Hey, he uses a reference no-feedbacks "Planck" response at constant relative humidity, rather than constant temperature change! That's something I thought was absolutely needed, I didn't realize it had been seriously done. Excellent! Basically with that definition, no-feedbacks sensitivity is 2 K to doubling, which is the main point that comes out of his argument.
Good for AD, although it's a shame that he's had to keep repeating increasingly sophisticated versions of this message for so long.
Since paleoclimate basically doesn't work unless ECS is at least ~2C there should be no need to labour this point. Central estimates of ECS below 2C can be presumed to be wrong.
Referring back to an earlier comment I made on a thread from a few days ago, if you regress surface temperature to lagged ln(CO2), the slope of that line gives you ECS directly as 3.1, right in line with the result here by Andy.
Mulitply the slope, 451, by ln(2) (because we're doubling CO2) to give 311. Since GISS temperture is measured in hundredths of a degree, that's 3.11 C per doubling.
Arthur: Yes, the constant RH framework is vastly superior to the standard decomposition. See Held, I., and K. M. Shell (2012), Using relative humidity as a state variable in climate feedback analysis, J. Climate, 25, 2578-2582, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1 for a detailed discussion.
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
It reminds me of the essay "How to inflate a life jacket using a vacuum bottle".
ReplyDeleteHey, he uses a reference no-feedbacks "Planck" response at constant relative humidity, rather than constant temperature change! That's something I thought was absolutely needed, I didn't realize it had been seriously done. Excellent! Basically with that definition, no-feedbacks sensitivity is 2 K to doubling, which is the main point that comes out of his argument.
ReplyDeleteGood for AD, although it's a shame that he's had to keep repeating increasingly sophisticated versions of this message for so long.
ReplyDeleteSince paleoclimate basically doesn't work unless ECS is at least ~2C there should be no need to labour this point. Central estimates of ECS below 2C can be presumed to be wrong.
* * *
Nobody cares what you think, Fernando.
Referring back to an earlier comment I made on a thread from a few days ago, if you regress surface temperature to lagged ln(CO2), the slope of that line gives you ECS directly as 3.1, right in line with the result here by Andy.
ReplyDeletehttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8734/16256795624_2c058317bc.jpg
Mulitply the slope, 451, by ln(2) (because we're doubling CO2) to give 311. Since GISS temperture is measured in hundredths of a degree, that's 3.11 C per doubling.
Arthur: Yes, the constant RH framework is vastly superior to the standard decomposition. See Held, I., and K. M. Shell (2012), Using relative humidity as a state variable in climate feedback analysis, J. Climate, 25, 2578-2582, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1 for a detailed discussion.
ReplyDelete