like stamping one's forehead with "I am a total fucking idiot." Evidence? EVIDENCE? We don't need no stinking evidence!
Can I get some references, Hardy? Remember, Energy & Environment and Review of Italian Physical Pseudosciences C don't count.
Oh, and 1, was it you who last year was screaming about the total breakdown of Arctic ice and predicting zero ice for this September. Or do you change method when it suits your purpose, ala "Steve Goddard"?
DFrag
"I do not gamble or directly associate with fanatics of any sort, sorry."
Why not? According to your own conviction you are correct (and tens of thousands of professional scientists are not...) so you should be happy to take the money from someone who is freely offering you the chance to take it, and thereby actually proving your faith in your own prediction.
And for what it's worth it shouldn't even be "gambling" because you are so certain of your correctness. It should be a fait accompli - 1 one, science nil.
Oh, hang on... You're not actually scared, are you? A cowardly custard? You don't secretly doubt your belief that physics, climatology and biology are conspiracies of the scientific Illuminati, do you?
Seriously, I will put down 10 ounces of gold for 10 ounces of your gold (protection against dodgy dollars...) to be held in escrow by Brere Eli, who will reap 2 ounces for his troubles. In this way you need have no contact at all with me, nor ever know who I am or vice versa, so your aversion to association with "fanatics" will never be challenged.
The proposal is this - if, by 2020, the IPCC or the American Association for the Advancement of Science admits that global warming is not a threat to human society or to the existence of species, that it was all a big mistake, you collect. If, by 2020, the consensus on the danger of global warming remains, I collect. Eli is to be the arbiter, and his decision is final with no recourse for appeal. You can win before 2020, I cannot.
I'm offering you a net of 8 ounces of gold to stand by your belief. Do you have the courage of your convictions to do so? To date not a single science denier that I have ever confronted has had the testicles for defending their claims - you could be the first.
And if you would like to bring in any of your mates, I'll happily up the ante with David Benson's offer to contribute to the pot, in proportion to the input from any of your colleagues in denialism. Eli's 10% share remains consistent, as do the terms above.
I'll give you a week to think about it.
Bernard J.
[I am now convinced that Recaptcha is sentient - it's sniggering "Lagusta 1"]
Around the 15 minute mark in the video here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDWAcP2zH4w&feature=youtu.be J. Curry goes into objections to the AGU statement.
Dogwhistle? You can hear the dogs barking in the background.
Mentioning the Arctic without noting the Antarctic smacks of confirmation bias.
Of course, there are those who would reciprocate.
Eunice.
In law, we decide the 'truth' by adversarial contest - prosecution versus defense.
This is familiar to us.
And probably too enjoyable when we play 'deniers' versus 'hysterics'.
Real science is dispassionate, of course.
But screw that - let's rumble.
Hear, hear! To piss and vinegar!
Whoops, that was supposed to end with a {clink}
Eunice, would that be the accelerating land ice mass loss in the Antarctic or the Manabe-predicted increase in Antarctic sea ice?
DFrag
Hardy Cross has every reason to be- he's just missed the last boat for this year's northwest passage- the channel is broad as Christie's vest.
http://www.adventurecanada.com/trip/into-the-northwest-passage-2013/
"The proposal is this - if, by 2020, the IPCC or the American Association for the Advancement of Science admits that global warming is not a threat to human society or to the existence of species, that it was all a big mistake, you collect. If, by 2020, the consensus on the danger of global warming remains, I collect. Eli is to be the arbiter, and his decision is final with no recourse for appeal. You can win before 2020, I cannot.
"
With terms like that you cannot lose. Only one species needs to be perceived under threat of any warming, even warming not dangerous to humans and you would collect.
This is why I will not bet with fanatics. Nor do I want to know how to contact you nor you contact me for that matter.
1
Badger3, my computer tells me you are an attack site. Too bad. By 2020: I'd be willing to venture a few thousands myself, not sure how many, but will think about it.
By then the Antarctic will also have a sorry tale to tell.
Russell, bowtie vs. my turtle, and conservative vs. leftie, I like you ... Christie's vest may be wide, but not wide enough this year, but I take the longer view. We sadly regret Rush Holt is not popular enuf.
"With terms like that you cannot lose. Only one species needs to be perceived under threat of any warming, even warming not dangerous to humans and you would collect.
Ah, I see. So when you said "[p]rediction, by the end of the decade CAGW will be only laughed about it [sic] past tense", you were only speaking about the remaining stain of hard-core denialists who live in Hy-Brazil.
Nevertheless I am prepared to give you a head-start. You can ever choose:
1) the first one hundred vertebrate species to be recognised as being potentially negatively affected by human-caused warming as is still recognised by 2020 will not be counted, and at least one hundred vertebrate species will remain to be recognised as being potentially negatively affected by human-caused warming as is still recognised by 2020;
or
2) the first one thousand multicellular plant/animal species to be recognised as being potentially negatively affected by human-caused warming as is still recognised by 2020 will not be counted, and at least one thousand plant/animal species will remain to be recognised as being potentially negatively affected by human-caused warming as is still recognised by 2020.
That should give you an enormous head-start,should it not? After all, "by the end of the decade CAGW will be only laughed about it [sic] past tense"...
"This is why I will not bet with fanatics. Nor do I want to know how to contact you nor you contact me for that matter."
You don't read very well at all, do you? I've already explicitly indicated that Eli would act as an intermediary so that you need never know from whom comes your 8 ounces of sparkling, shiny, 24 karat gold.
So how about it? Have you changed your underwear and grown a pair of those gonads that are supposed to be contained therein? Six and a half days left during which to decide...
Bernard J.
Bernard you are crafty, but I was not born last night.
"...potentially negatively affected by human-caused warming "
Ah love the word potentially, covers just about the entire realm of possibility.
Come back when you have some integrity and you are serious.
1
Also, I would not trust Eli with my contact information. Anyone that pretends to be a rabbit and speaks/write in 3rd person has issues.
1
Eli, of course, IS a bunny, and an extremely trustworthy one at that. Ask Brian.
"Bernard you are crafty, but I was not born last night.
"...potentially negatively affected by human-caused warming "
Ah love the word potentially, covers just about the entire realm of possibility.
It also covers the fact that warming is an issue in the near future, and not just now. That's what the whole issue is about, after all...
What you want is to be given credibility to predict the future, but to not be accountable for any failure of your predictions. Sorry buster, but it doesn't work that way, not if you want to retain your credibility.
When push cones to shove you're nothing more than a lily-livered Dunning-Kruger case, convinced that your own unsubstantiated faith gazumps the knowledge obtained by the work of tens of thousands of professional scientists. You're a self-interested ideologue prepared to bet the well-being of future generations of humans, and the integrity of the biosphere, on your fantasy of knowing better than your scientific betters, but you don't have sufficient courage in your convictions to bet a relatively small sum on the correctness of your claims.
You're an intellectual coward, a moral hypocrite, and as far as I am concerned you have not even a skerrick of integrity.
Tell, me, is your nom de plume a reflection of your combined IQ/EQ, or is it the number of the person for whom you are only concerned?
Bernard J.
Yes Bernard I am all those things, no matter what I say or do, you are already convinced.
You have devolved to name calling and never really put an honest effort forth to construct a wager. You never wanted to agree to terms you just wanted to get to your last post as quickly as possible, pathetic and transparent.
FWIW as I look around my home I see the people I truly care about and they are what my life is all about. Certainly not some tribal nasty fanatic on a blog whose modus operandi is to label people, put them in a box, and dismiss them.
Your opinion of yourself cannot possibly higher than that of those around you, no way.
1
So, Mr. or Ms. 1, what do you think would be a fair wager?
Garhighway
When I see all the members of the IPCC forced to wager on their predictions, I may then be inclined to have to put money behind mine.
But not with a fanatic and I will be reluctant still as I do not gamble nor bet on anything.
Besides Bernard never wanted to gamble, he just wanted to get to the part about calling someone else names and feel superior, it is like breathing or food for him and quite pathetic.
1
"You have devolved to name calling and never really put an honest effort forth to construct a wager."
I am absolutely serious about my wager. Put your money on the table and test me. I dare you.
On the matter of names... It's a bit rich that you advocate a path that spurns the best science and that threatens the very viability of human society and of many plant and animal species, and yet you grow prickles as soon as someone calls you on the ridiculousness of your irresponsibility.
I am regularly called far worse than the labels I append to you, and I am called such with far less evidence of the validity of the names. If you want to participate in a blog discussion of the science, and if you want to do so by attempting to have your cake and eat it too, you'll need to lose the glass jaw.
Just saying.
Bernard J.
Hank Roberts, thanks for the pointer to that video with an interesting panel discussion hosted by the Sustainability Media Lab among Gavin Schmidt, Judy Curry, and Richard Betts.
Judy Curry is remarkable for her ability to grossly mischaracterize nearly all the targets of her complaints: the AGU statement, the IPCC, and the "consensus." Her statement at around 24:00 minutes is a pretty revealing example of her narcissistic persecution complex, and how she twists the world to fit her delusional belief that the science is somehow "out of whack" and that scientists like her, who disagree with the consensus, aren't treated fairly. As a psychological case study, it's worth transcribing in its entirety, and I'll leave it to the bunnies to deconstruct the many layers of nonsense it contains:
Judy Curry: "The problem that I have is that 'The Community' has laid down an expectation that people support 'The Consensus;' that if they don't advocate for their 'Preferred Solution' that they should at least keep their mouths shut. They don't like the idea of independent thinking; 'We're building a consensus towards a particular objective and people shouldn't be straying from that.' I mean, I've been criticized any number of times for 'Straying from the Consensus' and opening up the dialogue to much broader topics, and people see that this monolithic enforcement of a certain way of thinking about the subject, and they're suspicious of it, okay, and it, um, I think it backfires on people…um, on uh, 'The Cause,' on the, um, perception of Science as a elevated voice of reason in this debate and I think it backfires and I think it's, overall, it's done more harm than good, in the long term."
Watching Gavin's eyes roll and his expressions during Judy's little rant is priceless.
Taylor B
When I see all the members of the IPCC forced to wager on their predictions, I may then be inclined to have to put money behind mine.
I expect nearly all of the IPCC contributors would accept a reasonable bet that their work is correct. By not taking their money, #1 is surely displaying grandmotherly kindness.
Also, who does #2 work for?
-MO
"It's a bit rich that you advocate a path that spurns the best science and that threatens the very viability of human society and of many plant and animal species, and yet you grow prickles as soon as someone calls you on the ridiculousness of your irresponsibility."
A complete fabrication please point to my "advocacy".
Do you always just makes things up? Your "wagers" were worded so that they could always be interpreted as a win for you, no matter what happens by the end of the decade. You are simply dishonest, nothing more to say.
You can call me all the names you want, please continue to do so, it shows how you are weak. Have I complained to anyone about it? No. All I did was point it out. I see you expect name calling to take place on a blog discussion, too bad it is just another situation that Bernard is not going to get his way.
You can lay prone on the ground and smack your hands and kick your feet all you want, but you are not going to dictate what I can and cannot say. You can offer all the dishonest wagers you want and I will continue to refuse them. You can continue to through out names and insults and I will point out your weak tactic, but please do not expect me to respond in kind, I was raised better than that.
1
not through but throw.
long day
1
(Part I)
"A complete fabrication please point to my "advocacy".
How rich - you're playing with words in the manner that you accuse me of engaging in.
I said that "you advocate a path that spurns the best science and that threatens the very viability of human society and of many plant and animal species", by which I meant that you lend support to deniers of human caused climate change. This is trivially obvious to anyone who reads your comments on Rabbet Run, especially when the thread subject is Michael Mann, who really seems to get a bee buzzing in your bonnet - probably because he is so conspicuously associated with the strong evidence of a "hockey stick" trajectory in the contemporary temperature record.
I did not say that you engage in "advocacy" per se, which is a subtlety different concept.
Perhaps semantics is your refuge now that you have amply demonstrated that you do not have the courage to stand by your disparagement of mainstream physics and climatology. I'm happy to play your game of spot the semantic twist if that shakes your tree, but I won't let you forget that you won't stump up to demonstrate confidence in your own "prediction".
"Your "wagers" were worded so that they could always be interpreted as a win for you, no matter what happens by the end of the decade."
My wagers were intended to put your claim to the test. Others have repeatedly invited you to counter with a wager that would be acceptable to you and I would welcome this with great enthusiasm - let's see exactly how you would define the success of your prediction that "by the end of the decade CAGW will be only laughed about it [sic] past tense".
And by-the-by, it's a little ironic that you've suddenly become so puritanical about wagers when just one month ago on Rabbet Run you were happy to throw them around yourself and ludicrous ones at that.
"You can call me all the names you want, please continue to do so, it shows how you are weak. Have I complained to anyone about it?"
See, they'd only be "names" in the sense that you mean if they are not able to be substantiated. However I stand by my use of the terms, because you are demonstrably:
1) a lily-livered Dunning-Kruger case
2) a self-interested ideologue
3) an intellectual coward, and
4) a moral hypocrite.
If you like we can pick any of those terms and have a discussion about why your stance against the consensus science of climate change makes those terms appropriate descriptors. And if you really feel brave, we can discuss the inherent oxymoron in your first sentence...
As to complaining, the very fact that you raised the issue several times now indicates that you're offended by the usage. Seriously, get over it. You're on the internet, you're defending a preposterous pseudoscientific position, and you expect to be treated with kid gloves?
It is indeed a glass jaw...
Bernard J.
(Part II)
You can lay prone on the ground and smack your hands and kick your feet all you want, but you are not going to dictate what I can and cannot say.
Where did I try to "dictate what [you] can and cannot say"? If anything, you seem to be trying to dictate what I can and cannot say!
And in what fit of pique did I "lay prone on the ground and smack [my] hands and kick [my] feet", for whatever reason you image that I was so doing? There are notable tanties here, but they're not mine...
You can offer all the dishonest wagers you want and I will continue to refuse them.
I am offering you a very serious wager genuinely intended to test your claim that "by the end of the decade CAGW will be only laughed about it [sic] past tense". You seem to want to run from any exploration of how sincerely you believe this. That's very much your prerogative, but don't expect to be treated with respect if you can't stand by your extraordinary "prediction".
And as I said above if you are brave enough to put your own terms down I'd be very interested to see them. I'm curious to see how you would reconcile your "prediction" with a set of conditions that you believe will objectively test your claim.
You can continue to through out names and insults and I will point out your weak tactic, but please do not expect me to respond in kind, I was raised better than that.
They are observations of displayed character traits based on your own pronouncements. If you don't like them you could try educating yourself, and demonstrating to others that you have done so.
And never have I said that I "expect[ed]" you to "respond" in any particular manner, whether "in kind" or otherwise. You are erecting a straw man. Of course, in your eyes pointing out this logical fallacy probably constitutes another "insult"...
When all is said and done, I'm living rent-free in your head. I can't say that it's the best place to be though - there's lots of light coming in from the sides, but the front windows are firmly shuttered and have the blinds drawn. Apparently it's the same for every block on La-la-la-Icanthearyou Street...
Bernard J.
It seems clear that 1 cannot or will not articulate a set of conditions that would constitute confirmation or refutation of AGW. That's... odd.
DNFTT. Is there some content in the last 30 messages? Other than that '1' despises easy money, won't say who s/he trusts on words like AGW and doesn't trust an address that can be confirmed to bunnies.:-) (eating popcorn)
Bernard J. --- I too have an idle US$50,000 or so, Count me in.
If Bernard J. can find a contrarian who is prepared to put their money where their mouth is with a reasonably fair bet, I can pile on too.
But I've seen Bernard J. offer good terms to several contrarians now over the last couple of years, and they all seem to develop a sudden (and principled! Definitely principled!) aversion to "gambling" - which, as pointed out tends to give the lie to their claim that they are utterly sure that current climate science is deeply and fundamentally mistaken...
"I expect nearly all of the IPCC contributors would accept a reasonable bet that their work is correct."
You mean like this one?
"A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios."
Got a lot of serious catchin' up to do to make that one pay off.
DFrag:
"would that be the accelerating land ice mass loss in the Antarctic or the Manabe-predicted increase in Antarctic sea ice?"
Anything that didn't appear as if they were clinging to artifacts which fulfilled their preconceptions while ignoring contradictions.
But Manabe's prediction would be good, because then they'd have to confront the fact that the GCMs that the IPCC use indicate greater lossof Antarctic sea ice than the Arctic.
Eunice
Yah, Loth, the confidence in the belief that scientists are frauds is intense, yet 1 can't even provide a reasonable science-based argument for its position -- not even a general direction (e.g. "clouds are a significantly negative feedback"). That would be much more interesting than "you fools are fools and I'm not, and ya mama brought you up wrong, and I'm so smart I don't even need evidence. Don't insult me by calling me god-like, and I'd never take a bet I'm certain I would win . . . it's just not fun taking money from fools."
Based on the evidence, I'd offer the tentative proposition that 1 is simply a faux-libertarian troll with nothing useful to say (certainly nothing that would help science progress--which should be the driving interest in any case).
Apologies for pointing out the obvious.
DFrag
But Eunice, "they" have already admitted such. Model projections of both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are horrid, but much worse for the Arctic. What does it mean other than the models need improvement in that area? (don't forget that the black line in the surface temp plot at the RC link is not a prediction; it's the ensemble average.)
Are you simply pointing out that models need work, or are you suggesting that modeling is so utterly wrong that by 2100 global temp anomaly could be -2C. Do you want climate modeling to stop?
DFrag
The wagering talk has this thread energized.
But I know most of the talk is just bluster because anyone really interested in wagering would already be in the weather futures market.
""you advocate a path that spurns the best science and that threatens the very viability of human society and of many plant and animal species", by which I meant that you lend support to deniers of human caused climate change"
More fabrication. I do not deny nor lend support to those that do deny humans cause climate change.
Again enough with your dishonesty.
I stopped there.
1
Came over to post link to the Google hangout and see Hank Robert and Taylor B (with good quote and comment) are before me.
Since I have it, here's the link again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDWAcP2zH4w
"But I know most of the talk is just bluster because anyone really interested in wagering would already be in the weather futures market."
This logic is incorrect.
Firstly, unless I've missed something (entirely possible!) the weather derivatives market doesn't seem to offer derivatives with a sufficiently long timescale to address the climate claims made by "1" on this thread, nor does it offer metrics that are a good proxy for those claims. (Disclaimer: I am not necessarily aware of all products currently offered.)
For example, one might think that a product from UBS called a "Global Warming Index" might prove suitable, but a brief investigation reveals that the index is (a) far from global in scope (it started out as an aggregate of certain metrics over 15 US cities), (b) far too short term to be suitable for the purpose of this thread (appears to be based on weather derivatives for the upcoming winter and summer), and (c) according to at least one comment (unconfirmed thus far, but consistent with (b)) is based on forecasts made the same year, which are most likely to factor in global warming trends already.
UBS also has a Greenhouse Index but that doesn't address the issues on this thread either - it has the same flaws due to its exposure to weather derivatives, coupled to inappropriate exposure (for our purposes) to emissions futures.
But secondly the logic fails because commenters here might not be in suitable markets, should they exist, because they are unaware of them, or can't trade in them from their own countries without unacceptable overheads/risks such as forex, or they believe they can get a better return over climate timescales elsewhere, and so forth.
Nevertheless, perhaps you have a suitable market instrument in mind that addresses the claims made on this thread? (This guy can't seem to find one either, although one might argue that his goals are a bit different. Neither can the commenters on the linked thread - most proposals there rely on poor proxies for the claims on this thread.)
So, the cooling trend since 2001 continues, and without some strongly above trend years soon, will reach 15 years.
A good wager might be, in what year will the cooling trend since 2001 end?
Cooling trend since 2001? Somebody clearly does not know how to even think properly with statistics.
Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php and find a period where the 2 sigma is smaller in magnitude than the "trend". You can't do it.
Rib Smokin' Bunny
"A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios."
Is that a direct quote from AR4? Context would be helpful.
-MO
Congratulations to Anonymous Anonymous, in this round of Stump The Google, YOU WON!
No results found for
"A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios."
It takes real imagination to win at Stump The Google.
bzzzt, disallowed;
Leaving a space out of a quoted string is cheating, when playing Stump The Google.
Play again?
2007 - 2027, 0.2 degree C per decade is going to be a lot closer than any "cooling"!
Rib Smokin' Bunny
You're not doing much to represent your credentials on this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Unnumbered Anonymous troll: "So, the cooling trend since 2001 continues, and without some strongly above trend years soon, will reach 15 years."
BAMS State of the Climate - 2012: "The [2012] global surface temperature ranked among the top 10 warmest years on record...Including the 2012 temperature, Earth is warming at a rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970."
Who you gonna believe?
It is OLD science.
Think of it as a barn door. The prudent thing to do was close and lock the barn door in a careful and determined fashion when atmospheric concentrations got to 350 ppmv.
Every farm child knows that once the barn door is closed and locked they do not have to worry about the the stock getting out, and into the corn (which may kill the stock or ruin the corn, or both.)
Well, now the cows are in the corn, and the AGU wants urgent action. I am a little bitter because some of the AGU board members have called me "Alarmist".
I would say that for the last 50 years, the AGU has lacked the prudence (and courage) of a farm child. This says something about the modern science establishment.
Mal Adapted -
I hope you recognize that both are true.
You're not doing much to represent your credentials on this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
The quoted sentence does not appear there.
-MO
I think it is criminal how the deniers obstruct.
They continue to deny the clear increase in Sharknados.
No damn it pirates
Unnumbered anonymous troll: "I hope you realize both are true."
Only one is true. There is no statistically meaningful global cooling trend, not since 2001, 1998, or any time period since 1970. Why do you think there is?
We might add that 2013 is shaping up to be the warmest ENSO-neutral year in the instrumental period. The first six months of 2013 monthly anomalies have all been above 0.5C, June was the warmest ENSO-neutral June (2nd overall - 1998), and July should be above 0.7C (based on watching the dailies). When the next El Nino pops, it's gonna be an ouchy.
Of course, no conclusions about global energy storage can be drawn from the surface temp record alone. To do so would be daft and worthy of ridicule. Ocean heat content is the 600 ton gorilla in the room, and it has been putting the hammer down in the last decade. The first three months of this year saw a pretty big jump even as the overall trend rises as expected.
You bettors should do a simple over-under. If the GMST for 2020-2029 is lower than the GMST for 2000-2009, 1 wins. If not, everyone loses (and 1 explains to its children how it just, sorry, had a bad moment during the early 20-teens).
DFrag
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Merriment at the gallows.
Piss and vingar![clink]
Very well - when do you think the period that is not statistically different from cooling will end?
Never, for short enough periods
Count me in for $5,000 if terms can be agreed. More than that is asking for trouble with the wife.
I think the Arctic sea ice minimum would be an obvious bellweather. Deniers keep promising a recovery, which surely will have arrived by 2020. Let's compare the five-year average of the minimum from 2005-2010 and 2015-2020.
"NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
"The Artic is sending us the clearest message that the climate change is happening now, and much faster than scientists once thought. In the summer of 2007, the extent of Artic sea ice decreased nearly 40%. It is melting so fast that scientists now believe the Artic could have no ice in the summertime as early as 2013, which is 80 years ahead of what had been predicted just a few years ago." 350.org
Were these individuals confronted and berated to back up their predictions with money? Are you contacting them about the need to place money on all future predictions?
I will not be holding my breath.
1
1, your critical thinking hat "on" switch seems to be malfunctioning.
Zwally said "at this rate." Was he misreading his results? Ask Zwally how likely that outcome was. What was shocking to Zwally was that the outcome was even reasonably possible.
Same goes for the 350.org comment: "could have."
There is a observational basis for recognizing these possibilities. It wasn't a "well, if aliens come with heat rays, the Arctic could be ice-free in 2013." It was "if this trend continues, Arctic sea ice could be effectively gone by summer 2013."
Not predictions. Projections of possible realities if noted conditions persist.
DFrag
Anonymous: "when do you think the period that is not statistically different from cooling will end?"
What Martin said, but also you failed to add something to your sentence:
"when do you think the period that is not statistically different from statistically insignificant cooling will end?"
Dfrag,
LMAO
1
"Prediction, maybe by the end of the decade CAGW could be laughed about in past tense."
Yeah, now I know how to "predict" like a climate scientist.
Sweet!
Friday morning gut busters, tyvm!
1
Tracker:
"I think the Arctic sea ice minimum would be an obvious bellweather. Deniers keep promising a recovery, which surely will have arrived by 2020."
Let's watch and see.
The global warming narrative is that a warming world has melted Arctic ice.
If that's the main cause, then given the continued increase in GHGs and commensurate radiative forcing, Arctic sea ice should continue to decline.
On the other hand, Rigor and Wallace demonstrate that more than half of the decline is attributable to dynamics.
If dynamics are the main cause, then one would expect fluctuation, if not a reversion to the mean.
Eunice
Eunice, R&W 2004 was published nine years ago. Also, I think you're not reading deeply enough: "During the 2002 and 2003 summers this anomalously younger, thinner ice was advected into Alaskan coastal waters where extensive melting was observed, even though temperatures were locally colder than normal. The age of sea-ice explains more than half of the variance in summer sea-ice extent."
Whatever affects the age of the sea ice contributes to the dynamic. R&W, in 2004, also did not have the benefit of having the next nine years worth of research into the changing polar cell and ongoing regional changes to ocean circulation, results of increased global energy storage. R&W are not offering an alternative to AGW-drive Arctic sea ice loss; they're offering a mechanism.
1, I predicted you'd just laugh it off and offer no defense of your own interpretation.
Troll.
Anon Troll,
No I amended my own prediction to match what vaunted Climate Scientist do when they "predict".
I have learned a lot, thanks.
1
People like "1" are shitstains on humanity ... don't give them the credibility that comes with debating them.
Eunice is clearly an ignoramus, an imbecile, and grossly intellectually dishonest. Talk about "confirmation bias" ... there is, as we know, vast amounts of evidence of AGW that she is ignoring ... just another shitstain on humanity worthy of nothing but contempt.
Tutt tutt ianam, the bunnies have standards, nasty is fine, nice is fine, dirty words, well there are limits to Toleration here abouts.
At 8/8/13 8:05 AM above:
"But I know most of the talk is just bluster because anyone really interested in wagering would already be in the weather futures market."
From my own perspective I have no interest at all in wagering per se - I never have - and I have no interest in earning money in speculative ventures.
My interest in this is to test the confidence of dim units in their beliefs and in the sources they reference, compared to my confidence in my professional colleagues and their work in the various disciplines relevant to human-caused climate change.
These are very different motivations.
Bernard J.
...lending, ...lending, ...lending....
The dangers exemplified of unscrutinised copy/paste. A lesson for all denizens of the warren.
Bernard J.
"It's not the trolling, it's the biting." — Marion Delgado
@1
9/8/13 8:53 AM
"Yeah, now I know how to 'predict' like a climate scientist."
No, you don't. Unlike people who actually know what they're talking about, you failed to qualify your conditions. For example; Zwally's prediction is predicated on he melt rate observed in the 2007 melt season being repeated in all subsequent years, but your prediction offers no such predicate. If you want to learn to predict like climate scientists do, you have to couch your forecasts with some kind of meaningful caveat. Might I suggest; If, by some miracle, your laughably inept understanding of the science turns out to be correct, CAGW will be a laughing stock by 2020.
Regards,
Kevin, a gerbil posing as a bunny.
Bernard,
Magnitude, think magnitude. Humans by adding CO2 to the atmosphere cause warming. I do not nor have I ever denied that.
I agree without taking feedbacks into account, a straight doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm will increase the global average temperature by ~1.2C.
However I do not agree that all feedbacks and the way systems will react to CO2 doubling will be positive.
I know what you will now focus on, asking me to prove that feedbacks will not cause the doubling of CO2 to increase temperature by 3-5C. I cannot, just like no one has substantially proved that they will.
I think we should take reasonable precautions and make efforts to reduce our CO2 output.
And I thought a joke about playing hockey on Artic ice was rather funny. I did notice you left off the rest of what I said about the artic.
Mann will lose his lawsuit, as he should, what were you saying about putting big boy pants on?
Rather than guessing what I mean, why don't you just ask?
1
And there goes my "C" key.
1
" I do not agree that all feedbacks ... will be positive"
Straw man - climate scientists don't believe this either. Both negative and positive feedbacks are well-documented, as is the case for the most likely equilibrium climate sensitivity being somewhere around 3 degrees C and quite unlikely to be below 2 C.
And that implies significant nett positive feedback, as does the fact that our global temperature is more than 30 degrees C above what it would be without a greenhouse effect.
1.
Well, since you're wrong about everything else, that's very good news for Dr. Mann as it indicates he will win his lawsuit!
"Well, since you're wrong about everything else..."
So according Susan humans are not affecting the climate by causing it to warm.
Susan is a denier.
Susan take a few dips in the kiddie pool before swimming with the adults.
Mann will lose, karma will not allow such a vile egoistical hysteric to prevail.
1
"Mann will lose, karma will not allow such a vile egoistical hysteric to prevail."
Has there ever been a clearer statement of psychological projection?[rhetorical]
1, you say "I know what you will now focus on, asking me to prove that feedbacks will not cause the doubling of CO2 to increase temperature by 3-5C. I cannot, just like no one has substantially proved that they will."
No. In addition to supporting Lotharsson's point, I am asking you to provide the scientific basis of your understanding of the net result of feedbacks. All I've seen so far is some version of "it just can't be." What studies have informed your opinion? Or are you more into the blog science of CA, BH, and WUWT?
DFrag
" I am asking you to provide the scientific basis of your understanding of the net result of feedbacks."
Why don't you show us all how smart you are, how superior and you go first. Show me the studies that have solid scientific evidence that through feedbacks 2x CO2 will warm the planet x degrees on a global average.
1
I jumped to the last comment.
WTF
Just only WTF
What is really expected with such a comment ? I mean, either
- it will become an endless nitpick of the dozens of articles found in 30 seconds by people looking at AR4 WG1 bibliography, aka the worst troll per time spent ratio I've ever seen
- it will end up with a "IPCC corrupt"/"conspiracy" joker, which is considered as a distateful move by the Union of Elegant Trolls
- there won't be any comments to the answers brought after this request, which is considered usually as a failure
Unless someone wanted to make 1 look like a fool, and stole his identity. Anything is possible, this is the Internet.
Glad I missed the 99 other comments.
bratisla
"Show me the studies that have solid scientific evidence that through feedbacks 2x CO2 will warm the planet x degrees on a global average."
One could start here
I see, those studies or papers must be hard to find.
"What is really expected with such a comment ? I mean, either..."
You know I can say the same thing about DFrag's comment to me.
There is common ground yet the reaction is the heck with that. You are either with us or against us, as I have pointed out before. What kind of purity test is utilized, I would like to see a copy of it.
Here I am open to discussion about curbing CO2 emissions and commenters continue to go for the 100% agreement or nothing.
Pathetic.
1
"I see, those studies or papers must be hard to find."
The point is that the science has been around for over a century and a half.
If you think that the hundreds and thousands of subsequent publications about climate sensitivity to CO2, including many that provide "solid scientific evidence", are "hard to find" then that's a reflection of your ignorance of the scientific literature, and not of its absence.
And that is pathetic.
Bernard J.
I guess Bernard lacks in reading comprehension or his emotions are blinding him, either way...
I stated above I agree without taking feedbacks into account, a straight doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm will increase the global average temperature by ~1.2C."
That is the part that has been around for a century and a half.
My comment about hard to find was directed at Dfrag and those that jumped in when I asked for them to show me those papers that show net positive feedbacks for CO2 which will increase temperature far beyond the ~1.2 that is well understood.
Are you this dishonest in all your affairs? It is quite tiresome correcting you all the time.
1
1, beware, you may fall in the trap I warned you about (first item). If someone dumps on you the whole AR4 bibliography, it will be too difficult for you to follow
Remember my friend, trolling is a art.
"Are you this dishonest in all your affairs? It is quite tiresome correcting you all the time."
It seems that it is you who suffers from reading comprehension. If you read my previous post you will note that I explicitly said:
"If you think that the hundreds and thousands of subsequent publications about climate sensitivity to CO2, including many that provide "solid scientific evidence", are "hard to find" then that's a reflection of your ignorance of the scientific literature, and not of its absence."
I repeat, the science has been around for a century and a half starting with the discovery of infrared absorption, the calculation of non-feedback sensitivity, and the subsequent refinement to include feedings-back. Are you admitting> to the thread that you can't find the work that you insist is "hard to find"?
All you have demonstrated is that you are unfamiliar with the literature, and that you do not read what is in front of your nose. A bit like when you said of Rachel Maddow":
"I wonder why Maddow and 95% of the press are ignoring the Filner story. Hmm."
and Dhogaza pointed out that you were completely wrong"
"On Wednesday night’s edition of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow discussed the wave of scandals currently engulfing the careers of former congressman and New York City mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner (D), San Diego Mayor Bob Filner (D) and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R). All three men, she said, are degrading the concept of public service in this country and making a mockery of the public trust.
Maddow began the segment by discussing San Diego’s Mayor Filner, who was accused on Monday by Irene McCormack Jackson, a former staffer, of inappropriate touching and sexual harassment. On Tuesday, political strategist Laura Fink came forward with her own stories of unwelcome sexual attention from Filner. On Wednesday, a third woman came forward with stories of her own run-ins with the mayor, who pinned her in a restaurant booth and tried to force her to kiss him.
“So, that’s been Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday in San Diego,” said Maddow. “Can’t wait to see what happens by the weekend!”"
"Hmm" indeed. You've been caught with your pants down; time to 'fess up and admit to dumping on Eli's front step.
Bernard J.
(I swear that Recaptcha is watching - "Elytypr 0")
Bernard,
You are persistent in your misunderstandings and dishonesty.
I did not say they were hard to find (for me) my comment was directed at others who seem to have been unable to provide a single reference to one, including you.
Yep Maddow covered the Filner story two weeks ago. Wow you got me.
I sense you are stuck on Bush logic, "you are either with us or against us. Irony, gotta luv it.
Oh and wipe your monitor, it is quite wet.
1
"I did not say they were hard to find (for me) my comment was directed at others who seem to have been unable to provide a single reference to one, including you.
Oh please, spare us the melodrama. Do you really think that people here are unable to find the literature on feedings-back? I had a look myself before I posted my first response to you just out of curiosity, and I found 1529 papers on Web of Knowledge. In my own climate change folder I have dozens of PDFs on feedback, and one that stands out is the PALAEOSENS paper that I was passing around at the beginning of this year.
If you're so au fait with the literature I'm surprised that you didn't step up pre-emptively and show everyone what you'd read...
...except that doing so would pretty much paint you into the corner, wouldn't it? After all, the best estimates are pretty much in line with PALAEOSENS, and they indicate that warming from a doubling of CO2 would have grave consequences for humans and for the biosphere.
Still, if it makes your tummy feel all tingly and warm thinking that no-one here knows of any feed-back papers, go for it. Your reality seems to be completely framed by what you choose to allow in your head, and quite frankly what's in there has no import to the world outside your head. That will no doubt sting, but get over it.
"I sense you are stuck on Bush logic, "you are either with us or against us."
Sorry, your spidey sense is off. Back to Kumaya 101 with you.
Lame attempt at trying to segue away from your blatant error though - I'll just draw everyone's attention back to that...
"Oh and wipe your monitor, it is quite wet."
Eh? You obviously have no idea of the nature of my response to your inanities. Frankly your blatherings are not really worth the effort to response, but it's just so easy that it's a public service I'll happily perform. But if it shakes your tree to think that I'm all a-lather go ahead and believe it - it's no skin off my nose.
Bernard J.
...Kumbaya 101...
I didn't notice the omission what with all the spittle on my screen.
Bernard J.
Finally a reference, one that is behind a pay wall, but it is progress.
And contrary to your dishonesty on my position (again) I know people can provide links to CO2 sensitivity papers. I even asked for them and yet...
You are the queen of drama, I would not even attempt to compete.
I always laugh at the "you are not worth responding to, but since I am so awesome and want to help everyone around me." Do you expect guests at your house to kneel or bow to you before they enter?
So 1000+ papers on the CO2 feedbacks and you link one behind a pay wall.
Just another question, how much time or effort to you spend on trying to disprove any of these papers?
1
Odin-on-a-stick, you're dense.
Yes, the Nature version is behind a pay-wall. It's not a problem for me as I have access, but anyone with an average IQ (or even less) should be able to figure out that there are ridiculously easy ways of finding it elsewhere.
Really, are you that stupid?
And if you don't have Web of Knowledge/Science access, Google Scholar is a useful substitute.
Seriously, were you in nappies until school age?
"Just another question, how much time or effort to you spend on trying to disprove any of these papers?"
I leave actual work to "disprove" sensitivity studies to my professional climatological colleagues. However I spend a few hours each day reading the work of other scientists (one of the joys of my job), and I spend a few more reading the informal assessments of professionals as well as wading through the stinking cesspit of crap that the Denialati dump hither and thither. And to date I have yet to see a single credible study that "disproves" anything produced by the consensus science.
So now it's your turn. What is your best evidence, your best and most defensible paper, that "disproves" the consensus understanding of the physics of global warming resulting from 'greenhouse' gases? Heck, include your second and third best as well, if you like.
Please.
Bernard J.
To clarify...
"And if you don't have Web of Knowledge/Science access, Google Scholar is a useful substitute to find other papers on climate sensitivity and feedback."
But as you claim to be aware of them in the first place, I'm not sure why you're so in a flap about the one to which I linked. Especially when it's so easy to find.
Bernard J.
Just to show your incapacity to meet the demands you place on others.
1
"Just to show your incapacity to meet the demands you place on others."
I have my answer, which is that you have nothing.
Except hot air and hypocrisy...
And how's your search for the PALAEOSENS paper progressing? Managed to find it yet?
Bernard J.
Bernard,
Pot meet Kettle.
I was wrong before, guests to your home do not bow or kneel, they must be forced to kiss your feet or a ring perhaps?
So I must, based upon the evidence, come to the conclusion that you only know of one paper that is on topic about feedbacks with increasing CO2. With all your stammering about how easy it is to find these papers you could only produce one.
Most of your responses to me have been full of assumptions and dishonest portrayals of my positions. This speaks volumes about your capacity to affect change for those things that you strongly believe in. So I have very little concern of you convincing anyone of your current beliefs on CAGW.
That makes me smile.
Oh perfect "illsigh 8"
1
(Part I)
"So I must, based upon the evidence, come to the conclusion that you only know of one paper that is on topic about feedbacks with increasing CO2. With all your stammering about how easy it is to find these papers you could only produce one."
Oh please, do you really need your arse wiped for you? I've played "List-the-Publications" for numpties like you in the past, and it has never made a stitch of difference. Do you really need to know what particular individual read? Will it make any difference to the substantive fact that papers on feedback effects on sensitivity do actually exist? It's not a Schrödinger's cat scenario, where the papers only definitely commence their existence once a reader on this thread references them.
Still, I can see that your intellectual impairment is such that you are unable to find them yourself. These are the most recently acquired papers in my work climate sensitivity folder through to the PALAEOSENS paper:
Time-Varying Climate Sensitivity from Regional Feedbacks
Author(s): Armour, Kyle C.; Bitz, Cecilia M.; Roe, Gerard H.
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 26 Issue: 13 Pages: 4518-4534 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00544.1 Published: JUL 2013
Climate Feedbacks in CCSM3 under Changing CO2 Forcing. Part II: Variation of Climate Feedbacks and Sensitivity with Forcing
Author(s): Jonko, Alexandra K.; Shell, Karen M.; Sanderson, Benjamin M.; et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 26 Issue: 9 Pages: 2784-2795 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00479.1 Published: MAY 2013
Feedbacks in Emission-Driven and Concentration-Driven Global Carbon Budgets
Author(s): Boer, G. J.; Arora, V. K.
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 26 Issue: 10 Pages: 3326-3341 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00365.1 Published: MAY 2013
Origins of differences in climate sensitivity, forcing and feedback in climate models
Author(s): Webb, Mark J.; Lambert, F. Hugo; Gregory, Jonathan M.
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS Volume: 40 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 677-707 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1336-x Published: FEB 2013
Observations of Climate Feedbacks over 2000-10 and Comparisons to Climate Models
Author(s): Dessler, A. E.
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Pages: 333-342 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1 Published: JAN 2013
There are many others but I'm not going to bother to get their citations from Web of Knowledge, but it's worth pointing out for honourable mention:
The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes
Author(s): Knutti, Reto; Hegerl, Gabriele C.
Source: NATURE GEOSCIENCE Volume: 1 Issue: 11 Pages: 735-743 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo337 Published: NOV 2008
Constraints on Climate Sensitivity from Radiation Patterns in Climate Models
Author(s): Huber, Markus; Mahlstein, Irina; Wild, Martin; et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 24 Issue: 4 Pages: 1034-1052 DOI: 10.1175/2010JCLI3403.1 Published: FEB 15 2011
Constraints on the transient climate response from observed global temperature and ocean heat uptake
Author(s): Knutti, Reto; Tomassini, Lorenzo
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Volume: 35 Issue: 9 Article Number: L09701 DOI: 10.1029/2007GL032904 Published: MAY 3 2008
Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data
Author(s): Lunt, Daniel J.; Haywood, Alan M.; Schmidt, Gavin A.; et al.
Source: NATURE GEOSCIENCE Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Pages: 60-64 DOI: 10.1038/NGEO706 Published: JAN 2010
If you want to see more than that, or if you don't like the search parameter I used to haul them off my computer, do some searching yourself.
Bernard J.
(Part II)
So now that you have been "show[n[... the studies that have solid scientific evidence that through feedbacks 2x CO2 will warm the planet x degrees on a global average", as you requested, are you going to answer DFrag's question and demonstrate to the thread "the scientific basis of your understanding of the net result of feedbacks".
"Most of your responses to me have been full of assumptions and dishonest portrayals of my positions."
How rich.
Really.
"This speaks volumes about your capacity to affect change for those things that you strongly believe in. So I have very little concern of you convincing anyone of your current beliefs on CAGW."
I have no "beliefs on CAGW". I accept the best that professional science indicates, and if it is superceded by even better work I happily accept the change in understanding. Frankly I am desperate to find any plausible evidence at all that the conclusions of mainstream physics and climatology are wrong, because as an ecologist I understand the significance of the temperature increases that are inferred from the best understanding of climate sensitivity to CO2. As it stands though the biological responses to current warming only reinforce what the physical sciences indicate, and those biological responses bode grimly indeed for species and ecosystems in the coming decades and centuries.
That is what the best science says and I see no reason to disagree.
I happily admit that I do not expect to change your mind, because you have demonstrated that you have no capacity to engage in a pursuit and an analysis of the scientific literature. That's all I need to know about you in order to know that any intention to change your mind is pissing in the wind. If, however, my demonstration of your incapacity to defend claims helps a lurking third party to see that you are playing thimble-rig with the facts, then that's sufficient for me.
Bernard J.
Thanks Bernard, it was like pulling teeth and you kept missing the point (you still are, whatever).
And with all your above papers my understanding that ~1.2C increase of GAT by a 2x CO2 is within the ranges of these papers.
Any other questions?
When are you going to answer my question? Have you tried to disprove any of these papers since you are so "scientific" whereas I am not.
BTW your first paper was the best one for me.
1
Eunice says "Mentioning the Arctic without noting the Antarctic smacks of confirmation bias."
If you go to http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1980.65/every:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1980.65/every:12/ and download the data into a spreadsheet, the average for 1980.67 to 1985.67 versus 2007.67 to 2012.67 for the maximum Antarctic sea ice increases by 0.24 million km^2: that's less than 1.3% increase and less than 1 times the average standard deviation. The minimum Arctic sea ice for the same period falls by 2.76 million km^2, more than 10 times as much as the Antarctic increase, more than a 37% decline, and slightly more than six average standard deviations. Are you familiar with the term "six sigma"? (BTW, by averaging after calculating the SD for each period separately, which is what I did, makes the SD artificially smaller; more accurate calculations will make the numbers worse for any fool who argues "but Antarctic ice is increasing." Don't believe me? You do the math.)
Also, Manabe et al in "Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part I: Annual Mean Response" Journal of Climate,V4, 1991 https://gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf predicted that "... the sea-ice thickness... increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. ... It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer, underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice ad slight reduction in sea surface temperature." Claims that "Antarctic Ice is increasing" are confirmation that climate models work. Thank you for that.
"BTW your first paper was the best one for me.
1 "
Really. Please explain how that paper supports your view that a 2x CO2 increase => 1.2C increase of GAT.
Gator,
I liked it the best as I found the regional affects topic fascinating and captivating. It was new to me.
Sorry if you inferred it as my only or strongest reference for what I understand as far as GAT impact from 2 x CO2.
Why do you not ask Bernard this question, it is his list?
1
Claims that "Antarctic Ice is increasing" are confirmation that climate models work. Thank you for that.
Except when they don't:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_ModEmap.cgi?xx=imbalance&type=1&mod=E3Af8aio20&control=control&quantity=20&mean_gen=0112&year1=1979&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&nobanner=0
(Part I)
"Thanks Bernard, it was like pulling teeth and you kept missing the point (you still are, whatever)."
You're just wrong. Your question was about the literature describing the magnitude of the effect of feedings-back on the direct sensitivity resulting from carbon dioxide forcing of climate.
Depending on which paper one references the equilibrium value for such a response is ~2.5-4.5°C, with a median around 3°C. Several papers indicate that the actual ECS is likely to be a little higher - around 3.3°C.
The pulling of the teeth is still continuing, because you have misrepresented the papers that I provided (which is why I didn't bother listing any in the first place...), and you still haven't indicated on what basis you make your claim:
"I know what you will now focus on, asking me to prove that feedbacks will not cause the doubling of CO2 to increase temperature by 3-5C. I cannot, just like no one has substantially proved that they will.".
There are many papers that substantially indicate (proofs are for mathematics, remember...) that doubling of CO2 to increase temperature by ~2.5-4.5°C. It's worth noting that your "3-5C" is a straw man, because that's an oh-so-slight-but-neverthless-nasty little exaggeration of the science. It also shows that you know of the literature, as you can quote the range with some embellishment, but that you refuse to actually acknowledge it.
"And with all your above papers my understanding that ~1.2C increase of GAT by a 2x CO2 is within the ranges of these papers."
Your understanding is wrong. See above.
Bernard J.
(Part II)
"When are you going to answer my question? Have you tried to disprove any of these papers since you are so "scientific" whereas I am not."
Wakey wakey nimrod, I've already answered that question. In case the words I used the first time were too complicated for you to understand, I leave the professional climatological work to my professional climatological colleagues. I'm an ecologist and I can usually assess the merits of various climatological studies, but I don't presume to be able to disprove climatological work from my ecological perspective.
What's more pertinent to the discussion is how you in your armchair can persist in ignoring the professional literature that counters your own claims. Why is that?
From what you said to Gator:
"Sorry if you inferred it as my only or strongest reference for what I understand as far as GAT impact from 2 x CO2."
You like your soap wet, don't you? You said that "...no one has substantially proved" that "that feedbacks will not cause the doubling of CO2 to increase temperature by 3-5C". There is a whole body of literature that does. You refused to acknowledge it, so I shoved some in your face, and you still refuse to acknowledge it or to proffer a defensible example of work that contradicts it.
And by your own words, worth repeating again:
"And with all your above papers my understanding that ~1.2C increase of GAT by a 2x CO2 is within the ranges of these papers."
you indicate what you "understand as far as GAT impact from 2 x CO2". It's "~1.2C", which is not "within the ranges of these papers".
Of course you're probably going to respond with a claim that by "GAT" you are not referring to that resulting from feedings-backs on top of direct sensitivity to CO2, but as tis is a discussion about what the understanding in the literature is of feedings-back, your point would be more spuriousness.
And you have the hide to accuse others of dishonesty and missing the point.
Bernard J.
Bernard,
You might want to re-read those papers.
First you say the papers cannot prove anything then you say they do, are you a little confused? Which is it?
"There are many papers that substantially indicate (proofs are for mathematics, remember...) "
""...no one has substantially proved" that "that feedbacks will not cause the doubling of CO2 to increase temperature by 3-5C". There is a whole body of literature that does."
So your bottom line is you get to accept the papers as they are, because you are not a climatologist, but I cannot reject them or any part of them, because I am not.
Is this correct?
You must be great at parties when someone has a different view or interpretation from you.
1
"First you say the papers cannot prove anything then you say they do, are you a little confused? Which is it?
More of your thimble-rigging. How unsurprising.
If you look at my post - and indeed you even quoted it yourself - you will see that I put your use of the word "proved" in quotation marks. I did this simply in order to reference your words, and I assumed that you would follow the intent of my own usage when I pointed out that proofs are for mathematics. Of course I overlooked the fact that you can't follow the substance of an argument, and that you are wont to point at squirrels, so I will apologise for my oversight of your disability and refine my previous comment by pointing out that there are many papers that have substantially supported the science that says that feedings-back will cause a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase mean global temperature by ~2.5-4.5°C.
"So your bottom line is you get to accept the papers as they are, because you are not a climatologist, but I cannot reject them or any part of them, because I am not.
Is this correct?"
No.
No and no.
I accept the papers because they have been produced by professional experts of high repute, because they published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals, because they are largely concordant with each other even when they are independently produced, because there has been no credibly work that defensibly suggests that they are wrong, and because as an ecologist with three degrees I have sufficent understanding of the scientific process to understand that the work embodied by these papers is "substantially supportive" of the conclusion that feedings-back will cause a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase mean global temperature by ~2.5-4.5°C.
You are free to reject them as a lay person, but do not expect that anyone will ascribe even a scintilla of credibility to your opinion as long as it is not supported by any indication that you have a scientific basis for your rejection.
And if you keep on lumbering about with semantic distraction, logical fallacy, and straw man erection that putative credibility will be very long in coming.
And a word of advice - any time that you choose to reject heavily tested and replicated scientific expertise you'd do well to understand that your rejection is more likely to make you wrong than the science that you reject. As was observed on Deltoid yesterday:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens.
Bernard J.
Thimble ringing? You have two statements in contradiction and I am thimble ringing?
And you keep rewriting my positions into something you want to argue against .
btw IPCC AR4 likely range is 2-4.5 not 2.5-4.5. So if you are off .5C am I afforded the same leeway? Why of course not. I am your enemy I am against you. AR4 also has 1.5C in their range although they deem it unlikely. We shall see what AR5 contains.
Here is a word of advice, be more skeptical and a little more accurate before people start thinking you are fanatical.
1
" I was referring to the papers I read, and I predicated my range with "~".
I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard.
How do I come up with this?
Based upon everything I have read combined with real world observations.
I see you have gone back to missing the point of my request that you provide me links to the papers. I think we can all agree the papers are easy to find, that was not the point.
1
"you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard.
You cannot infer a value for "~" by comparing different sources' ranges. Firstly, the variability is already inherent in the fact that ranges are given, so you can't extrapolate from differences between the extremes to infer further variability, especially when you're trying to extend those ranges to comapre between ranges. Secondly, the IPCC's and my ranges are arrived at using different sampling methodologies, and comparing them by naïve subtraction holds no validity. Thirdly, your range of 3-5C appears to have no basis in analytical process, and at the very least is is demonstrably biased in its arrival, so comparison of that with other ranges is even less defensible.
"How do I come up with this?"
'Pulling it out of the air' would be a succinct description.
"Based upon everything I have read combined with real world observations."
And this is the whole point. What have you read that is both defensible and contradicts the mainstream understanding? To what "real world" observations are you referring that establishes ECS at 0.7-1.7°C?
"I see you have gone back to missing the point of my request that you provide me links to the papers. I think we can all agree the papers are easy to find, that was not the point."
So tell us which papers you found that that establishe ECS at 0.7-1.7°C.
Is it really this difficult for you to come up with any actual substance with which to contradict the work of the experts?
Bernard J.
All from AR4 and ones from your list and any others you can cite.
"Thirdly, your range of 3-5C appears to have no basis in analytical process, and at the very least is is demonstrably biased in its arrival, so comparison of that with other ranges is even less defensible."
Back to your dishonest representation of what I said or claimed or you are unable to accurately describe what someone else claimed or stated on a consistent basis.
"'Pulling it out of the air' would be a succinct description."
I said "I agree without taking feedbacks into account, a straight doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm will increase the global average temperature by ~1.2C."
Do you disagree with that?
More dishonesty. I really find it difficult to converse with such intent to be dishonest.
You are a very dishonest person and lack integrity.
1
"I said "I agree without taking feedbacks into account, a straight doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm will increase the global average temperature by ~1.2C."
Do you disagree with that?"
I've been consistently asking you about equilibrium climate sensitivity resulting from the influence of feedings-back. I even ended by asking you about this in my last post. You have so far refused to explain what you believe ECS to be, and on what literature you base your position. Remember, you said:
"My comment about hard to find was directed at Dfrag and those that jumped in when I asked for them to show me those papers that show net positive feedbacks for CO2 which will increase temperature far beyond the ~1.2 that is well understood."
[My emphases.]
so we're not talking about the response to CO2 alone, but to sensitivity including feedings-back.
So, once moreunto the breach - what have you read that is both defensible and contradicts the mainstream understanding? To what "real world" observations are you referring that establishes ECS at 0.7-1.7°C?
Bernard J.
Already answered your questions Mr. Dishonesty.
1
Just as I thought - you have nothing.
Thanks for your 'answer'. Case closed.
Bernard J.
Yes because reading all of AR4 and its references is nothing.
More of your dishonesty.
1
Here you go. Cannot wait for your next set of lies and misrepresentations.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=co2+feedbacks+double&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
1
Also useful for research.
http://skepticalscience.com/An-online-resource-for-the-IPCC-4th-Assessment-Report.html
1
"Yes because reading all of AR4 and its references is nothing."
Really? You've read all of AR4 and its references?
Really?
Forgive me if I am sceptical. Few people would actually have the time to achieve that enormous feat of gatheringand reading, and I doubt that anyone who had would maintain the stance that you do, and prevaricate as much as you have when pressed for sources.
Unless of course you meant to imply that in your opinion the usefulness of reading all of AR4 and its references is "nothing". That I could accept, given your behaviour here.
I am interested in only two things.
1) When I asked you for your understanding of equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is, including the impact of feedings-back) you gave the range 0.7-1.7°C. Do you stand by these values?
2) Do you believe that the mainstream literature (including that to which you eventually linked) supports the range you quoted? Your credibility would be enhanced by showing which hits on the first few pages in your search link support an ECS of 0.7-1.7°C.
Bernard J.
Yep
nope
1
You really must enjoy being wrong.
From the first page of your google search these results:
1) Block and Mauritsen modelled forcing and feedback under abruptly quadrupled CO2. Their 20-year (that is, non-equilibrium) response was 2.0-2.5 K per doubling. I can show working, but it would be interesting to see if you can do it yourself.
2) Jeong et al state 3°C for their calculation of European warming after dynamic vegetation feedback effects of -1°C are taken into account.
3) Kutzbach et al calculate a sensitivity of 3.9 K. This is assuming a 1750 CO2 level of 280 ppm and an atmospheric concentration at the time of manuscript preparation of 380 ppm. Again, I can show working, but it would be interesting to see if you can do it yourself.
4) Kiehl (in the cgd.ucar.edu link) presents values that give a sensitivity of 2.9°C. Once again I can show working, but it would be interesting to see if you can do it yourself.
5) Andrews et al run with a HadGSM1 sensitivity of 4.4 K.
Of course it might just be me, as I am apparently a dishonest liar, but Willian of Ockham would argue otherwise as you have't actually ever indicated what material you use to support your claim. Using the material at which you did eventual flap your wrist I've shown that the consensus range is supported, and that your claim is not.
Check.
Bernard J.
For what it's worth I note that you did not answer my question about whether you had actually read "all of AR4 and its references"...
Bernard J.
Atmospheric water feedback is actually pretty robustly positive. From first principles, not GCM outputs.
Wow Bernard even single word answer you can twist an be dishonest about, amazing. There really is no point in discussing anything with such disdain for truth and accurate representation.
"2) Do you believe that the mainstream literature (including that to which you eventually linked) supports the range you quoted? Your credibility would be enhanced by showing which hits on the first few pages in your search link support an ECS of 0.7-1.7°C."
My answer was no.
Why are you so dishonest?
1
FWIW and with Bernard if it does not meet his preconceptions, it will not be worth anything; IPCC AR4 does have 1.5C in their range though they caveat it with "unlikely", which if memory serves translates to ~10%. That was in 2007.
I do not think much will change in AR5, according to some stories about its impending release, but I will certainly read it when it comes out, even if Bernard disbelieves my reading habits.
1
Let's play it your way though.
AR4 is online. Where in the report is the range that supports your understanding of equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is, including the impact of feedings-back), for which you gave the range 0.7-1.7°C?
Bernard J.
"2) Do you believe that the mainstream literature (including that to which you eventually linked) supports the range you quoted? Your credibility would be enhanced by showing which hits on the first few pages in your search link support an ECS of 0.7-1.7°C."
My answer was no.
You then wrote your post as if I had answered yes.
You are a dishonest person.
To answer your last question, yes.
Cannot wait for the next rounds of twisting lies and misrepresentations.
Please continue displaying your complete lack of integrity, it is rather fun, but sad.
1
"Let's play it your way though.
AR4 is online. Where in the report is the range that supports your understanding of equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is, including the impact of feedings-back), for which you gave the range 0.7-1.7°C?"
Already answered but being a dishonest liar, as you now even question yourself being, you probably read past my answer, because it did not fit your preconceptions of what my answer or lack thereof would be.
"FWIW and with Bernard if it does not meet his preconceptions, it will not be worth anything; IPCC AR4 does have 1.5C in their range though they caveat it with "unlikely", which if memory serves translates to ~10%. That was in 2007."
Now to be fair, though Bernard does not deserve such fairness, my stating 1.5C is in their range is not completely accurate. I should have said 1.5C was in the report, though with a rating of unlikely.
Let's watch how Bernard twists the truth with these responses.
1
(Part II)
"Already answered but being a dishonest liar, as you now even question yourself being,..."
I do not question my own integrity. More misrepresentation from you.
"...you probably read past my answer, because it did not fit your preconceptions of what my answer or lack thereof would be."
All I am asking for is the location in AR4 of the material that you claim supports your your understanding of equilibrium climate sensitivity (that is, including the impact of feedings-back), for which you gave the range 0.7-1.7°C. You claimed to have read AR4 and all of its references so you should be able to provide links and page numbers to each and every instance of the literature that supports your claim, but nothing has yet been forthcoming from you.
"Now to be fair, though Bernard does not deserve such fairness, my stating 1.5C is in their range is not completely accurate. I should have said 1.5C was in the report, though with a rating of unlikely.
Seriously, "I should have said 1.5C was in the report, though with a rating of unlikely"?
You should also have said that AR4 says that"
"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".
You are flailing about claiming that a delimitation of what is very unlikely (and not just "unlikely" as you posted) is actually an indication of what equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be! Extraordinary.
You've ignored the best-estimate range in the immediately preceding sentence, and fixated on the value of what is very unlikely. Gobsmacking.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
In your dreams.
It's worth noting too that I am not asking about the figure of 1.5°C. I am asking you to support your range of 0.7-1.7°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity. Something that you still have not been able to do.
It's all been just more thimble-rigging from you.
Bernard J.
Caught in a flat out lie, you change your story for cover.
You are a dishonest person and lack integrity.
1
Very unlikely to be less than 1.5. It does not say less than or equal to, nor does it say very unlikely for 1.6 nor 1.7.
Face it you are a liar and are full of dishonesty in the way you make representations of what others write.
And for the 3rd time the papers you are spending so much time with I already answered no to this question of yours; "Do you believe that the mainstream literature (including that to which you eventually linked) supports the range you quoted?"
Get that through your lying dishonest head. Bernard J Liar
1
"Face it. I was busy typing away on a substantial post while you were busy typing the words "Yep" and "nope"."
That is regards to your 10:34 post.
But the very next comment on this thread is:
For what it's worth I note that you did not answer my question about whether you had actually read "all of AR4 and its references"...
Bernard J.
17/8/13 11:26 PM
No mention of missing my answers to explain the context of your 10:34 post.
you are a dishonest liar. You've earned it.
1
From time-stamp 18/8/13 7:34 PM:
"Caught in a flat out lie, you change your story for cover."
What lie? What story was changed?
From time-stamp 18/8/13 7:39 PM:
"Very unlikely to be less than 1.5. It does not say less than or equal to, nor does it say very unlikely for 1.6 nor 1.7."
It's all angels and points of needles. 1.5°C is the (approximate) boundary of the "very unlikely" category. Or are you going to say that 14.999°C is within the "very unlikely" category and that 1.500°C is not?
Do you really understand nature of the the nonsensical hair-slipping in which you're indulging?
And who's saying anything about "1.6 nor 1.7" not being in the AR4 "unlikely" category?
More straw man erection from you.
"And for the 3rd time the papers you are spending so much time with I already answered no to this question of yours; "Do you believe that the mainstream literature (including that to which you eventually linked) supports the range you quoted?""
Yes, I got it previously - the rest of us always knew and you latterly admit that mainstream literature does not support your range of 0.7-1.7°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity. So on what basis do you claim that equilibrium climate sensitivity lies in range of 0.7-1.7°C?
That range and its source are what I'm interested in, as it's the one to which you adhere, although I am very curious to know if you will actually explicitly acknowledge the consensus range, and in particular its median value of around 3°C.
From time-stamp 18/8/13 8:26 PM:
"No mention of missing my answers to explain the context of your 10:34 post."
No, and why should there be?
All that I was doing in that post was pointing out that you did not answer my question about whether you had actually read "all of AR4 and its references". Your petulance over the issue of my response to your two-word post did not arise until after my post of 17/8/13 11:26 PM.
You're losing the plot.
"you are a dishonest liar."
Oh, and there are honest ones?
You're as skilled at tautology as you are with tortured interpretations of what the best scientific estimates are for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and with wide-of-the-mark squirrel-pointing at non-issues that you manufacture in a fevered effort to distract from the fact that your claims are scientifically baseless.
It really is the loneliest number - especially when you're wrong.
Bernard J.
(Recaptcha notes "ufarce 1718")
...1.499°C, not 14.999...
Just in case it confused someone.
Bernard J.
Nice story, liar.
1
"No, and why should there be? "
Why should there be a response to the two answers I gave to your two numbered questions?
Oh maybe because you said this before asking them.
"I am interested in only two things."
Turns out that was a lie as well.
1
[Part II)
Perhaps I should type this slowly so that you can follow - you've obviously been having trouble with this up to now - but when I post on the thread it isn't necessarily to any particular post of yours to which you think I should be responding. I respond as I refresh my tab, and in the context of posts in the interim. I don't post in some order predicated on your dictates, especially when many of them are rambling side-tracks about character. I try to link and time-stamp as much as possible in order to lend clarity to my posts, but it's difficult to be especially clear when you are pointing at so many squirrels. And if you took more care in time-stamping your own quotes you might find that the conversation has more coherence.
Speaking of unexplained claims as I was in my previous post and in many beofer that, the other post of mine that so rankles you, that from 17/8/13 11:26 PM when I said:
"For what it's worth I note that you did not answer my question about whether you had actually read "all of AR4 and its references"..."
also remains unanswered.
And you're still avoiding the matter of your justification for your claim that equilibrium climate sensitivity lies in range of 0.7-1.7°C. If you're so confident of this range why do you not defend it? Do you really enjoy looking silly in front of the one or two lurkers who are still reading this thread? Or do you know in your heart of hearts that your claim is wrong?
Yeah, yeah, I know - you think that I'm a dishonest liar. Let's just get that hackneyed knee-jerk out of the way for this turn and focus on an explanation of your claims.
Or are you just going to point at more of those pretty squirrels?
Bernard J.
Oh, I love it.
"1" said: "Besides Bernard never wanted to gamble, he just wanted to get to the part about calling someone else names and feel superior, it is like breathing or food for him and quite pathetic."
But "1", you make it so easy for one to feel superior to you.
"No, and why should there be? "
Why should there be a response to the two answers I gave to your two numbered questions?
Oh maybe because you said this before asking them.
"I am interested in only two things."
Turns out that was a lie as well.
1
""For what it's worth I note that you did not answer my question about whether you had actually read "all of AR4 and its references"..."
also remains unanswered."
Another lie.
Answered at 18/8/13 4:56 PM
So you make a statement that the only two things you are interested are my answers to two questions, which I answered, you ignored and now write paragraphs as to why you do not need to acknowledge or respond to them. You either have psychological problems or you are a liar. I say lair based upon all of your lies on this thread.
Hi a_ray, still no original thoughts I see.
1
"1",
Oh, plenty of original thoughts. It just isn't worth wasting them on you.
For instance, you seem to adopt the "lukewarmer" position that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that feedbacks must be either negative or 0. It turns out that feedbacks are pretty well nailed down except for a couple--clouds and aerosols. The biggest feedback is increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to increased evaporation at higher temperature. Messrs. Clausius and Clapeyron place lower limits on that. Presumably, if you admit that CO2 is a ghg, you will admit the same for water vapor. Loss os ice and snow is also undeniably positive. Care to tell us how you'll make all that positive feedback vanish?
Or will you simply dismiss the facts I have cited as lies--as you do for all facts you cannot refute.
"For instance, you seem to adopt the "lukewarmer" position that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that feedbacks must be either negative or 0."
Incorrect.
I stated that without considering feedbacks warming for 2 x CO2 would be ~1.2.
I believe feedbacks are slightly positive. I used Bernard's definition of "~" to be +- .5 so I just applied that to the above to get .7 - 1.7C.
In the end I believe the overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling will be <2C.
1
"1",
You "believe"? Really? I thought that we were talking about science here--and I thought that was about evidence. I've cited two large positive feedbacks. Best evidence suggests clouds are slightly positive. What cancels that out in your little world?
a_ray,
No matter what I say you will just respond based upon some preconception you want to argue against.
I am glad you have zero doubt and no longer feel the need to be skeptical about anything in these papers.
I am already close to the lower end of climate sensitivity in AR4, but that is not good enough. Go argue with them that 2C is not reasonable based upon the large positive feedbacks you mention.
Until something new comes out I am at <2C and you are at 3-5C with Bernard J Liar ?
1
""I am interested in only two things."
Turns out that was a lie as well."
Huh? I comment in the context of indicating that I am not interested in engaging in your diversions, and suddenly I am not allowed to raise issues other than two that I listed at the time?
Riiight...
"I believe feedbacks are slightly positive. I used Bernard's definition of "~" to be +- .5 so I just applied that to the above to get .7 - 1.7C.
It's not my definition of "~"; it's your statistically invalid twisting of something else in order to arrive at a variability that concurs with your original claim. It's also something that has been indicated to you as being invalid, and yet you persist in the usage.
And are you telling us that you only came up with a feed-back range around the 2x CO2 forcing after I apparently defined variability by "~" a few days ago? I thought that you'd read all of AR4 and its references in order to arrive at your scientific conclusion...
So when all is said and done, all you have is something that you made up yourself, something that ignores actual feedings-back and that consists only of a bit of blurring of the 2x CO2 sensitivity, and the hypocritical gall of projecting onto others the afflictions that are so apparent in you.
The emperor demonstrates by his own actions that he has no clothes and a teeny weener. He shouldn't be surprised when other people point to these facts.
It's been entertaining but I'm bored now. Unless you can come up with something of substance the I and the other people reading this thread will base our conclusions on your inability to present anything that resembles evidence to support your claim.
I conclude that you are full of it.
Bernard J.
"I believe feedbacks are slightly positive. I used Bernard's definition of "~" to be +- .5 so I just applied that to the above to get .7 - 1.7C."
I meant to add that if you thought feedings-back were "slightly positive" you wouldn't be claiming +/- around 1.2°C. That indicates that you think that feedings-back are as likely to be negative as positive.
And you call me a liar...
Bernard J.
"I meant to add that if you thought feedings-back were "slightly positive" you wouldn't be claiming +/- around 1.2°C"
Yes Bernard J Liar end with another lie.
Here is what I said early on.
"I agree without taking feedbacks into account, a straight doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm will increase the global average temperature by ~1.2C."
Bernard caught in another lie .
In Bernard's world you can claim to be ONLY interested in two things, then never speak to those things again and ignore any response to those two things. LMAO What a bunch of BS.
I am very interested in seeing where a dishonest person goes to next with his twists and turns.
1
Yep I am full of it. Wasted all kinds of your time and made you burn all kinds of fossil fuels to power your computer and made you degenerate into a pathological liar.
What happens if the range in AR5 for climate sensitivity includes 1.5 or 1.75C will you be posting on here that they are full of it?
Somehow I doubt it
See ya Bernard J Liar.
1
"Yes Bernard J Liar end with another lie.
Here is what I said early on.
"I agree without taking feedbacks into account, a straight doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm will increase the global average temperature by ~1.2C.""
Do you take potions in order to achieve the stupidity that you exhibit?
I know what you said. I repeated as much in my comment that you quoted yourself:
"...if you thought feedings-back were "slightly positive" you wouldn't be claiming +/- around 1.2°C"
Notice the emboldened bit? That's me recognising that you understand that the 2x CO2 forcing is around 1.2°C. Geddit?
My point was that you claim that net feedback is "slightly positive", but you are quoting (an arbitrary) +/- 0.5°C centred on the CO2 forcing. This is not the definition of a net "slightly positive" feedback. This is someone saying that feedback is as likely to be negative as positive about the 2x CO2 forcing.
Geddit?
"What happens if the range in AR5 for climate sensitivity includes 1.5 or 1.75C will you be posting on here that they are full of it?"
Current indications are that the lower limit of the range remains unchanged in AR5. Therefore the arguments I've already made previously still hold.
But this is not the point. You have yet to explain why the "likely" range itself, where from the IPCC or from other mainstream work in the professional literature, should not be accepted as the best-estimate, and especially why the median value around 3°C should not be the value most appropriately used for understanding the consequences of warming.
The rest of your blather is non sequitur ranting that adds nothing to your already non-existent case.
Do you really believe that you've actually at any point supported your claim? Really?
Bernard J.
Blah blah blah the continued twisting and turning of a pathological liar. No I said without any forcings in the calculation it is around 1.2C.
So you take classes to be so dishonest?
Bernard J Liar's transcript
Twisting the Truth I
Lying through your Teeth II
Shameless Dishonesty I&II
Face it you are a dishonest person trying to twist what people say into your preconceived notions.
It has been demonstrated over and over. You are a liar who lacks any integrity and refuses to make any attempt to seek common ground.
People who know you must be on their guard if by chance they do not agree with you 100%. You shown you will bring out all the twisting dishonest tricks, restate positions to suit your needs and feel like you have won something.
It is pathetic. You must exist in a bubble I cannot imagine you existing with anyone who does not share your views.
Bernard J Liar
1
"No I said without any forcings in the calculation it is around 1.2C.>"
Oh for pity's sake! How far will you descend in plumbing the depths of profound stupidity?!
Re-read my posts. You'll have to look for them on your own this time, as I can't be bothered to waste the time linking for a pea-brained turnip like you, but if you parse my posts correctly you'll see that I concur with the value of 1.2°C for the forcing resulting only from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
What I've been interrogating you about is the value for equilibrium climate sensitivity once the net actions of all feedings-back are taken into account. You've variously proffered on a number of occasions the range "0.7-1.7°C" and "1.2°C +/- 0.51.2°C", which are equivalent.
I'm telling you that your range as given does not equate to a net "slightly positive" feedback - it's still centred on the 2x CO2 forcing for Odin's sake - and I've been repeatedly asking you to give a reference to the science that supports your claim of the range for ECS.
You make Special Ed look like a rocket scientist.
Bernard J.
(Recaptcha is fed up with you too - it says "1243 Aimmens")
..."1.2°C +/- 0.5°C"...
The perils of impatient typing in response to staggering imbecility.
Bernard J.
"1",
Oh poor misunderstood baby! You do realize that your range of 0.7 to 1.7 degrees per doubling encompasses well less than 5% of the probability for Sensitivity, don't you. In fact, it corresponds to about 0.89% probability! You really want to bet the future of humanity on a 111:1 longshot?
And you do realize that your argument about CO2 sensitivity has implications beyond the current warming epoch, don't you? I mean, feedback is on input of energy--it doesn't matter to first order whether the energy comes from Mr. Sun or from your good buddy CO2.
Dude, have you ever even taken a science class?
I knew Bernard would lie again, it is in his nature. I clearly stated that the .7-1.7C range was using your definition of "~".
I have since stated I place sensitivity at <2C per doubling.
Why do you continue to post Bernard J Liar? I think this is fun watching twist, lie and blather on post after post.
a_ray according to AR4 it is very ulikely to be less than 1.5C and they define very unlikely as 10%.
I see you going down the dark path of Bernard.
FWIW I am having fun and exposing the dishonesty and word twisting of Bernard is fun, I do not want it to stop.
1
"1",
Sorry, Punkin. You fail at both reading comprehension and statistics. The 2-4.5 degrees per doubling represents the 90% confidence interval--5% confidence above 4.5 and 5% below. So, congratulations, you're willing to throw humanity under the bus on only a 19:1 longshot. Maybe come back after you take an introductory stats class, huh?
"I knew Bernard would lie again, it is in his nature. I clearly stated that the .7-1.7C range was using your definition of "~".
I note that you accuse me of lying every time you put finger to keyboard, but you never actually say what these apparent lies are. Compare that to the fact that you lie when you soeak of my "definition of "~"" - at no point did I define "~" as meaning 0.5°C, and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you. If I did define it thus will be a simple exercise for you to point to the post where I did.
And another thing. Your original comment was:
"I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard.
How do I come up with this?
Based upon everything I have read combined with real world observations.
[Emboldened emphasis mine]"
So what you actually did was pull an arbitrary value out of the air, incorrectly artributing as being defined by me when I did no such thing, and then you told us that you established your range for equilibrium climate sensitivity based on "everything [you] have read combined with real world observations".
So either you made up your range based on an imagined figure that you derived from me, which means that you didn't get it from the literature after all, or you derived it from "everything" that you have read - for which we have no evidence and which may in fact be nothing at all - and from real world observations which you have not detailed at all, and which means that you didn't actually get it from my "definition" of "~"...
"FWIW I am having fun and exposing the dishonesty and word twisting of Bernard is fun, I do not want it to stop."
And I am deriving even more amusement in holding you up to be the empty can that you are, unable to ever proffer anything remotely resembling scientific evidence that supports your claim of an ECS of 0.7-1.7°C. You follow the same tired routine so faithfully that I can pretty well be certain that your posts will continue with:
1) continued howlings about my apparent dishonesty and lies
2) continued avoidance of acknowledgment that the most likely scientifically-defensible range for ECS is in the region of 2.0-4.5°C
3) continued avoidance of explaining what scientific work supports you claimed ECS of 0.7-1.7°C.
I have no difficulty with the content of my posts on this thread. If you're honest with yourself do you really believe that you're distinguishing yourself with the things that you say? Really?
If so, perhaps you could link to your post on this thread that best describes why your estimate of ECS is defensible. Let's see your killer argument...
Bernard J.
"You really want to bet the future of humanity on a 111:1 longshot? "
"you're willing to throw humanity under the bus on only a 19:1 longshot."
You are welcome for me helping you better understand the statistics. You're mistake was bigger than mine, but nevermind that. lol
Bernard J Liar.
I said the .7-1.7C was using your range. I have since stated it is less than 2C.
so.. That would be 1.2 - 1.999999999
Why are you such a liar.
"continued avoidance of acknowledgment that the most likely scientifically-defensible range for ECS is in the region of 2.0-4.5°C"
My range ends at 1.99999C AR4's 90% range begins at 2.0C, Bernard J Liar goes ballistic! OMG This denier is .00000000000001 less than agreeing with AR4's 90% range on climate sensitivity!
You are a determined fanatical liar Bernard J.
1
#1, please edit out the extra line spaces in your comments, and oh yeah, well, Eli need not go there.
OK, np.
1
"1",
Are you really that dim that you think all values for sensitivity have equal validity? There is a reason why the 90% CL is 2-4.5 degrees per doubling--it is because that is what the EVIDENCE tells us.
FWIW, I went with your own range 0f 0.7 to 1.7 deg./doubling. I am sorry for not keeping track of your moving goalposts. Let us know when you complete that stats class, will you?
No moving goalposts a_ray, I understand your confusion and limited capacity to understand what people write versus what you want them to have written. And again you are welcome for me correcting your very large error. Also, let us know when you complete your stats class.
1
"1" has clearly won the Master Baiter award.
Gator is obviously trolling for a new friend.
1
"1" said: "I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard."
Uh, dude, when you change your story in the same comment thread, it makes it kind of easy to spot the lie. Maybe you want to be a little more subtle moving them goalposts next time, huh? Or perhaps you are not a native speaker of English.
No a_ray I clearly stated if I were to use Bernard J Liar's definition of "~". And my ~1.2 understanding was warming with 2XCO2 WITHOUT feedbacks. Buzz try again. Did you and Bernard share classes in how to be dishonest?
Still waiting for you to acknowledge your mistake, I mean you are determined to try and point them out when others make them, but when you do?
You are not very bright.
1
"No a_ray I clearly stated if I were to use Bernard J Liar's definition of "~"."
Once more O Hypocritical One...
Can you point to the post where I apparently "define" the value of "~"?
Bernard J.
It's worth noting that I am three for three.
I admit though that I didn't anticipate your extraordinary moving of the goal-posts in order to arrive and "slightly positive" once you cottoned on to the fact that I was right to point out that your original range for equilibrium climate sensitivity did not fulfill the definition of "slightly positive".
If we keep working on you perhaps you will eventually have no choice but to accede to the mainstream range for ECS - although to achieve that it would require that you actually read the scientific literature, and to date you have offered no indication of the sort of understanding that should be present in someone who claims to have read "all of AR4 and its references".
Bernard J.
More blah blah BS from Bernard J Liar.
My original range was for a 2x CO@ without feedbacks, go prove otherwise on that point liar.
Did someone mention you were in for the scoring? I sure have increased your carbon footprint this past week, do you feel guilty in contributing to the demise of the planet?
It is way too funny that you translated my ~1.2C and my .7-1.7C for days and even now as my range for climate sensitivity including forcing, when I never made such a statement.
"I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard."
My original claim for ~1.2 per 2xCO2 was without feedbacks, genius.
I think you need to modify your score keeping and minus points for your blatant dishonesty.
1
(Part I)
"My original claim for ~1.2 per 2xCO2 was without feedbacks, genius.
"
I've told you so many times that I've lost count that I agree with this value for 2x CO2 forcing.
How many more times are you going to ignore this fact, or lie about it?
"It is way too funny that you translated my ~1.2C and my .7-1.7C for days and even now as my range for climate sensitivity including forcing, when I never made such a statement.
"I predicted [sic] my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor [sic] asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C [I did not] that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your [no, yours] now defined standard."
Let's give your contorted garblings some context, shall we?
That last comment of your comes from time stamp16/8/13 9:54 AM. I is a reply to my post that occurs directly above, where we were discussing your comment:
"btw IPCC AR4 likely range is 2-4.5 not 2.5-4.5. So if you are off .5C am I afforded the same leeway"
to which I noted your confabulation of ranges when I replied with:
"I didn't mention AR4. I was referring to the papers I read, and I predicated my range with "~"."
and after which I followed with:
"Anyway, enough of the dancing around. What do you think is the best estimate for ECS, and on what work do you base your position?"
We have been clearly talking about the equilibrium climate sensitivity throughout this thread. It's why we've been speaking of these pesky things that feed back. You been told repeatedly that we're not talking about the 2x CO2 forcing, but the ECS. Whenever we speak of equilibrium climate sensitivity we are talking about the final result of all factors once a doubling of CO2 has been reached.
Your "warming when CO2 is doubled" phrasing is a straw man, because the context of the discussion has always been the final (= equilibrium) warming that occurs from human carbon emissions. You've been explicitly and repeated told that we're not talking about nor disputing the value for 2x CO2 forcing.
Bernard J.
[Continued immediately below]
(Part II)
Further, back at time-stamp 20/8/13 9:21 AM you said:
"I said the .7-1.7C was using your range. I have since stated it is less than 2C.
so.. That would be 1.2 - 1.999999999"
which is clearly a discussion of equilibrium climate sensitivity, and which just quietly includes your original range of 0.7-1.7°C which you are now claiming is the variability of the 2x CO2 forcing rather than the ECS. You follow that immediately with my comment regarding your:
"...continued avoidance of acknowledgment that the most likely scientifically-defensible range for ECS is in the region of 2.0-4.5°C"
and replied with:
"My range ends at 1.99999C AR4's 90% range begins at 2.0C, Bernard J Liar goes ballistic! OMG This denier is .00000000000001 less than agreeing with AR4's 90% range on climate sensitivity!"
Oh dear, an inconsistency appears to have arisen...
What we have is you saying that the 0.7-1.7°C range was your ECS estimate based on what you falsely claim was my "value" for "~", and then saying that, really, your ECS range was "1.2 - 1.999999999".
Forgive me if I'm cynical, but it's appears to me that you realise that you've been caught in an untenable situation with your insistence that ECS was 0.7-1.7°C, and that you massaged your range so that you could settle on it being somewhere around 1.5°C no matter which of your ranges was used.
And don't bother with a response that relies on the "dishonest liar" straw man. It's a threadbare distraction that isn't fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.
Bernard J.
As usual you have it all wrong. When will you ever stop being so dishonest. When I pointed out your difference with AR4 you replied that you had used "~" with your range. I then applied that to my CO2 sensitivity WITHOUT feedbacks to get a range, but it still meant WITHOUT feedbacks.
I'll make it easy solve the following:
1.2 - .5 =
1.2 + .5 =
Yes I simply applied your .5 difference you had with AR4 to my sensitivity number WITHOUT feedbacks.
Sums it up pretty well, even for Bernard J Liar.
1
"When I pointed out your difference with AR4 you replied that you had used "~" with your range."
You're as thick as two short planks.
I have told you repeatedly that my range was not taken from AR4. Let's look at the first time I mentioned my range, at time-stamp15/8/13 8:02 PM. I said:
"Your question was about the literature describing the magnitude of the effect of feedings-back on the direct sensitivity resulting from carbon dioxide forcing of climate.
Depending on which paper one references the equilibrium value for such a response is ~2.5-4.5°C, with a median around 3°C. Several papers indicate that the actual ECS is likely to be a little higher - around 3.3°C.
I was speaking about my sampling of various papers from the scientific literature, and I did not mention AR4. And I was specifically talking about equilibrium climate sensitivity, and not about non-feedback 2x CO2 forcing.
Can you not understand this?!
There's also the fact that the upper boundary of my range coincides with that of the AR4 range. So your invalid and non sequitur interpretation of what "~" was referring to is not even based in numeric consistency across the range.
Seriously, my descriptor of "~" for describing the approximate range of ECS values in the papers I read has no mathematical relationship with the accuracy of the determination for non-feedback 2x CO2 forcing. You are comparing apples and coconuts, and you have been repeatedly told of this invalidity.
"I then applied that to my CO2 sensitivity WITHOUT feedbacks to get a range, but it still meant WITHOUT feedbacks."
But we're discussing equilibrium climate sensitivity. Either you're lying what you were originally discussing, or you're so dense that you were oblivious to the fact that ECS was the topic of discussion. The latter would be a particularly funny circumstance as you started the ball rolling at time-stamp12/8/13 9:08 AM when you said...
" "I am asking you to provide the scientific basis of your understanding of the net result of feedbacks."
Why don't you show us all how smart you are, how superior and you go first. Show me the studies that have solid scientific evidence that through feedbacks 2x CO2 will warm the planet x degrees on a global average.
[Emboldened emphasis mine]"
Remember, this was way before any of my postings that contained ranges for ECS - three days before the first one, in fact.
I did exactly as you asked, and discussed ECS, and now you're telling us that you were discussing something else all along?!
You're just a desperate little troll and a rather stupid one, caught out with being unable to provide any scientific justification for whatever values you've pulled from your arse as being representative of the "most likely" range for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and you'll repeat your nonsense until your blue in the face in the hope that doing so might actually make it true.
But let's put all that aside...
Can you now address your current iteration of ECS - "1.2 - 1.999999999" [sic] and indicate what scientific literature supports this. And if you have no literature in support, what makes your range any different from the horse poop I spread around my garden?
And if you can't support your assertion, why should you be considered as having anything useful to say?
Bernard J.
I know you were not referring to AR4 with your 2.5-5.0 range, when I pointed out AR4 had a range of 2.0-4.5 you pointed me to your "~". I simply noted the .5 difference you had with AR4 and jokingly applied that to my 1.2C number. Boy did you latch onto that as my range for ECS! You should feel kind of dumb at this point.
"I did exactly as you asked, and discussed ECS, and now you're telling us that you were discussing something else all along?!"
I see you are still missing the point of my demand. It was simple I just wanted to see what Dfrag had as references on the topic. It is always the battle that anyone who has even a minor divergence from the "group" is labeled as not even being able to "Google" or "Bing" for information, never mind actually having read any results. It was a pushback on that false assumption. And there goes Bernard J Liar arguing against what he wants rather than ask a clarifying question.
Yes because I understand 2xCO2 is around ~1.2C and I think the feedback will be slightly positive I am at <2C for doubling as ECS.
I am waiting on AR5 to evaluate my current position and understanding regardless of what further banshee like dishonest posts you continue to write.
Please continue to increase your carbon footprint and make your grandchildren suffer.
1
" I simply noted the .5 difference you had with AR4 and jokingly applied that to my 1.2C number."
Oh, so it's all been a "joke" now? Yeah, right, after you've been cornered by your own lies...
"Boy did you latch onto that as my range for ECS!
I simply pointed out that your claims were inconsistent with any objective assessment of the science.
They still are.
"You should feel kind of dumb at this point."
No. I feel quite satisfied that you were forced to finally admit that you were wearing no clothes and that you have a little willy.
"Please continue to increase your carbon footprint and make your grandchildren suffer.
If you'd read various posts by me over the last few years you'd know that I'm powered by photovoltaics and hydroelectricity.
I'm doing my bit to help my grandchildren. It's fools like you who are getting in the way and stifling any progress to even a half-decent future.
Bernard J.
Sorry Bernard more BS and lies from you. I never, not once, stated .7-1.7C was my range for ECS.
You simply pointed to your dishonest interpretation of what you wanted me to have said. It was jokingly for a response to your dodge about your range being different from AR4 oh ignorant one, but when you assumed/twisted/lied that I stated .7-1.7C was my figure on ECS, well I just had to watch where that went.
Keep looking for my statement that "MY ECS range is .7-1.7C including forcings."
Think of it logically, I know this will be hard for you and even harder for you to be honest about it. Since we agree that I clearly stated that 2xCO2 WITHOUT feedbacks would be ~1.2C warming and we agree that I stated overall forcings would be slightly positive, how would .7 be the start of my range for ECS? Well? I am waiting?
Good to know you spout clean BS on the Internet. And what did I say about CO2 emissions early on in this?
More of your Bushism "either with us or against us". sad.
1
"I never, not once, stated .7-1.7C was my range for ECS."
We have been discussing equilibrium climate sensitivity for much of this thread and your comment about 0.7-1.7°C is consistent with this basic point. In fact let's have a look at the history of this discussion some more...
You first mention ".7-1.7C" at time-stamp 16/8/13 9:54 AM.
You last comment before this post, at time-stamp 16/8/13 7:31 AM, was:
"btw IPCC AR4 likely range is 2-4.5 not 2.5-4.5. So if you are off .5C am I afforded the same leeway? Why of course not. I am your enemy I am against you. AR4 also has 1.5C in their range although they deem it unlikely. We shall see what AR5 contains."
You raise the IPCC's equilibrium climate sensitivity range, and you mention the figure of "1.5C" in the context of a figure that you find acceptable, and in the context of this raising of the IPCC's equilibrium climate sensitivity range.
And now you're telling us that it was about 2x CO2 forcing alone?!
What's the word that I'm looking for? Oh, yes... liar!!
Bernard J.
Yes Bernard I actually provided information that was in AR4 and yet I never said .7-1.7C was my range for ECS. I already tried to show this to you logically, but we see that failed. You must be borderline unstable or just determined to be a liar. Which is it?
In that context (a word you need to understand quickly) I made a mention that 1.5C was in AR4 though unlikely (since understood to be very unlikely). And you know what? I have a question. Is 1.5 between 1.2 and 1.9? You are such a twisting dishonest malcontent.
I'll repeat this for you maybe it will sink in, though I doubt it.
"Think of it logically, I know this will be hard for you and even harder for you to be honest about it. Since we agree that I clearly stated that 2xCO2 WITHOUT feedbacks would be ~1.2C warming and we agree that I stated overall forcings would be slightly positive, how would .7 be the start of my range for ECS? Well? I am waiting?"
Please just show me where I stated that my ECS understanding is .7-1.7C. You cannot, you can only lie and twist.
Like a worm on a hook Bernard J Liar squirms and lies for all he took.
1
Well I see you prefer to lie rather than understand. You cannot even be reasoned with simple logic.
This shows exactly what I was responding to, liar. As I copied the exact phrase in your post I was responding.
(Bernard J Liar)" I was referring to the papers I read, and I predicated my range with "~".
I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard."
And what understanding am I referring? Oh yes the ~1.2 WITHOUT forcings. So my number became a range, because you called out "~" for at least having a value of +- .5
This is circus like your blatant dishonesty. Do your grandchildren know what kind of liar you are? When you miss an event important to them, do you lie about it? I would guess yes.
For the, what 5th time? .7-1.7C is NOT nor have I ever stated it to be my range for ECS, it was simply an extension of my ~1.2C (as clearly shown above) when Bernard tried getting cute with his use of "~".
Let's here some more dishonesty from Bernard J Liar.
1
Answer me this...
When did the conversation on this thread go from equilibrium climate sensitivity in response to a 2x CO2 increase, to the matter of 2x CO2 forcing?
Who changed the subject, and why?
Bernard J.
False premise question from Bernard J Liar.
The first mention of ECS was by Hardy Cross.
I listed my understandings of 2XCO2WITHOUT forcings and what papers say the ECS WITH forcings in response to your long list of accusations that I am a climate change denier, which is the first part of your script. Once those false accusations were proven false you then twisted what I clearly stated into another set of lies and BS.
Why are you so dishonest?
Why do you not answer where I stated my ECS range is .7-1.7C? Because you cannot so it is now time for you to shift and twist again and start another dishonest front.
1
"1",
'Kay, Punkin, why don't you tell us your 90% confidence interval for CO2 sensitivity and provide evidence for WHY you believe it thus?
Why? Why would I put any effort forth for such blatant truth twisters and liars? I have stated this already 1.2 - 1.9C. Sure the papers with their assumptions on clouds, aerosols etc get to 2-5 (some even higher) I am not convinced enough is understood about these feedbacks. So I am on the low end. Model divergence from observations is also adding to the uncertainty.
I am waiting on AR5 to re-evaluate and update my position. Yours and Bernard's method are counter productive to get anyone to try to adjust or even be open to adjusting their position. You two just cannot wait to get to the "denier" part of your response.
Bernard J Liar jumps in 3-2-1...
1
Post a Comment