Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice - what to make of it?

[bush_cheney2004]

.

Edited June 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

Actually Waldo, I'm starting to think that you don't understand the meaning of confidence intervals based on comments in this thread and the other thread (specifically your comments with respect to how the Bjorn Stevens paper suggests that the lower bound on the uncertainty of Aerosol forcing is too low). Maybe you should do yourself a favour by simply learning the basics of confidence intervals. Websites like wikipedia can help, or if you want me to point you to a book you can get from the library I can do that. Alternatively, you could take an online course or something.

[waldo]

However, probability that the warming trend since 1998 is zero or negative under the assumptions of the linear regression model is 4.5%.

The confidence within that confidence interval is that with which you can reject that the observed warming trend is just due to random variability.

I answered that. It was with respect to the linear regression model of temperature vs time, which you provided. Taking a single data set and performing a linear regression to see if there is a trend over time doesn't tell you what causes that trend (be it CO2, the Sun, El Nino or a giant pikachu).

And I'm note sure you understand what you are writing when you are referring to 'the confidence in the confidence interval'. You provided the 2 sigma confidence level, that is all I have used.

you keep harping on "cause"... again, I've not stated or implied anything in regards to cause. Why do you continue to mention it? I've distinguished the point to speak to the confidence in whether the warming trend being shown exits by chance... or not. Of course 'the not' presumes on causal attachment... but again, nothing I've spoken to directly or implied upon... again, not for this discussion.

Actually Waldo, I'm starting to think that you don't understand the meaning of confidence intervals based on comments in this thread and the other thread (specifically your comments with respect to how the Bjorn Stevens paper suggests that the lower bound on the uncertainty of Aerosol forcing is too low). Maybe you should do yourself a favour by simply learning the basics of confidence intervals. Websites like wikipedia can help, or if you want me to point you to a book you can get from the library I can do that. Alternatively, you could take an online course or something.

imagine that! You managed to tie this back to your sensitivity bible thread... you know, the thread where you tried to directly tie sensitivity level into a discussion on attribution! I've not said anything to question the Stevens paper... well... other than to put forward the guy's own formal statement based upon the denialsphere hoopla that attempted to improperly leverage it. You know, where he cautions anyone from prematurely emphasizing his findings as anything more than being from a single study... that peer responses are required to properly assess his research/findings. You know, where I emphasized you're lining up with "single study syndrome"... to which you replied with something along the lines of "I've provided several sources"... yet it seems to me your only source put forward with respect to aerosols was that Stevens paper... you know, in line with your "single study syndrome"! As for 'confidence' within the confidence interval, I've most clearly and succinctly stated what that confidence reflects upon.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

you keep harping on "cause"... again, I've not stated or implied anything in regards to cause.

I try my best to understand what you write, but if you write nonsense then there is only so much I can do. You wrote:

which you can reject that the observed warming trend is just due to random variability.

I interpreted that to mean you were asking if the recent trend was caused by random variability (which I assumed to mean natural variability).

I guess that was wrong. Now that I think about it, a second meaning you could have had is whether the linear trend consists only of random variability (i.e. the residual in the regression model). But this is completely nonsense because for a linear regression, y = A + BX + residual, the trend is A + BX, so by definition the trend cannot contain any residual.

So as far as I can tell, what you wrote is nonsense. Maybe there is some alternative meaning to what you wrote, but I don't see it.

I've distinguished the point to speak to the confidence in whether the warming trend being shown exits by chance... or not.

I gave the probability under the assumption of the linear regression model that the slope of the trend is zero or negative (4.5%). Is that not good enough?

imagine that! You managed to tie this back to your sensitivity bible thread... you know

So that's how you plan to deal with that thread? Just call it a bible thread like you dismissed my other thread as a 'manifesto' thread?

You know, where he cautions anyone from prematurely emphasizing his findings as anything more than being from a single study.

It's unfortunate that you are so scientifically illiterate that rather than read the actual science you have to take out of context concluding remarks in press releases to use appeal to authority fallacies in order to dogmatically justify your pre-determined conclusions.

where I emphasized you're lining up with "single study syndrome"

Yes, your continued attempts at strawman arguments or character attacks are well-known to me.

yet it seems to me your only source put forward with respect to aerosols was that Stevens paper.

Keep believing that if you want. The thread is for all to read if they want to try to verify your claims.

I've most clearly and succinctly stated what that confidence reflects upon.

It is interesting how you use clearly to write a very unclear statement.

Edited June 17, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

I guess that was wrong.

yes, you were wrong; your interpretation was wrong.

.

So that's how you plan to deal with that thread? Just call it a bible thread like you dismissed my other thread as a 'manifesto' thread?

notwithstanding its simply another vehicle for you to showcase your "math skills"... that no one here cares about, I certainly didn't dismiss it (outright). As I've only recently returned, I participated in it somewhat... recently... with an end result that showed you foolishly attempted to directly apply EQ sensitivity in relation to warming attribution associated with the 1950-2011 period. As I said in summary, all you effectively did was to provide your "stated meaningless and alarmist spun" assessments on that formal complete IPCC attribution statement... your unsupported and unsubstantiated personal opinion. Within that attribution period in discussion, you provided no countering qualified detail on the temperature equivalencies you presume to attach to Internal Variability, Natural Forces... and Anthropogenic. It was also gold seeing you flounder with your (again unsupported and unsubstantiated) claim of "delayed solar" impacting on that 1950-2011 attribution period... delayed from all the way back to 1645, no less! Of course, when I repeatedly challenged you to provide a forcing equivalent qualification to that "delayed solar"... you covered those requests with your standard prattle over "my writing style"!

you brought up a reference to your sensitivity bible thread... not me! If you're so pumped to showcase it further... do it there by resurrecting that thread - not by further derailing this one.

.

It's unfortunate that you are so scientifically illiterate that rather than read the actual science you have to take out of context concluding remarks in press releases to use appeal to authority fallacies in order to dogmatically justify your pre-determined conclusions.

says the guy, you, appealing to the authority of that author and his single paper; you know, your penchant for "single study syndrome"! And yes, I most certainly presented that formal statement from the author as it clearly reinforced, again, your reliance upon a single study, that study, to attempt to make your case for low(er) sensitivity. Apparently, to you... your dogma is sacrosanct and your, as you say, pre-determined conclusions flow quite easily based upon your selective and self-serving pick of studies that meet your... pre-determined conclusions.

.

Yes, your continued attempts at strawman arguments or character attacks are well-known to me.

no, not a strawman! Everything so inconvenient to you gets your ready strawman labeling - go figure! You put forward a single reference... a study finding that acted to reinforce what you wanted to hear about reduced aerosol cooling. Highlighting your zeal over the single study that you attempted to leverage is most certainly not a strawman.

.

Keep believing that if you want. The thread is for all to read if they want to try to verify your claims.

like I said above, resurrect the thread... and directly verify my claim is not accurate!

.

It is interesting how you use clearly to write a very unclear statement.

your perception, your interpretation of my writing means sweet diddly to me!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

yes, you were wrong; your interpretation was wrong.

And you still haven't clarified what you meant. Was the second interpretation correct?

I repeatedly challenged you to provide a forcing equivalent qualification to that "delayed solar"

What does this even mean? You want me to convert the change in solar irradiance that occurred before 1950 into a W/m^2 value that somehow is equivalent to a post-1950 value that somehow takes into account the effect of the delay in the climate response function? That doesn't make sense.

says the guy, you, appealing to the authority of that author and his single paper

Strawman argument. I appeal to the content of the paper.

[waldo]

What does this even mean? You want me to convert the change in solar irradiance that occurred before 1950 into a W/m^2 value that somehow is equivalent to a post-1950 value that somehow takes into account the effect of the delay in the climate response function? That doesn't make sense.

you're the one claiming the IPCC attribution statement... the full statement... including the sentence you tried to ignore, is "alarmism". I provided you the related IPCC figure that supports that statement. I challenged you, many times over, to step up and go beyond your mere stated unsubstantiated opinion... challenged you to provide an alternate summary equivalent to that IPCC figure. Again, and in relation to that IPCC figure, you provided no countering qualified detail on the temperature equivalencies you presume to attach to Internal Variability, Natural Forces... and Anthropogenic. All you could muster was to repeat, many times over, your claim that "delayed solar" was impacting on that 1950-2011 attribution period... and, presumably, it wasn't being properly accounted for within that IPCC attribution statement (and related figure). So what's your countering alternative to support your unsubstantiated opinion... one that factors in your repeated statements about "delayed solar"?

.

Strawman argument. I appeal to the content of the paper.

"the content of the paper"... from the single author... from that single paper! Of course, as of that publication date, that paper is an outlier. Again, an outlier to the point the author cautioned on how it was utilized, interpreted, leveraged... suggesting that review of his paper by other qualified scientists is required before putting too much weight into his findings. And, again, he issued that statement simply because the denialsphere went and ran with his single paper finding... ran it all the way up into the mainstream with improper/false interpretations. Yes! You and your single paper syndrome!

.

[WWWTT]

The increasing sea ice for Antarctica was missed by most climate change models, but not all of them. The smart ones knew when to discount "anthropogenic forcing". But who wants a climate model that actually shows cooling ? Sorry alarmists, the satellite data are messing up the presumed melting sea ice narrative down under.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/399/2015/tc-9-399-2015.pdf

Still waiting for an actual lawsuit that has occured.

Has their been any victims that have come forward with such a case?

The reason why I ask, is because such cases would have evidence brought forward and I would like to see how this evidence would hold up in a court of law!

WWWTT

[-1=e^ipi]

you're the one claiming the IPCC attribution statement... the full statement... including the sentence you tried to ignore, is "alarmism".

Strawman argument. I never claimed that the IPCC's statement was alarmism. I claimed that a journalist spinning the IPCC's statement that we are at least 95% certain that more than half of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic by replacing 'more than half' with 'nearly all' is alarmist spin. With respect to the 1 sentence in the IPCC AR5 that you are referring to, I said it was meaningless.

challenged you to provide an alternate summary equivalent to that IPCC figure.

Gavin Schmidt's blog is not the IPCC. Please stop pretending that calculations made by Gavin Schmidt on his blog somehow was in AR5.

All you could muster was to repeat, many times over, your claim that "delayed solar" was impacting on that 1950-2011 attribution period...

I'm very skeptical of Gavin Schmidt's methodology and suspect he is not taking this into account since (as far as I can tell) he is just taking changes in radiative forcing forcing over this time period to get warming due to anthropogenic factors. Unfortunately, you have not provided a link to where on his blog he is making these calculations, so I cannot verify this claim. With respect to increased in solar irradiance prior to 1950 affecting temperature changes after 1950, this follows from understanding the concept of heat capacity. I invite you to boil water in a kettle and observe how long it takes for the water to boil to observe this effect.

from the single author... from that single paper!

Number of authors and number of papers is irrelevant. Einstein's papers in 1905 on the photo-electric effect, Brownian motion and special relativity were all single papers by single authors. What matters is the content of the papers and the quality of the science. Unfortunately, I don't think you understand this since you have a tendency to use logical fallacies such as ad populum or appeal to authority.

suggesting that review of his paper by other qualified scientists is required before putting too much weight into his findings.

The weight you put on 'findings' should depend on the quality of the content of the paper, not the number of papers or number of authors that make similar claims.

[waldo]

Strawman argument. I never claimed that the IPCC's statement was alarmism. I claimed that a journalist spinning the IPCC's statement that we are at least 95% certain that more than half of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic by replacing 'more than half' with 'nearly all' is alarmist spin. With respect to the 1 sentence in the IPCC AR5 that you are referring to, I said it was meaningless.

***squawk***strawman***squawk! You mean the one sentence you conveniently left out when you re-quoted the IPCC attribution statement (the complete statement) I put forward? That last sentence within that IPCC statement, the one you deem "meaningless" is the best estimate part of the attribution statement... which is supported by the related IPCC figure that I provided. That last sentence: "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." ..... oh my! How alarmist, hey! How convenient for you to simply dismiss it as "meaningless". Isn't that best estimate, wait for it, wait for it... nearly all? Is "similar to"... "nearly all"? Somehow, you keep stating there was no best estimate associated with the attribution statement... and yet... the IPCC uses the words "best estimate"! Go figure, hey! (/snarc)

.

Gavin Schmidt's blog is not the IPCC. Please stop pretending that calculations made by Gavin Schmidt on his blog somehow was in AR5.

strawman!!! C'mon man... what's with your strawmaning! Get over it man! It was simply an interpretation of the IPCC figure associated with the IPCC attribution statement.

.

I'm very skeptical of Gavin Schmidt's methodology and suspect he is not taking this into account

strawman!!! Forgettabout the GS blog figure. I keep asking you... you... to "take it into account"; to take your claim of "delayed solar" impacting upon that attribution period. Again, you simply drop, repeatedly, the comment about "delayed solar" impacting within that 1950-2010 attribution period. The IPCC statement and related figure (re: AR5 WG1 10.3) are there for you to attempt to counter and "take into account" your claim that delayed solar forcing isn't being properly accounted for; again, that related figure:

.

Number of authors and number of papers is irrelevant. Einstein's papers in 1905 on the photo-electric effect, Brownian motion and special relativity were all single papers by single authors. What matters is the content of the papers and the quality of the science. Unfortunately, I don't think you understand this since you have a tendency to use logical fallacies such as ad populum or appeal to authority.

nonsense! That paper/study (re: your single study sydrome) had not undergone any formal peer-response. In spite of the author's own raised caution in prematurely using his findings, you significantly leveraged it to make your ongoing case for low(er) sensitivity... ala your self-serving, selective and agenda driven "rush to judgement" to fullfill your predetermined conclusions! Aka, you and single-study syndrome. You know, just like the denialsphere and the right-wing schlock media that pumped forward the related BS over that paper from denier blogs.

.

The weight you put on 'findings' should depend on the quality of the content of the paper, not the number of papers or number of authors that make similar claims.

says you, the "Determiner" on content quality! By the by, with what legitimacy do you so blatantly dismiss the author's own most reserved statement to exercise caution in prematurely accepting his findings... and how is you so easily managed to ignore my repeated references to that part of his formal statement that spoke to the concern over and negative impacts of even a lowered 2°C sensitivity level. Apparently, you really, really like his paper findings but you sure don't like and don't accept anything within his related formal statement on properly interpreting his findings. GO FIGURE, hey!

note: I keep suggesting that if you insist upon steering this thread back into a discussion of your "sensitivity bible thread" that you just resurrect it... and quit derailing this one!

.

Edited June 19, 2015 by waldo

[-1=e^ipi]

That last sentence: "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." ..... oh my!

There are number of issues with this sentence and how you are trying to use it.

1. As far as I know, this 'best estimate' does not exist in AR5; they don't even have a best estimate of ECS. You could correct me if I am wrong by pointing me to this 'best estimate'. Stuff on Gavin Schmidt's blog is not in AR5 so does not count.

2. Similar is not the same thing as 'nearly all'; similar isn't very well defined either (what percentage range counts as similar)?.

3. This statement says nothing about confidence in the claim. It doesn't say that the IPCC is at least 95% confident that the human contribution to warming is similar. So the claim by the journalist is spin and/or factually incorrect.

4. The implication of the probability distribution function of Gavin Schmidt is that we are not at least 95% certain that 'nearly all' of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic (provided that the definition of 'nearly all' is somewhat reasonable).

nonsense! That paper/study (re: your single study sydrome) had not undergone any formal peer-response.

Peer review has numerous issues that would take too long to get into now. Some terrible papers pass peer review (example: Christopher Monckton papers), some good papers do not. What matters is the quality of the content of the paper and the science in it, peer-review or not. But I don't expect you to understand this since you only care about using appeal to authority to use conclusions in papers to dogmatically justify your pre-determined conclusions.

you significantly leveraged it to make your ongoing case for low(er) sensitivity... ala your self-serving, selective and agenda driven "rush to judgement" to fullfill your predetermined conclusions!

My understanding of climate sensitivity is based upon empirical evidence (both instrumental and paleoclimate). In the literature, there is a discrepancy in climate sensitivity estimates between estimates that use empirical data and most climate models; this leads to the question of why. Given that the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing changes during the instrumental period comes from anthropogenic aerosols, some people have speculated that one reason is that people are overestimating aerosol forcing, which results in overestimating climate sensitivity since anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are strongly positively correlated over the instrumental period; people were speculating about this long before the Bjorn Stevens paper. Furthermore, in AR5 the IPCC dropped their estimates of aerosol forcing relative to AR4 (which again came well before the Bjorn Stevens paper; the concept that past estimates of aerosol forcing were overestimated is not new).

As for pre-determined conclusions. If you read the thread on climate sensitivity, you will see that for a while I had the belief that ECS was roughly 3 C (best estimate of AR4) and that ECS was very unlikely to be less than 2 C due to simple radiative physics arguments. My belief changed when I couldn't get the empirical data to agree with an ECS of 3 C or higher. Ultimately, I follow the empirical data.

You know, just like the denialsphere and the right-wing schlock media that pumped forward the related BS over that paper from denier blogs.

So are you saying that Nic Lewis is a 'denier'?

The IPCC statement and related figure (re: AR5 WG1 10.3) are there for you to attempt to counter and "take into account" your claim that delayed solar forcing isn't being properly accounted for; again, that related figure:

Thank you for finally providing the link to the source of your claims so that I can see the methodology.

As far as I can tell they are starting the forcing data at least by 1860 (probably earlier) and are including solar, so my previous suspicions were false.

However, now I have seen the methodology. That figure, and Gavin Schmidt's conclusions, are all based on CMIP5 computer models (actually, a lot of AR5 is, including their temperature projections under nonsense emission scenarios). There are a few problems with their methodology and/or CMIP5:

- The methodology involves running CMIP5 computer models multiple times using radiative forcing data over the instrumental period and seeing if the temperature projections are consistent with the instrumental record. This can demonstrate that the set of claims made by CMIP5 is consistent with the empirical data, but that isn't the same thing as obtaining the best estimates from the empirical data. In the case of the instrumental record, greenhouse gas radiative forcing, human aerosol radiative forcing and solar irradiance are all correlated over this period; so it is relatively easy to overestimate greenhouse gas forcing and over/under estimates other forms of radiative forcing that are correlated with it and still get temperature runs that appear consistent with the empirical data. As a result, the resulting estimates cannot be considered unbiased (in the statistics sense).

Edit: I'll give a simple analogy for the less scientifically/mathematically inclined. Suppose that you have a mouse and an elephant on a scale and that a priori you believe that both animals weight 2000 +/- 10 kg. If your belief is true then both animals should weight 4000 +/- 20 kg. You then read the scale and find that the animals weight 3990 +/- 10 kg. Does this confirm your belief? Or perhaps the elephant weights much more than the mouse even though the hypothesis that both animals weight 2000 +/- 10 kg seems to be consistent with the data.

- One problem with using one set of climate computer models to estimate a parameter and determine it's uncertainty is that there are a large number of a priori assumptions that go into the construction of computer models, and the uncertainty of these assumptions is not taken into account in the estimation of the uncertainty of the parameter. As a result the uncertainty is underestimated because the specification error of the computer model is not being taken into account.

- With respect to CMIP5 in particular, CMIP5 computer models consistently give climate sensitivity estimates that are in contradiction with the empirical data. The median estimate of ECS using CMIP5 computer models is 3.2 C (and as I explained in the other thread, the empirical data excludes ECS values greater than 3 at the 95% confidence level). If CMIP5 isn't good enough to be the 'best estimate' of ECS in AR5, why are you convinced that it is good enough to be a 'best estimate' of the percentage of warming since 1950 due to human activity? CMIP5 models are greatly criticized in the climate science community, but of course conveniently give the ideologues in the IPCC the conclusions they want, so are used.

- CMIP5 has 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063239/abstract

That's far more than the increase in solar insolation since the Mauder Minimum. Yet you expect me to believe that CMIP5 is supposed to be reliable in determining how much warming since 1950 was due to changes in solar irradiance? CMIP5 models are nonsense and conclusions made from CMIP5 are nonsense.

Edited June 20, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Edit: I'll give a simple analogy for the less scientifically/mathematically inclined. Suppose that you have a mouse and an elephant on a scale and that a priori you believe that both animals weight 2000 +/- 10 kg. If your belief is true then both animals should weight 4000 +/- 20 kg. You then read the scale and find that the animals weight 3990 +/- 10 kg. Does this confirm your belief? Or perhaps the elephant weights much more than the mouse even though the hypothesis that both animals weight 2000 +/- 10 kg seems to be consistent with the data.

Actually, the above analogy could be improved a bit since only 1 linearly independent observation won't allow you to obtain a best estimate for the weights of elephants and mice. Suppose instead there are two observations, the first is the weight of 3000 elephants and 3000 mice and the second is the weight of 3000 elephants and 3001 mice. According to the a priori belief one would expect the first weight to be 12000000 +/- 60000 kg and the second weight to be 12002000 +/- 60010 kg. The first observation is 12000000.00 kg and the second observation is 12000000.04 kg. It would appear that the a priori assumptions are consistent with the data. However, that doesn't mean that these are your best estimates of the elephants and mice. These observations suggest that the best estimate for the weight of a mouse is 0.04 kg and the best estimate for the weight of an elephant is 3999.96 kg.

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, let's look how your beloved CMIP5 fairs in your beloved AR5. Here is figure 10.1 from AR5.

Part A shows a clear discrepancy between the model/predictions and the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming. The difference is large enough to arguably falsify the models.

Part C is even worse. It shows the complete failure for the computer models to reproduce the instrumental record, particularly post 1970. Guess what happened after 1970? The correlation between human aerosols and greenhouse gas forcing broke down and started to diverge. Look at what your beloved CMIP5 is doing; it is greatly overestimating temperature changes post 1970!

Obviously, CMIP5 simultaneously overestimates the effect of aerosols and greenhouse gasses.

Maybe I need to dumb it down a bit. In part C, the red line is your wonderful computer model with median ECS of 3.2 C. The black line is reality. But you and Gavin Schmidt would have me believe that CMIP5 is a good way to obtain post 1950 warming due to anthropogenic factors?

Edit: Sorry I was tired and misread the caption of Figure 10.1. Part C consists only of temperature changes due to greenhouse gases. The fact that there is a discrepancy between the recent slowdown and warming and the expectations of CMIP5 as shown by part A still stands.

Edited June 20, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I found more interesting nonsense in AR5.

"As discussed in Section 11.3.6.2, the RCP scenarios assume nounderlying trend in total solar irradiance and no future volcanic

eruptions."

Wow, really? I knew RCP had problems, but not this. Given that TSI is expected to decrease and volcanic aerosols have a cooling affect, these assumptions conveniently help the alarmist cause in making the RCP scenarios overestimate future warming even more.

Edited June 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

There are number of issues with this sentence and how you are trying to use it.

1. As far as I know, this 'best estimate' does not exist in AR5

and yet... you re-quote that IPCC attribution statement where the words "best estimate" are used - go figure! "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period"... implying that the best estimates of net natural forcings and internal variability are close to zero as summarily represented/supported by the graphic I provided per Figure 10.5 of IPCC AR5 WG1 10.3. --- "GHGs contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C"

so... this is you, once again, not providing your alternate counter to that figure... inclusive of the effect of your claim of delayed solar impacting upon that attribution period and not being properly assessed by the IPCC.

.

Peer review has numerous issues that would take too long to get into now. Some terrible papers pass peer review (example: Christopher Monckton papers), some good papers do not. What matters is the quality of the content of the paper and the science in it, peer-review or not. But I don't expect you to understand this since you only care about using appeal to authority to use conclusions in papers to dogmatically justify your pre-determined conclusions.

which is why I used the words peer-response... you know, the words that appear in the quote you put up of mine and are replying to with this, more of your purposeful misrepresentation of what I've stated. Hey now! Watch yourself... there's a prowling moderator here who really jumps on what "he interprets as misrepresentation of another member's writing... whether he knows anything about the subject matter or not"! Again, my stated emphasis was to imply that paper/study had yet to receive any formal peer response... which dovetailed with the author's own caveat attachment within his formal statement on his own paper. Talk about YOUR pre-determined conclusions!

.

My understanding of climate sensitivity is based upon empirical evidence (both instrumental and paleoclimate). In the literature, there is a discrepancy in climate sensitivity estimates between estimates that use empirical data and most climate models; this leads to the question of why. Given that the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing changes during the instrumental period comes from anthropogenic aerosols, some people have speculated that one reason is that people are overestimating aerosol forcing, which results in overestimating climate sensitivity since anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are strongly positively correlated over the instrumental period; people were speculating about this long before the Bjorn Stevens paper. Furthermore, in AR5 the IPCC dropped their estimates of aerosol forcing relative to AR4 (which again came well before the Bjorn Stevens paper; the concept that past estimates of aerosol forcing were overestimated is not new).

oh... what's this? Doesn't this belong in your "sensitivity bible thread"? Why do you insist upon derailing this thread further... in spite of me repeatedly suggesting you resurrect your bible thread? Again, to this point, research on aerosols remains one of the most focused areas of attention; and yes, AR4-to-AR5 resulted in the magnitude of the AR5 aerosol forcing being reduced relative to AR4. Which has nothing to do with how some chose to take the findings and apply/leverage them... you know, like you did. Here, let me again reacquaint you with the author's own formal statement... that you simply choose to negate/ignore, in spite of the author's own cautionary words! That's you, that's your rush to judgement, that's you applying the study/paper to YOUR pre-determined conclusions.

.

If you read the thread on climate sensitivity

you're in the wrong thread

.

So are you saying that Nic Lewis is a 'denier'?

oh my! Is this you appealing to authority? Geezaz, I thought you were down on that! I could say more about how you're misrepresenting what I wrote, but hey... I'll just use your own words as a qualification: "Nic Lewis still makes important contributions, even if his methodology or data set results in an underestimate of climate sensitivity." Your words!

.

Thank you for finally providing the link to the source of your claims so that I can see the methodology. As far as I can tell they are starting the forcing data at least by 1860 (probably earlier) and are including solar, so my previous suspicions were false.

cause I only identified the figure as "Figure 10.5 of IPCC AR5 WG1 10.3" a brazillion times! Cause you've never had occasion to look at any IPCC report before, hey! As if you don't know how to infer what AR5 WG1 10.3 means and how to find it! But hey, good on ya... "your previous suspicions were false"! Good on ya, mate.

.

CMIP5 models are greatly criticized in the climate science community, but of course conveniently give the ideologues in the IPCC the conclusions they want, so are used.

"IPCC... ideologues". Oh my! Thanks for coming out! The report section speaks for itself... inclusive of supporting detail and study references... inclusive of some identified inconsistencies between models and observations. But, of course, in support of your ideology, you choose to make a most broad-based summation in your most zealous dismissive manner.

.

[waldo]

Also, let's look how your beloved CMIP5 fairs in your beloved AR5. Here is figure 10.1 from AR5. [waldo: my "beloved"! You're losing it - time for you to get a grip!]

Part A shows a clear discrepancy between the model/predictions and the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming. The difference is large enough to arguably falsify the models. [waldo: notwithstanding the scale of the graphic, that's the model multi-modal mean... observation data is still within the range of overall simulations. Of course, you'd have to know just how the respective models have been set/utilized... but why let details get in the way of your broad brush! And... it's also HadCrut4. Since you're an acknowledged adopter of proper station accountability and the Cowtan/Way kriging methodology applied to HadCrut4, care to speak to that same 'gap' when compared to HadCrut4 krig or the Cowtan/Way hybrid results? Then again, you're attempting to discount the entire attribution period, 1950-2010... based upon 5 years of that period being within the so-called "pause period" and a reduced rate of warming. Oh my! More of your purposeful misrepresentation, hey!]

Part C is even worse. It shows the complete failure for the computer models to reproduce the instrumental record, particularly post 1970. Guess what happened after 1970? The correlation between human aerosols and greenhouse gas forcing broke down and started to diverge. Look at what your beloved CMIP5 is doing; it is greatly overestimating temperature changes post 1970! [waldo: oh my! You should actually read captions... that's greenhouse gas GHG forcing only! Doesn't include natural forcings... doesn't even include all anthropogenic forcings. Nice try... what, more of your purposeful misrepresentation? Yet more?]

Obviously, CMIP5 simultaneously overestimates the effect of aerosols and greenhouse gasses. [waldo: and you're basing that upon the above? Oh my!]

Maybe I need to dumb it down a bit. In part C, the red line is your wonderful computer model with median ECS of 3.2 C. The black line is reality. [waldo: uhhh... apparently, you dumbed it down just enough for your own misunderstanding and misrepresentation! Well done.]

.

[waldo]

I found more interesting nonsense in AR5.

"As discussed in Section 11.3.6.2, the RCP scenarios assume nounderlying trend in total solar irradiance and no future volcanic

eruptions."

Wow, really? I knew RCP had problems, but not this. Given that TSI is expected to increase and volcanic aerosols have a cooling affect, these assumptions conveniently help the alarmist cause in making the RCP scenarios overestimate future warming even more.

chasing your purposeful misrepresentation is becoming a tad monotonous!

speaking only to 'near-term temperature... before 2035'..... is there a pre-event "fudge-factor" you feel appropriate to use for major volcanic eruptions (and the related cooling that only lasts for a few years... whereupon temperature recovers)? The statement following explicitly declares, with high confidence, that an increase in TSI will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentration (per IPCC AR5 WG1 11 - Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability):

Projected Changes in Near-term Temperature --- The projected change in global mean surface air temperature will likely be in the range 0.3 to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This projection is valid for the four RCP scenarios and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance before 2035.

A future volcanic eruption similar to the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo would cause a rapid drop in global mean surface air temperature of several tenths °C in the following year, with recovery over the next few years. Possible future changes in solar irradiance could influence the rate at which global mean surface air temperature increases, but there is high confidence that this influence will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere

but hey now! Here's a thought: if you're claiming the RCP scenarios are set to not capture an increase in TSI... how is that, as you say, "overestimating future warming"... uhhh... by not including a greater warming influence associated with solar forcing?

[-1=e^ipi]

and yet... you re-quote that IPCC attribution statement where the words "best estimate" are used - go figure!

And the best estimate still doesn't exist, just like the AR5 best estimate for ECS doesn't exist. If it does exist then it must have a median value and a 95% confidence interval, so please provide me with the median value of the estimate and its 95% confidence interval.

"GHGs contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C"

Again, all based on CMIP5, which are inconsistent with the empirical data, overestimate climate sensitivity and have 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation.

so... this is you, once again, not providing your alternate counter to that figure... inclusive of the effect of your claim of delayed solar impacting upon that attribution period and not being properly assessed by the IPCC.

I suspected that solar irradiance changes prior to 1950 might have not been properly taken into account based on the very limited information you provided earlier. Since I have seen the methodology, I retracted my previous claims. That said, given that the CMIP5 models are strongly subject to specification error, did not adequately predict recent temperature changes and have 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations, I don't consider them a reliable tool to answer the question of how much warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

oh... what's this? Doesn't this belong in your "sensitivity bible thread"? Why do you insist upon derailing this thread further.

It's related. If a computer model gives biased estimates of climate sensitivity, then chances are it will give biased estimates of how much recent warming is anthropogenic. A set of computer models with median ECS of 3.2 C cannot be considered representative of our best understanding of climate when that is even higher than the 'best estimate' of ECS provided in AR4 (and in AR5 the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was reduced).

in spite of the author's own cautionary words!

Either you don't understand the context of Bjorn Stevens' statement or you do but you are purposely misrepresenting it because it is convenient for your dogma. Bjorn Stevens published a paper and Nic Lewis used the updated estimates to update his estimates from his 2014 paper with Judith Curry. He found that his estimate of ECS was nearly 12% lower due to the updated forcing estimates relative to AR5 estimates. Conservative outlets and deniers then took the updated estimates by Nic Lewis as evidence to somehow discredit AGW. I.e. the deniers were misrepresenting both Bjorn Stevens and Nic Lewis. Bjorn Stevens then felt it was necessary to respond to this misinterpretation of his findings especially given that he was getting emails from the general public who were taking the false claims by the conservative outlets at face value.

I could say more about how you're misrepresenting what I wrote, but hey...

I see you are avoiding the question (as well as many others). Do you consider Nic Lewis a denier? Yes or no? Certainly he has been called a denier many times.

"Nic Lewis still makes important contributions, even if his methodology or data set results in an underestimate of climate sensitivity." Your words!

Yes, and that isn't calling Nic Lewis a denier. One of the reasons for the discrepancy in climate sensitivity estimates is the fact that the definition of ECS tends to vary somewhat from study to study. In the case of Nic Lewis' radiative forcing calculation, his ECS definition is probably lower than more traditional definitions of ECS. Bjorn Stevens had said the same thing and Nic Lewis does not deny this claim. Using a methodology that uses a slightly different definition of ECS that causes and underestimation of ECS doesn't make you a denier.

cause I only identified the figure as "Figure 10.5 of IPCC AR5 WG1 10.3" a brazillion times! Cause you've never had occasion to look at any IPCC report before, hey! As if you don't know how to infer what AR5 WG1 10.3 means and how to find it! But hey, good on ya... "your previous suspicions were false"! Good on ya, mate.

Generally the burden is suppose to be on the person making the claims to provide the supporting evidence or methodology or whatever that result in those claims. But with you, I've gotten used to your refusal to provide evidence or care about the methodology behind an estimate. I was hoping you would provide a link to the exact part of AR5 that contains an explanation of the methodology, or better yet copy the exact paragraphs and paste them into the thread. But 'here's the entire AR5, I'm too scientific illiterate to find it so go find it yourself' was as good as I could get.

"IPCC... ideologues". Oh my! Thanks for coming out!

Yes. For example, the former UN IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri who claims that environmentalism is his religion and dharma.

But, of course, in support of your ideology, you choose to make a most broad-based summation in your most zealous dismissive manner.

What ideology is that?

you choose to make a most broad-based summation in your most zealous dismissive manner.

I reject CMIP5 results as being reliable to obtain percentage of warming since 1950 due to human activity. Is this what you mean by broad-based and dismissive?

Edited June 20, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

[waldo: notwithstanding the scale of the graphic, that's the model multi-modal mean... observation data is still within the range of overall simulations. Of course, you'd have to know just how the respective models have been set/utilized... but why let details get in the way of your broad brush! And... it's also HadCrut4.

I'm pretty sure that the recent empirical data (even using Cowtan and Way) has gone well outside of the 95% confidence interval of the CMIP3 predictions that used data ending in 2000. A 5% significant level is the most common significance level in science to test hypotheses.

As for 'being in the range of overall simulations', if that were your criteria then you wouldn't be able to falsify climate models since you could just make the number of simulations to be arbitrarily large to get an arbitrarily large range. And if you can't allow for the possibility to falsify the models, then you aren't following the scientific method.

With respect to CMIP5, there is a discrepancy, although I don't think that there has been sufficient time for the projections to be falsified since it is newer. Of course, by the time enough time has passed to potentially falsify CMIP5, CMIP6 or 7 will be out.

Since you're an acknowledged adopter of proper station accountability and the Cowtan/Way kriging methodology applied to HadCrut4, care to speak to that same 'gap' when compared to HadCrut4 krig or the Cowtan/Way hybrid results?

Coverage bias in HadCRUT4 explains some but not all of the discrepancy between CIMP3/5 projections and the instrumental record.

oh my! You should actually read captions... that's greenhouse gas GHG forcing only! Doesn't include natural forcings... doesn't even include all anthropogenic forcings.

I was tired and made a mistake. I apologize and thank you for pointing that out. I retract my earlier claims with respect to part C of AR5 Figure 10.1.

See, I can admit when I am wrong or make a mistake. Too bad you can't do the same.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's too bad you are ignoring the issue of 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation for CMIP5 models. Because I think it's a major nail in the coffin of the reliability of CMIP5 models.

is there a pre-event "fudge-factor" you feel appropriate to use for major volcanic eruptions (and the related cooling that only lasts for a few years... whereupon temperature recovers)?

- Estimate the probability distribution function of volcanic eruptions using empirical data (an assumption of log-log linearity between the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) and frequency seems reasonable).

- Use the estimated PDF to perform Monte-Carlo simulations using the computer model and the estimates of future radiative forcing (you could also vary this based on the uncertainty in the Monte-Carlo simulation) to obtain estimates of future warming that takes the probability of future volcanism into account.

Is that so hard?

But I guess pretending volcanism just stops advances the alarmist cause more.

The statement following explicitly declares, with high confidence, that an increase in TSI will be small in comparison to the influence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentration

Oh, it is small in comparison. But that doesn't mean you should ignore it. You can predict future changes in solar irradiance by taking the fourier transform of past changes and maybe applying Akaike's Information Criterion to select the best sinusoidal model.

Projected Changes in Near-term Temperature --- The projected change in global mean surface air temperature will likely be in the range 0.3 to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This projection is valid for the four RCP scenarios and assumes there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes in total solar irradiance before 2035.

Yes and longer term projections pretend that volcanism and changes in solar irradiance are zero after 2035 as well.

but hey now! Here's a thought: if you're claiming the RCP scenarios are set to not capture an increase in TSI... how is that, as you say, "overestimating future warming"... uhhh... by not including a greater warming influence associated with solar forcing?

Solar Irradiance peaked around 1958 and has roughly stabilized (though has been gradually decreasing). It will continue to decrease (probably more rapidly) over the coming decades. This is based upon fourier analysis of the empirical data (including radio-nucleotide Holocene reconstructions).

Edited June 21, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm pretty sure that the recent empirical data (even using Cowtan and Way) has gone well outside of the 95% confidence interval of the CMIP3 predictions that used data ending in 2000. A 5% significant level is the most common significance level in science to test hypotheses.

As for empirical data going outside the 95% confidence interval CMIP5, here is Figure 11.9 of AR5:

And that is using RCP 4.5. And here I thought that RCP 8.5 was suppose to be representative of the 'business as usual' emission scenario according to the alarmists. I guess they must have chosen to go with RCP 4.5 because RCP 6.0 and 8.5 failed them too strongly.

Here's what happens when you include other RCPS:

Yep. Outside of the 95% confidence interval.

[Keepitsimple]

I was tired and made a mistake. I apologize and thank you for pointing that out. I retract my earlier claims with respect to part C of AR5 Figure 10.1.

See, I can admit when I am wrong or make a mistake. Too bad you can't do the same.

That's the sad part of the "Waldo" caricature - a complete lack of humility and egotism that verges on nastiness.

[waldo]

- CMIP5 has 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063239/abstract

That's far more than the increase in solar insolation since the Mauder Minimum. Yet you expect me to believe that

CMIP5 is supposed to be reliable in determining how much warming since 1950 was due to changes in solar

irradiance? CMIP5 models are nonsense and conclusions made from CMIP5 are nonsense.

... sensitivity and have 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation.

...changes and have 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations

It's too bad you are ignoring the issue of 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation for CMIP5 models. Because I think it's a major nail in the coffin of the reliability of CMIP5 models.

clearly you want me to bite on something... if only you could rise above your teaser nuggets and actually "say what you mean... and mean what you say"! Oh wait... are you just itching to display some math wizardry here, or what?

.

Edited June 23, 2015 by waldo

[waldo]

Part C is even worse. It shows the complete failure for the computer models to reproduce the instrumental record, particularly post 1970. Guess what happened after 1970? The correlation between human aerosols and greenhouse gas forcing broke down and started to diverge. Look at what your beloved CMIP5 is doing; it is greatly overestimating temperature changes post 1970!

Obviously, CMIP5 simultaneously overestimates the effect of aerosols and greenhouse gasses.

Maybe I need to dumb it down a bit. In part C, the red line is your wonderful computer model with median ECS of 3.2 C.

The black line is reality.

I was tired and made a mistake. I apologize and thank you for pointing that out. I retract my earlier claims with respect

to part C of AR5 Figure 10.1.

See, I can admit when I am wrong or make a mistake. Too bad you can't do the same.

That's the sad part of the "Waldo" caricature - a complete lack of humility and egotism that verges on nastiness.

Above, I've made a point to include just what you're now retracting... stuff gets lost in the flow, hey! When you've been caught in your past porkies, you pulled out your previous ready-go-to excuse... something along the lines of claiming you'd been mugged and your "faculties" were impaired... I thought this one might have similarly been related; good to read it's only 'you being tired'!

hey Simple! Nice drive-by... way to contribute to the thread. Go with your strengths... but hey now, I acknowledge your release mechanism and recognize you need an outlet to deal with all the waldoWhoopin's you've taken! Be well.

.

[waldo]

Given that TSI is expected to increase and volcanic aerosols have a cooling affect, these assumptions conveniently help the alarmist cause in making the RCP scenarios overestimate future warming even more.

but hey now! Here's a thought: if you're claiming the RCP scenarios are set to not capture an increase in TSI... how is that, as you say, "overestimating future warming"... uhhh... by not including a greater warming influence associated with solar forcing?

Solar Irradiance peaked around 1958 and has roughly stabilized (though has been gradually decreasing). It will continue to decrease (probably more rapidly) over the coming decades.

wow! Make up your mind, hey! To support your bluster on RCP, first you say it's increasing... then when I highlight your nonsense, you turn around and say its decreasing without even acknowledging/retracting your bluster. Nice... is this one cause you're tired or will you revert back to your mugging trauma?

.