waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) And the best estimate still 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. the link to the IPCC AR5 WG1 report has already been provided; per 10.2 & 10.3 (Figure 10.4): - "So-called ‘fingerprint’ detection and attribution studies characterize their results in terms of a best estimate and uncertainty range for ‘scaling factors’ by which the model-simulated responses to individual forcings can be scaled up or scaled down while still remaining consistent with the observations, accounting for similarities between the patterns of response to different forcings and uncertainty due to internal climate variability" - Coloured bars show best estimates of the attributable trends (a and c ) and 5 to 95% confidence ranges of scaling factors ( b and d). Vertical dashed lines in (a) and ( c) show the best estimate HadCRUT4 observed trend over the period concerned. Vertical dotted lines in ( b and d) denote a scaling factor of unity. you're welcome Edited June 23, 2015 by waldo Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 actually "say what you mean... and mean what you say"! You don't understand what I mean by 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations nor the basics of the paper I linked to? I guess I can dumb things down for the less scientifically literate. CMIP5 computer models have to use the angle of the sun in order to calculate the solar insolation (i.e. amount of direct sunlight in W/m^2) of a specific location on Earth. Due to sampling error, sometimes two places at the same latitude but different longitude will be calculated to have different levels of solar insolation (i.e. zonal oscillations). The extra variation in solar insolation due to this error can be as high as 30 W/m^2, which is much higher than the increase in solar irradiance since the Mauder Minimum (TSI increased by ~1.4 W/m^2 from Mauder minimum to the 1950's, but you should divide by ~4pi to get ~0.1 W/m^2 of solar insolation change). Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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. BS! "Limited information"... I provided the linked references to the appropriate report chapter and figure. You obviously know how to find things within IPCC reports, yet somehow your blusterbus routine kept you too busy from actually looking at the references? Really? Of course, your so-called one-liner retraction pales in comparison to the ongoing repeated references you made to "delayed solar"... over and over and over again! of course, the true testament to your claimed retraction would be for you to actually state what within those references soliticited your weasely retraction! Are you sure it wasn't my junkyard dog act pressing you to actually provide a temperature equivalent to your presumed "delayed solar"... that had nothing to do with it, hey! Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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. "chances are" ... oh my! Do you have a median value and a 95% confidence interval for that? (/snarc) Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 wow! Make up your mind, hey! The first one should say expected to decrease, not increase. Sorry, I made a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. I have corrected it. Nice... is this one cause you're tired or will you revert back to your mugging trauma? I'm still affected by that. One of my symptoms is a higher rate of typos. Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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 I'm mispresenting nothing! The statement, as I've said several times now, was a response to how the denialsphere and the right-wing schlock media falsely portrayed the Stevens' findings... as did you yourself in how you flogged the Lewis study/findings to make your case for a low(er) climate sensitivity. Of course, my getting you to finally provide that statement reflective of the Lewis paper/findings... that was just gravy! In lieu of that/your statement, I'm not quite sure what sense it makes for you to continue to speak to that Lewis study/findings, hey! Again, your words: "Nic Lewis still makes important contributions, even if his methodology or data set results in an underestimate of climate sensitivity" Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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. that's right... I ignored your strawman question... as I will again ignore that same exact question you once again strawman here in this quote. I thought you were the StrawmanPolice here - wassup!. Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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. you're in the wrong thread... please resurrect your 'bible sensitivity thread' for a distraction like this. . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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. no - why are you purposely misrepresenting what I've provided, what I've written? I provided the exact report, chapter and figure references. Your weasel routine is to pretend you don't know how to find an IPCC report and draw inference to the respective chapter and figure references provided. Of course, you're the guy who makes brazillions of unsupported and unsubstantiated statements... you know, you provide your unsupported, unsubstantiated personal opinions and view them as gospel. Of course, it's easy for a "fake skeptic" like you to make a statement... it typically takes an investment in time to flush out your BS! . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 Yes. For example, the former UN IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri who claims that environmentalism is his religion and dharma. whaaa! Yet more of your weasel routine? You provided a broad brush characterization of IPCC ideologues... all within the context of discussions around the physical science basis... that's you characterizing scientists involved in the IPCC report methodology as ideologues. Don't weasel out now - be loud and proud of your broad brush characterization! . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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? yet more, more of your purposeful misrepresentation of what I wrote! Geezaz, I trust the prowling moderator won't chastise you for misrepresenting the writings of another member! Of course, my comment that you're quoting and replying to was in regards to your "IPCC ideologues" summary characterization. Why would you take it out of context? as for this quoted reply of yours, who cares! It's certainly your prerogative to provide another means, an alternate means, to determine attribution across that 1950-2010 period. Of course, I've been challenging you to do so throughout this thread... you know, partiularly in regards to your "delayed solar" ramblings. . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 I'm pretty sure... I don't think... oh my! Your personal opinion is noted. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 - "So-called ‘fingerprint’ detection and attribution studies characterize their results in terms of a best estimate and uncertainty range for ‘scaling factors’ by which the model-simulated responses to individual forcings can be scaled up or scaled down while still remaining consistent with the observations, accounting for similarities between the patterns of response to different forcings and uncertainty due to internal climate variability" And if the models are overestimating the effect of aerosols (and thus simultaneously the effect of greenhouse gases), then their models will be oversensitive and will overestimate the proportion of anthropogenic warming. Rescaling the model results to match observations will not change this proportion. Thus even after rescaling, the proportion of anthropogenic warming will be overestimated. You can see this oversensitivity even after rescaling in the difference between model and observations post 2000 (figure 10.1 a), and the large divergence between model predictions and observations (figure 11.9). Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 - 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. but uhhh... that cooling is short-lived... a couple of years or so... and then temperature recovers once the short-term volcanic aerosol effect diminishes. Of course, what I read is to suggest a qualification that assumes no "major/large" volcanic eruptions will occur. The qualification is explicity given. Equally, of course, if a major/large volcanic eruption were to occur within a projected period of time... an impact and temperature response change reflecting on that eruption could be determined - yes? Notwithstanding the already stated recovery, hey? . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 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. Yes and longer term projections pretend that volcanism and changes in solar irradiance are zero after 2035 as well not more of your porkies! More! Oh wait... just where are you now in your flip-flop routine about the increase... no make that the decrease... for projected solar irradiance? Which one are you aligning with here? It's not being ignored... the same rate of current solar irradiance is being used in projections: "that there will be no major volcanic eruptions or secular changes [at least 10 years duration] in total solar irradiance" Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 BS! "Limited information"... I provided the linked references to the appropriate report chapter and figure. It's called only using the limited information provided in this thread and being too lazy to go to AR5 to verify your obscure claim (at least initially), when that burden should be on you. Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 You don't understand what I mean by 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations nor the basics of the paper I linked to? I guess I can dumb things down for the less scientifically literate. CMIP5 computer models have to use the angle of the sun in order to calculate the solar insolation (i.e. amount of direct sunlight in W/m^2) of a specific location on Earth. Due to sampling error, sometimes two places at the same latitude but different longitude will be calculated to have different levels of solar insolation (i.e. zonal oscillations). The extra variation in solar insolation due to this error can be as high as 30 W/m^2, which is much higher than the increase in solar irradiance since the Mauder Minimum (TSI increased by ~1.4 W/m^2 from Mauder minimum to the 1950's, but you should divide by ~4pi to get ~0.1 W/m^2 of solar insolation change). as I said, it takes an investment in time to flush out BS! You've made blatant, across-the-board, all encompassing reference to CMIP5 models and 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations. Of course, as it turns out, this was found in only 8 of 30 models... of those 8, the worst case was found in only one obscure model, with some of those 8 @ 24... and others @ 3... depending on the timestep being used. But don't let that stand in the way of your blusterbus! Of course, none of those 8 models are the profiled, mostly used models... but why let that get in the way of your blusterbus! Equally, per the paper author's own statement, this has no affect on the global temperature estimates... did you actually read the paper you're blustering about? More pointedly, for those 8 models it had no effect on any trends. Most pointedly, the affect averaged out and only has consideration for regional impacts... do you know of any CMIP5 models being used for regional weather observations? I kid, I kid! Geezaz, you sure went a long way to attempt to denigrate the models, hey! as for your stated, "dumbing things down", I suggest you concentrate on your "dumbness"! . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 And if the models are overestimating the effect of aerosols (and thus simultaneously the effect of greenhouse gases), then their models will be oversensitive and will overestimate the proportion of anthropogenic warming. Rescaling the model results to match observations will not change this proportion. Thus even after rescaling, the proportion of anthropogenic warming will be overestimated. You can see this oversensitivity even after rescaling in the difference between model and observations post 2000 (figure 10.1 a), and the large divergence between model predictions and observations (figure 11.9). and if? Is that what you said? Again, research in aerosols is one of the more focused areas of attention at this time; at this stage there is no consensus on that effect. But don't let that stand in the way of your preferred pre-determinations, hey! . Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) It's called only using the limited information provided in this thread and being too lazy to go to AR5 to verify your obscure claim (at least initially), when that burden should be on you. good on you for acknowledging your laziness! But again, don't forget the main kicker you're so blatantly ignoring here. Again, if your so-called retraction has any legs, you will state what within that reference that I provided (that you were too lazy to pursue) prompted your retraction. Again, your "one liner, few words" retraction that gets buried in the reams of improper statements you made over "delayed solar", over and over and over again! . Edited June 23, 2015 by waldo Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 but uhhh... that cooling is short-lived... a couple of years or so... and then temperature recovers once the short-term volcanic aerosol effect diminishes. Of course, what I read is to suggest a qualification that assumes no "major/large" volcanic eruptions will occur. The qualification is explicity given. Equally, of course, if a major/large volcanic eruption were to occur within a projected period of time... an impact and temperature response change reflecting on that eruption could be determined - yes? Notwithstanding the already stated recovery, hey? Whether an estimate is unbiased or not has a clear mathematical definition; the expected value of the parameter is equal to the estimate of the parameter. In the case of volcanic aerosols, the expected effect on temperatures is negative, thus excluding the expected effect of volcanic aerosols from an estimate means that the estimate is omitting a negative expected value, so it will overestimate future warming and the estimate does not satisfy the definition of being unbiased. I'll even try to quantify this for you. Mean aerosol optical thickness at 550 nm from 1850-2012 is ~0.0127 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/). Due to Pinutubo, there was a global cooling of ~ 0.5 C from 1991-1993 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo). The mean aerosol optical thickness for 1991-1993 was 0.0747. Given that equilibrium temperature change is roughly a linear function of aerosol optical depth, this suggests that the expected cooling due to volcanic eruptions should be ~0.085 C. So the assumption that volcanic activity will cease results in overestimating future temperature by ~0.085 C. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) It's not being ignored. The fact that solar irradiance will decrease is being ignored, yes. the same rate of current solar irradiance is being used in projections Yes, and this assumption is dumb. Edit: I'll try to quantify the magnitude of ignoring this effect for you. The difference in TSI from the Mauder Minimum to the 2013 is ~1.3 W/m^2. If we divide this by 4pi to average chance in solar insolation and use a sensitivity of 0.75 K/W*m^2 (the sensitivity value that Hansen seems to love; I strongly disagree with it, but you seem to like Hansen and you need sensitivities this high to get the high ECS estimates of the climate models) then this gives a temperature difference of up to 0.078 C. I will also point out that Mann et al. reconstructed temperatures (the ones that TimG doesn't like) suggest that the Medieval Warm period - Little Ice Age global temperature difference was ~0.2 C. Edited June 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 So the assumption that volcanic activity will cease results in overestimating future temperature by ~0.085 C. no such assumption is being made; again, the distinction over "major/large" Quote
waldo Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 The fact that solar irradiance will decrease is being ignored, yes. Yes, and this assumption is dumb. says you, the guy who hung his hat on "delayed solar"! Hey now, weren't you the guy who, just a few posts back, acknowledged that in relation to GHG increases, any presumptive estimate on solar impact is insignificant. Ride that insignificant wave of yours, hey! Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 23, 2015 Report Posted June 23, 2015 as I said, it takes an investment in time to flush out BS! You've made blatant, across-the-board, all encompassing reference to CMIP5 models and 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations. per the paper author's own statement, this has no affect on the global temperature estimates.. I never claimed that 30 W/m^2 oscillations in solar insolation would bias estimates of temperature changes (which wouldn't make sense given you just have oscillations, which have an expected value of zero). My claim was that it makes the estimates and the results from CMIP5 models less reliable. But if you purposely wish to confuse claims about something biasing an estimate with claims about an estimate being less reliable then that is your choice. Quote
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.