-1=e^ipi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 again, your opinion is noted. It's not just my opinion. It is fact. Please provide me with a reasonable model or reference that predicts a 2 C increase in global temperatures over pre-industrial levels as atmospheric CO2 approaches 450 ppm when NOT accounting for other GHGs. I have no qualms in you highlighting a post that shows you absolutely had no clue about the 2°C target. Oh, are you going to bring up that strawman attempt again? you stumbled big-time over the graphic you presumed to key on. You clearly hadn't a clue about emission scenarios. The only mistake I made in that post was I accidentally claimed that CO2 levels were being doubled from 300 ppm to 600 ppm rather than 400 ppm to 800 ppm. Of course I acknowledged the mistake right away, though it wasn't relevant in the context of that discussion because the claim I made that you were refuting was "we could expect an increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees by 2100". Furthermore, because the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is approximately logarithmic, the climate sensitivity is the same whether you double from 300 ppm to 600 ppm or 400 ppm to 800 ppm. But of course, rather than move on with the discussion, you want to distract, so you keep bringing up that minor mistake I made over and over again to avoid addressing my points. If you're going to put up a graphic that you presume speaks to models vs. temperature... and you don't even recognize or understand the emission scenario the models are being run under, I most certainly will point out to you the criteria associated with the particular emission scenario your graphic reflected upon. Again, your reference, your linked graphic, your inherent reliance upon the associated emission scenario. And you presume to suggest I'm making a claim! Okay, let's briefly look at the graphic and then some of the absurd claims you made about it: with an associated (global surface) temperature increase projection in the range of ~2.5-to-5°C. Yes, you neglect the MR12 model as an outlier because it is inconvenient for you, yet the CCSR/NIES2 model is perfectly fine... Never mind that these models were all from 2001 or earlier, a time period during which the models have significantly overestimated the warming over the past 13 years and since then most projections have been lowered. But no, let's just exclude low projections that are inconvenient to your dogma... Given the recent days announcement on the 2012 emissions level, we can once again confirm that global emissions continue to be within the IPCC's highest emission scenarios... working towards that 5°C trajectory. 2100 CO2 ppm projection level of 800 ppm with a high-end temperature increase projection of ~ 5°C. As I stated, you offered up a summary assessment, one that certainly didn't line up with your graphic reference and its associated A2 emission scenario. Not only do you just exclude the most modest model, but since then you emphasize on the most extreme model. Furthermore, you are confusing climate models with emission scenarios. The announcement of the 2012 emissions level affects the expectation of the emission scenario. However, that projection with the 5 °C increase is based on a specific climate model with the same emission scenario as the other 8 climate models in the graph. Changing the emission scenario does not some how make more extreme climate models more valid, that's just insane. And yes, the A2 scenario is a more extreme emission scenario that basically resembles what will happen under no mitigation policy: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=98 "4.4.2.2. A2 Scenarios The A2 marker scenario (A2-ASF) was developed using ASF (see Appendix IV), an integrated set of modeling tools that was also used to generate the first and the second sets of IPCC emission scenarios (SA90 and IS92). Overall, the A2-ASF quantification is based on the following assumptions (Sankovski et al., 2000): Relatively slow demographic transition and relatively slow convergence in regional fertility patterns. Relatively slow convergence in inter-regional GDP per capita differences. Relatively slow end-use and supply-side energy efficiency improvements (compared to other storylines). Delayed development of renewable energy. No barriers to the use of nuclear energy. Additional scenario quantifications of A2 were developed using the AIM (A2-AIM)9 , IMAGE (A2-IMAGE)10, MESSAGE (A2-MESSAGE), and MiniCAM (A2-MiniCAM)11 models. An alternative interpretation of the A2 scenario storyline in the form of a "delayed development" or "transitional" scenario between the A2 and A1 scenario families was developed by the MiniCAM modeling team (A2- A1-MiniCAM)." And remember that the modest claim I made that you tried to refute in the first place was that by 2100 we should expect an increase in atmospheric CO2 by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees Celsius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) I would treat this paper as a lower bound on sensitivity - i.e. it may be higher but the chances of it being lower is extremely unlikely. Yeah, I can agree on this. I think an upper bound is probably around 3 C (maybe 4 C on a millennial timescale with significant deglaciation). Edit: though I think the different definition of transient climate sensitivity alone is significant enough to push up the estimate in the paper on the equilibrium climate sensitivity closer to the 3 C climate sensitivity values that other papers get. Edit 2: maybe I need to do some more calculations to show this. Lastly, whatever the sensitivity is that does not make CO2 mitigation a sensible policy choice nor does it mean that a warmer world is a worse world. Fair enough. Edited July 24, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I thought this paper was interesting because it was an attempt to estimate sensitivity from empirical data rather than computer models. That said, any such effort requires assumptions which are not necessarily reasonable. I would treat this paper as a lower bound on sensitivity - i.e. it may be higher but the chances of it being lower is extremely unlikely. Lastly, whatever the sensitivity is that does not make CO2 mitigation a sensible policy choice nor does it mean that a warmer world is a worse world. All it means is we should expect temps to rise over the next 100 years and governments need to adapt to the changes as they appear. you thought it was interesting because it aligns with your past efforts to highlight any and all studies that speak to low(er) climate sensitivity... and it gives you an outlet to, once again, flog your "Adapt-R-Us Only... Mitigation-Be-Bad" mantra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 gentle reminder #1: this thread is intended to speak to the underlying mindset of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change Deniers... it is not intended to discuss/argue the science - there's a brazillion other MLW threads doing just that. In that regard, MLW provides a rather revealing, telling and somewhat representative snapshot of a segment of the greater populace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 And remember that the modest claim I made that you tried to refute in the first place was that by 2100 we should expect an increase in atmospheric CO2 by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees Celsius. like I said - poser! Again, you had no clue what the 2°C target was... no clue what emission scenarios were. I take solace in introducing you to them - to the point that you're now suddenly an expert on them/their history - quoting from the IPCC, no less! Again, I made no attempt to refute you - I simply pointed out your use of that graphic did not align/support your claim. If you wanted to pump your claim concerning, "a few hundred CO2 ppm and a few degrees Celsius temperature rise"... you shouldn't have flogged that graphic that associated to a more extreme emission scenario. More pointedly, I gave you the criteria bounds for that scenario... just because there's a single study graphic that only includes one model at the outer-bounds, that doesn't diminish the overall criteria bounds. in any case, the other thread is there for you to resurrect... and showcase, once again, you didn't have a clue about what you now presume to expertly posture! Again, this thread is not intended to showcase your presumed wizardry. Your beating down on member TimG's offered paper has no place within the intent of this thread... make this "gentle reminder #2". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 You just need an independent temperature record. Such as that which exists for the last 100-150 years or so. And you can analyze that against tree rings over that same period. If the influence of other factors that may also have changed over the last 100-150 years can be established to be negligible, or accounted for, that gives you the set of data you need to establish an empirical relationship. That only works if you have enough data to show that the non-linearities are consistent across a population. I believe the paper established that the exact response varied greatly from tree to tree. Tree ring divergence has been openly discussed in peer reviewed papers since the 90's, conveniently summarized here. It seems that ring divergence is limited to northern latitudes, post 1960. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable in the high north prior 1960 and continuously reliable in the south. The problem is unique to the last couple of decades and shows evidence of being man made; with warming induced drought and global dimming being likely factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 So when will the IPCC and the vast vast VAST majority of other scientists be slamming the brakes on their alarm? Probably when Doctor Evil decides to end Tim's great conspiracy... of scientists, teachers, the media, world governments etc... to crash the worlds economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) It seems that ring divergence is limited to northern latitudes, post 1960. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable in the high north prior 1960 and continuously reliable in the south. The problem is unique to the last couple of decades and shows evidence of being man made; with warming induced drought and global dimming being likely factors.An explanation pulled out a hat with that has ZERO evidence to support. It is just a fabrication created because scientists working in the field would have nothing to publish if they admitted that they cannot exclude the possibility that tree ring records "diverge" in the past as well. Reading any discussion of tree rings in the literature is like a trip down the rabbit hole with baseless assertion after baseless assertion being treated like proven facts. Edited July 24, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Probably when Doctor Evil decides to end Tim's great conspiracy... of scientists, teachers, the media, world governments etc... to crash the worlds economy.So tell me: is religion a great conspiracy by hooded people meeting in secret or its it simply an extremely large number of people motivated by personal desires to believe things with are not true? Climate change alarmism IS a religion and should be treated as such. There is no difference between you and someone who is convinced that intelligent design is a scientifically supportable theory. Edited July 24, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I find it quite amusing that Waldo and -1=e^ipi have conflicting view when it comes to AGW. But yet both will bat me down when it comes to weather modification. ... Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I thought this paper was interesting because it was an attempt to estimate sensitivity from empirical data rather than computer models. That said, any such effort requires assumptions which are not necessarily reasonable. I would treat this paper as a lower bound on sensitivity - i.e. it may be higher but the chances of it being lower is extremely unlikely. I don't understand what is interesting about a paper that strips out anything predictive like albedo effects from melting arctic ice and methane release from melting permafrost, yet still produces an equilibrium sensitivity value of 2° C. That value is on the low end but still within the IPCC predicted range. According to the AR5 "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C." http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf (p 871, Climate Systems Properties) Did you just list this paper because it was published by a Heartland fellow and the ECS sounded low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't understand what is interesting about a paper that strips out anything predictive like albedo effects from melting arctic ice and methane release from melting permafrost, yet still produces an equilibrium sensitivity value of 2° C.Because the so called "methane release" is pure speculation that is not supported by by the historical record? (i.e. if this was a significant driver then the planet would have kept warming in the early Holocene - instead it started to cool). Did you just list this paper because it was published by a Heartland fellow and the ECS sounded low?As I said: it is interesting because it is based on empirical data rather than a fiction created by a climate model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 An explanation pulled out a hat with that has ZERO evidence to support. It is just a fabrication created because scientists working in the field would have nothing to publish if they admitted that they cannot exclude the possibility that tree ring records "diverge" in the past as well. Reading any discussion of tree rings in the literature is like a trip down the rabbit hole with baseless assertion after baseless assertion being treated like proven facts. The divergence being limited to northern latitudes and even northern rings jiving with temp records prior to 1960 is a fact. The potential causes of divergence do require more study and are being studied. However, ring divergence is consistent with the expected results of anthropogenic causes like global dimming, which should have a greater effect in the north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) The divergence being limited to northern latitudes and even northern rings jiving with temp records prior to 1960 is a fact.Show me the evidence that there was no divergence in the 1700s. You will have a tough time finding it because there is none. Divergence could be occurring at anytime in the past which means any tree ring records which show divergence must be discarded as useless data. Any real scientist would do this. However, ring divergence is consistent with the expected results of anthropogenic causes like global dimming, which should have a greater effect in the north.Rationalizations created to justify a pre-determined position. This is not how science is done. This is how religions are created. Edited July 24, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Show me the evidence that there was no divergence in the 1700s. You will have a tough time finding it because there is none. Divergence could be occurring at anytime in the past which means any tree ring records which show divergence must be discarded as useless data. Any real scientist would do this.Why? Divergence is limited to just the north in recent decades. In southern latitudes tree rings match temperature records as do trees in the high north prior to the 60's. Rationalizations created to justify a pre-determined position. This is not how science is done. This is how religions are created.No. In this case an observation of divergence was made. Hypotheses consistent with known phenomenon have been developed to explain the cause and are being tested. Those that continue to be supported by observation will stick around and tested by others. Those that don't will be discarded. That is the scientific method. This is all being done in an open, peer reviewed process which is not how the bloggers and Heartland fellows your prefer to follow operate. This method has produced a large body of evidence on climate change that you cherry pick based on a desired conclusion. That is not science, that is how religious ideas like intelligent design work. Edited July 24, 2014 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Probably when Doctor Evil decides to end Tim's great conspiracy... of scientists, teachers, the media, world governments etc... to crash the worlds economy. I'm still waiting for an answer on the consensus amongst economists, is the vast vast majority as alarmed as Tim at the prospect of economic Armageddon?Is economics even a real science? Where do economists get off thinking they have some God-given right to weigh in on policy decisions? Shouldn't they be told to piss off like any other scientist? Comparing economics to a hard science like climatology seems more like comparing chiropractic medicine to you know, real medicine. Some might even say economics is closer to religion, like scientology or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Why? Divergence is limited to just the north in recent decades. In southern latitudes tree rings match temperature records as do trees in the high north prior to the 60's.So what? Once a set of data has shown non-linear behavior you cannot simply assume that the non-linear behavior is limited to the time range for which you have data. The fact that other tree rings series do not diverge shows that they don't need the data - they can throw it out and only use the data that does not show the non-linear behavior in the modern period. Why are scientists so keen to use data which is obviously junk? No. In this case an observation of divergence was made. Hypotheses consistent with known phenomenon have been developed and are being tested.This is the trouble with the debate - too many people are simply not able to separate actual verifiable scientific evidence from self serving speculation. In this case the explanation are PURE speculation with no actual evidence to support the claimed connection. When there is actual evidence they might be able to use the data - until then the data cannot be used. Edited July 24, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 This is the trouble with the debate - too many people are simply not able to separate actual verifiable scientific evidence from self serving speculation.Self serving he says...sigh. Let's keep in mind that your position in this debate is the one at odds with the scientific community. Your behaviour in this debate is expected; educated conservatives are most likely to deny facts that don't support their preferred ideology. http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/the_republican_brain%3A_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality?page=0%2C0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 like I said - poser! Again, you had no clue what the 2°C target was.. Oh look, strawman argument... again I simply pointed out your use of that graphic did not align/support your claim. If you wanted to pump your claim concerning, "a few hundred CO2 ppm and a few degrees Celsius temperature rise"... you shouldn't have flogged that graphic that associated to a more extreme emission scenario. So a graphic that contains projections that expect an increase in atmospheric CO2 by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees by 2100 under a more extreme emission scenario doesn't support the claim that under a no or little mitigation scenario, we can expect atmospheric CO2 to rise by a few hundred ppm and global temperatures to increase by a few degrees by 2100... Yeah, you are just deluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 There is no difference between you and someone who is convinced that intelligent design is a scientifically supportable theory. Me? I dont even have an opinion on Climate change, and rarely post on it. Just because I laugh at your wild conspiracy theories doesnt mean im a climate alarmist. Im not alarmed at all, and Im perfectly fine with sitting on the fence while people who are qualified and willing to do the hard work try to answer those questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 However, ring divergence is consistent with the expected results of anthropogenic causes like global dimming, which should have a greater effect in the north. The effect of global dimming is so small... in polar latitudes the effect of having a decently long growing season is far more relevant. This claim is absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I'm still waiting for an answer on the consensus amongst economists There is no economist consensus and never will be. It is pretty easy to obtain the title of economist (particularly if you obtain that title via the political science route and just make stuff up). Too many economists can't perform basic mathematics and the vast majority know nothing of climate science. Is economics even a real science? Where do economists get off thinking they have some God-given right to weigh in on policy decisions? Shouldn't they be told to piss off like any other scientist? All economics is not a science, but some parts of economics follow the scientific method. The majority of economists are not scientists, but a few economists follow the scientific method and can be described as economic scientists. Does that answer your question? Edit: actually many 'scientists' in a variety of fields do not follow the scientific method. Climate science is a good example due to its politicization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Oh look, strawman argument... again no - not a strawman. Just highlighting you didn't know what you presumed to talk about... in terms of both the 2°C target and emission scenarios. And, like magic, you've become an expert, quoting from the IPCC no less! So a graphic that contains projections that expect an increase in atmospheric CO2 by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees by 2100 under a more extreme emission scenario doesn't support the claim that under a no or little mitigation scenario, we can expect atmospheric CO2 to rise by a few hundred ppm and global temperatures to increase by a few degrees by 2100... Yeah, you are just deluded. I don't see ppm levels on that graphic. And, again, you had no idea of the particulars concerning that graphic; most pointedly, in regards the emission scenario. So, of course, you ignore that slightly embarassing fact for you, particularly when I highlight the actual bounds for that emission scenario. Again, just because you find a graphic with a short run sampling of a smallish segment of the overall models, that doesn't negate the bounds criteria for the graphic's associated emission scenario. Just how ripe are your picked cherries! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I don't see ppm levels on that graphic. Because it's a graph of temperature vs time... Why would it need to have CO2 levels on it? that doesn't negate the bounds criteria for the graphic's associated emission scenario. In order to make projections about CO2 emission scenarios, one needs to make assumptions about the behaviour of humans to estimate the scenario. It's called modelling, it is part of science. Do you deny that 800 ppm by 2100 is not on the high end of emission scenarios? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Because it's a graph of temperature vs time... Why would it need to have CO2 levels on it? nice! Since you didn't know what an emission scenario was, since you didn't recognize the graphic emission scenario reference, it's quite a magic trick for you to presume to speak of projections - your described, "by a few hundred ppm" reference... which, somehow, magically has you now speaking of 800 ppm (where, I presume you're starting a doubling from 400). Of course, in 2001... the year of your graphic's related study, the CO2 ppm level was at 373. Details, smetails, hey! In order to make projections about CO2 emission scenarios, one needs to make assumptions about the behaviour of humans to estimate the scenario. It's called modelling, it is part of science. Do you deny that 800 ppm by 2100 is not on the high end of emission scenarios? again, if you wanted to only speak of a "couple of hundred ppm increase"... you shouldn't have tried to flog that graphic and that emission scenario... whether you knew what it was, or not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.