Alaska Public Media reports that Alaska Senator and Republican Lisa Murkowski, while speaking at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention, broke with the anti-Science Trump/Republican position on climate change. Specifically, she said:
“Climate change is real,” Murkowski told the audience firmly. “Climate change is real.”
…
“While healthcare has been the issue that has been dominating our days, it isn’t the issue that is defining our time,” Murkowski said. “Our world is changing. The world around us is changing: socially, economically, and ecologically. And we all know that climate change is at the heart of this change.”
Murkoswki said effects are being felt across the state: “Newtok, Kivalina, Shishmaref: these are the names that seem to most make the news,” she said. “But it’s also our Interior communities as well. Almost every village faces similar impact. ”
And, Murkowski said it’s time to take action. …
“Confronting climate change and adapting to it will take leadership, it will take partnership and attention to social justice if we are to find the strength to tackle the issue together,” Murkowski said.
Now, before you get all weepy-eyed about how we can form a coalition across party lines to address climate change, forget that right now. The majority of Republicans are in the pocket of the energy companies, and will continue to oppose action on climate change. The very large, vast majority of them. As long as the Republicans are in charge in either house of the US Congress, or in any legislative chamber in state, action will be opposed in those states because that is how the caucus system works.
Murkowski’s talk about climate change is impotent and irrelevant. Unless….
Unless one thing happens. One decision she can make to change the world, in a huge way. One thing.
Any guesses as to what that might be? If you think of it, let us know in the comments, but also, seriously consider sending her a letter encouraging her to take this action.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
The one thing she could do is to switch parties, and cite climate change as the primary reason.
There you go. Or, she could even stay in her party or become Indy, but officially caucus with the Dems. The key thing is the caucus.
Here I thought you’d have something interesting. How does switching to Democrat change anything, other than on a whole bunch of political issues unrelated to global warming that just happen to fit your politics? You would be back to square one with Republicans are 100% anti-science.
I wonder if she will carry forward this stance to oppose drilling in ANWR.
It might be safer to say that the majority of Republicans prefer to hold to things that are blatantly false (no climate change, clean energy is not sustainable and receives more government support than fossil fuels, more guns means more safety, crime rates are on the rise, we are over-taxed, illegal immigration is a massive issue, etc….) over accepting messages from science and the world around them that they don’t like (climate change is real, fossil fuels are ‘cheap’ only because of the support it receives from governments, increases in # of guns corresponds with increases in crime, crime rates in general have been decreasing, taxes are at record low levels, there is no massive immigration problem, and so on).
I seriously doubt that very many Republicans don’t accept that the climate changes. I suspect that many Republicans actually accept that the Earth has warmed about 1C from the pre-industrial era. The question is how much of that warming is caused by humans and how much would have occurred naturally in the absence of humans. Did all of the warming since the LIA happen only because of human emitted CO2 or methane or land use changes, etc.?
I happen to believe that some portion of it was natural, and that not all of the 1C of warming can be laid at the feet of humans.
I just have a hard time believing that the cooling from the MWP to the LIA wasn’t natural, and I have a hard time believing that at least some of the warming from the LIA to today didn’t occur naturally. Not everything natural cancels out over a couple of decades, some things take centuries to occur (either cooling or warming).
Even if just 25% of the warming since the LIA (the 1C) was natural, that changes ECS and TCR.
So it may not be as black and white as you make it out to be.
By the way, I do definitetly think that 100 renewable is not sustainable. I don’t think more guns means more safety, but I do think that the 2nd amendment prevents banning guns, I accept that crime rates have dropped since the 1970’s, I do think all the people that actually do pay Federal income taxes (about 53% of filers) are overtaxed, and that the Federal government should spend less so it can tax less, and I do think illegal immigration is an issue (I am not in favor of just letting anybody hop over the wall or cross the border whenever they want).
RickA, you may be right about the Republicans. But after decades of denial, guesses that they are no longer in denial are off limits. They have to come out and say it. More importantly, they have to take action as though it was true.
Most of them, though, probably have a totally wrong opinion about climate change much like yours!
You are denying the science rickA. Thanks for making the point.
Indeed and this is where we can find an answer to this statement of yours:
if you study the work of William F Ruddiman
1 ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate’
2 ‘Earth’s Climate, Past and Future’
3 ‘Earth Transformed’
see also:
The Tyndall History of Global Warming Lecture GC43B
Now it has become well known that the human effect on warming is greater than 100%. That may sound counter intuitive but when all factors are considered that is the result.
dean says I am denying the science. But am I?
The IPCC says ECS is between 1.5C and 4.5C.
Personally, I think an ECS of 3C is not compatible with the warming which took place from 1750 to the 1930’s, when only 1/4 of the CO2 had been emitted. To me it is much more likely that some of the warming from 1750 to the 1930’s was natural and some caused by humans – but not 100% caused by humans.
I think it is much more likely that ECS is low, say 1.8C or so and that some of the warming is natural and some human caused.
Now I am not a scientist, so I have to wait for science to figure this out.
Science has not yet figure this out.
We still don’t know if ECS is 1.8 or 3 or 4.2 – just that it is probably in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C.
So you can believe ECS is high and all the warming is 100% caused by humans and I can believe ECS is low and some of the warming is caused by humans. The data do not rule out either possibility yet.
I cannot say science has proven you are wrong.
You cannot say science has proven I am wrong.
We are waiting for more data to decide who is correct.
So I do not accept that I am denying science (at least not yet).
As Lionel has pointed out above, and as you’ve been told numerous times in the past, the net natural forcing is negative, and there is a negative human component (aerosols) that masks the actual ‘greenhouse’ gas forcing.
You can keep denying these facts, but it won’t change their reality.
Sigh. We’ve poked at this numerous times before as well.
The planet has warmed about 1.2 K since the beginning of the Industrial revolution. CO₂ increased from 280 to 400 ppm in the same period. Assuming a simple logarithmic response one can calculate the approximate equilibrium climate sensitivity. One can show one’s assumptions to modify one’s result to account for the relative proportions of realised to in-train forcing in the system, and to account for aerosol masking, and to account for non-CO₂ ‘greenhouse’ gasses, and to account for the declining Milankovi? forcing in the modern era.
So, RickA, where’s your working to defend your assertion that ECS is not 3 K more more, but the implausibly low value that you prefer?
Oh, and paleoclimatology counts for something too. Where’s your evidence that refutes that discipline?
It can be done with a pencil and an envelope, using several different approaches. It can be derived through several independent disciplines. Science has a very good idea. But because you’re not a scientist you’re probably not able to grok that it’s not as unknown as you attempt to assert.
By the way, how’s your financial investment in the fossil fuel sector coming along?
Bernard:
When fossil fuel runs out we will be powered by nuclear and renewable. Probably about 70% nuclear and 30% renewable.
My investment in Royal Dutch (RDS.B) is up about 66% and meanwhile I have been earning a dividend that started at 9% and is still about 6% (now that the stock price is up). Thank you for asking.
Bernard:
It warmed .8C till 2014, than .2C during the 2015-16 el nino, for a total of 1.0C warming. Although depending on which graph you look at it could be 1.1C of warming (including the el nino). We are dropping from the el nino warming, subtracting from the 1 or 1.1C of warming (at least for part of this year).
Interestingly it warmed .4C from 1880 to 1941 ish, than dropped .1C by 1950 ish, than rose .6C.
What made it warm .4C from 1880 to 1941, when less than 1/3 of the CO2 was released during that interval?
If it was 100% humans and CO2, why didn’t it rise much more than .6 during the period when 2/3 of the CO2 were released? Something seems off about that (to me).
But it is ok with me if you interpret the data your way and I will interpret it my way.
Meanwhile, we can watch and observe and gather more data and hopefully obtain a better measurement of TCR, and from that estimate a better ECS. I look forward to that. Once we have hit 560 ppm, we can directly measure TCR and estimate ECS from the actual measurement of TCR. That will be a good year. I hope I live that long. I am very interested in what the results will be.
Yes, you fucking tool. And you’ve been enlightened as to why more than enough times for your persistence to be evidence of extreme bad faith.
Bit curious if you support WMDs RickA..
Most yanks all political stripes seem to support WMDs, and have for many decades
The science says they are an absolutly terrible thing.
Yanks are so pathetic its not even an election issue. So broad is the support…
By WMD do you mean a weapon of mass destruction? Like a nuke?
Sure – I support nukes. Both of the bomb variety and the power plant variety.
The British have nukes, the French have nukes, China has nukes, a bunch of countries have nukes. The countries that don’t have them want them (because all the other big countries have them).
You sound British (calling me a Yank) – so are you not a bit hypocritical.
Don’t the Brits have nukes?
Isn’t that a WMD?
Yeah, nukes are one type of WMD.
Pommies love em too.
Fuckin idiots poms are.
WMDs are bad.
Its extraordinary how many people dont understand WMDs are a bad thing.
A nuke is several orders of magnitude worse than say, a big oil spill from a crashed tanker.
Fuck the voters who dont understand science and support manufacture of WMDs decade after decade.
Truley amazing how dumb the yank population is.
Li D:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I don’t think you are going to be able to stuff that genie back into the bottle with wishing and kind thoughts.
Personally, I would rather have them than not have them.
Well thankyou for answering my question anyhow.
I urge you to rethink your support and examine the science concerning the effects of WMDs Theres rather alot of data….
“You cannot say science has proven I am wrong.”
As has been pointed out a huge number of times, it can be said that science has proven you wrong. Your position is no different from the approach a four year old would take by stuffing her fingers in her ears and saying ‘nuh-uh’. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn you were stomping a foot for emphasis when you typed your statement denying your demonstrated science denial.
We will see.
I think in 25 years you will look back and see you have egg on your face.
“I think ”
That phrase does not now and never has had a place in your comments about science.
Plenty of room for opinion when the science isn’t settled.
I bet there were plenty of people like you during the debate over plate tectonics.
“I think” is all over your posts – even though you pretend just because you believe it it has to be true.
Interesting deflection – conflating opinion on political issues with results from science that is settled.
“Believing it has to be true” is what folks who think unicorns exist, miracles happen, tax cuts result in economic growth, or that such a thing as a Laffer Curve is real engage in. Being convinced by data and repeated studies is acknowledging reality.
Climate deniers have got absolutly nothing except bias for brains.
Theres a complete inability to understand the very simple concept of consilience.
It should be very interesting to see who actually exhibits more confirmation bias, me or you and dean.
In a decade or two, I suspect that the range for ECS will be narrowed from 1.5 to 4.5 to something tighter.
That should break the logjam and the applecart will probably be upset.
I think (dean hates that) that the range will tighten to something like 1.5C to 3.2C, and the hot end will be eliminated.
That seems to be the trend for ECS (down).
But we will have to wait for the scientists to gather more data and write more papers.
I think a lot of the science you and dean take as truth will be shown to be wrong – but I guess only time will tell.,
The most likely value will be ~3C, which is where it is now and has been for some time. As has been explained to you countless times but you keep denying it. Which makes you a denier and a mendacious little shit (as has been pointed out before).
RickA, this range was narrowed to something tighter, to 2-4.5C, then it expanded again.
It has been at that range for over 30 years, I don’t see what another 30 years would accomplish.
BBD, there was no most likely value in the last IPCC report.
Sigh. You’ve been told enough times too. That happened because the EBM studies couldn’t be reconciled with the palaeo and modelled work. It is now understood that this is because the EBM stuff is biased low. The best estimate remains ~3C per doubling. As those of us who understand this shit are well aware. Those of us who either do not or will not and prefer instead to push a political peanut can fuck off.
Yes, I’m not in a fluffy, plays-well mood today. So keep the lying, misrepresentation, bullshit, counterfactuals, ignorance and general arse-wipe to yourself please.
Yes you have said it before. I remember you saying the number will likely go up, so I took your most likely value will be 3C to mean something else, and thus an error to say it is currently 3C. You give plausible reasons for why the number will increase, but they have not done so in the report.
I just explained why AR5 WG1 didn’t provide a most likely value. I said that since then it has been established that EBM estimates are biased low and therefore there’s no reason why the existing ~3C most likely value should change.
Based on the scientific evidence, it is more likely that the range will tighten to something like ~2.5 – 4C with the general view roughly unchanged: about 3C, give or take, per doubling. But we might get bitten by a combination of carbon cycle feedbacks and reduced negative aerosol forcing from coal as it is phased out.
Dean, I was under the impression that the number of guns has been increasing in America. Am I wrong about this?
Li, I’m not aware of any harmful effects of WMD, other than when they are used.
Not sure what this is in reference too, but the answer is sort of; it seems that fewer people are buying guns but the ones who are are buying more.
That doesn’t negate the data that shows more guns increases the risk to owners and those around them, and doesn’t contradict the decrease in crime rates.
You said more guns corresponds with more crime, and that it is a myth that crime is on the rise.
Sounds like a contradiction that you are now switching to more guns increases the risk to owners and those around them.
No contradiction at all. It’s the same idea that shows that overall unemployment can be decreasing while there are pockets where it increases. The general statistics describe overall trends, but specific locations can differ.
So crime is down overall, with less gun ownership in most places, but there is more gun ownership in some places that offsets the nationwide drop, and in these places crime is up(but not so much as to offset the nationwide drop)?
It might help to look at causes, noting that violent crime and gun ownership are already high. Factors, like community policing for instance, can ameliorate the effects of the problem, which is not to say that they can completely offset it.
A cultural shift away from FUD, paranoia, and fetishizing lethality would be a big move in the right direction, IMO.
Which invites the Upton Sinclair response:
So RickA, thanks for showing why we should not bother further wasting our time trying to educate you on this matter, we can simply ignore you on anything to do with climate change or other externalities of the fossil fuel industry.
Yes – please ignore my opinion because I own a fossil fuel companies stock. Of course, they also do renewable energy.
You might want to look to your own portfolio. It may be that a mutual fund or two that you own might also owns a fossil fuel company or two.
But yes – you can feel free to stop trying to educate me.
I am just sharing my opinion on various issues with the people who read this blog – and if you chose not to pay any attention to me that is fine by me.
We are all entitled to our own opinions.
We all read science every day and decide if we think it is correct or not, or makes sense or not.
Some people prefer to rely on experts and some people prefer to think for themselves.
In America, we get to choose.
Expert knowledge about, say, climate sensitivity, has value. The opinion of some mendacious rightwing shitbag on the internet has none.
Sorry to have to repeat this, but you keep airing your incorrect and worthless opinion as if it mattered, which it doesn’t.
We all read science every day and decide if we think it is correct or not,
But that only works well if one understands what one reads, it is clear you do not otherwise you wouldn’t keep wittering on about low climate sensitivity.
Try a dose of:
Raymond S Bradley, “Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary”
and
Thomas M Cronin Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present
If people thought for themselves, they would accept the world-wide, multi-disciplinary, longstanding consensus based on the evidence assessed by experts and espoused by every scientific institution and society on the planet.
Unfortunately the fossil fuel industry propagandists go to them first: brainwashed means brain dead.
Exactly so. Well stated.
And some, like you, ignore the experts and think up contradictions on your own because you don’t like what the science says, not for any reason based on substance.
Experts are usually reasonable at explainations.
Its a bloody mystery why these explainations are not acceptable to some when its crystal clear to me.
To deniers reading this, where do the explainations fail for you?
Li D;
rickA identifies as a modern libertarian, and it is essentially a requirement in that group that you give up your integrity and appreciation of knowledge. It makes their mantra of “I got mine, screw everyone else” seem reasonable to them.
Li D:
What exactly is your understanding of what the experts are saying?
What do you think is going to happen and what should you do about it?
How useful is the global average temperature to you as a metric.
How useful is ECS to you as a metric?
How useful is TCR to you as a metric?
If your local yearly average temperature goes up, but it is due to warmer winter nights, and you have less 90F degree or warmer days (or the C equivalent) is that really a worse climate?
That is what is happening in Minnesota.
Warmer climate, mostly because of warmer winter nights, but not really warmer summer days (since 2010).
More rain, higher lake levels, more groundwater, aquifers recharged, better crops, warmer winters, cooler summers – really what is not to like?
All weather is local, and so is all climate.
So your mileage may vary wherever you live.
Experts often say the sky is falling – when you actually look around after 10 years and find that the sky didn’t fall.
The problem with climate experts is their predictions suck.
They have no skill!
They cannot be relied on to predict the future, not for 10 years or for 100 years.
We still actually have no idea what is going to happen with the average global temperature in 2100, let alone what your local average yearly temperature will be in 2100.
We have a huge almost meaningless range of what could happen in the future.
And that is all assuming the climate experts are right – there is a not insignificant chance that they are wrong.
And then there is the volcanoes – which screw up everything for a couple of years (if there is a big eruption).
So I read the science and take it all with a grain of salt – based on past predictions being wrong.
That is my take on it anyway.
Stop lying RickA.
MikeN says:
October 24, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Dean, I was under the impression that the number of guns has been increasing in America. Am I wrong about this?
Li, I’m not aware of any harmful effects of WMD, other than when they are used.
MikeN.
You obviously don’t live near locations that produce, produced or dismantle/destroy WMD’s. The number of incidents from these locations are a large number and we are talking only in the US. Other parts of the world I am sure are much worse. I sure N. Korea has a robust nuclear WMD safety program in place. It is probably like Hanford during WWII, not much.
Taking WMDs to mean nuclear weapons, I’d say their use (only by the U.S. in WW2, so far) and their production have been very injurious — with the thin (and controversial) excuse that their use against the Empire of Japan shortened that war and scared the world so much than no one has used a nuclear bomb in war since.
You can look at the big radiation-release accidents: TMI, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Fukushima Daiichi, Windscale, Chalk River, and note that, while they were horrific, none ranks as the worst industrial accident in history. That would be the chemical release at Bhopal, with a death toll of between 4,000 and 20,000 and continuing health impacts. (And I’ll add that there are no deaths attributable to radiation released from TMI (Three Mile Island); its impact was mostly psychological.)
Except for Kyshtym, those accidents involved power reactors. Kyshtym is a waste dump. The U.S. has its own waste-dump problems: Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Santa Susana, Rocky Flats, to name a few sites. Not all the damage can be laid to radiation release; the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge reportedly dumped three-quarters of a megaton of mercury into the local environment during the manufacture of A-bombs.
My chronology lists these along with a host of relatively minor accidents. I mention all this to make the point that radiation accidents in general are not that much worse than other forms of industrial accident. This does not mean we should be complacent about nuclear power; it means we should bring care and common sense to bear when we use it.
Testing of WMDs is also disgraceful and there is long history of it, sometimes colluding with the use of them.
But thats ok isnt it MikeN.
Fuck WMDs and their supporters.
Special fuck you to Mitterand, scumbag piece of shit.
And extra special fuckyou to the North Korean government for what they have done recently and what they are proposing to do.
Its diabolical WMDs have support from huge segments of the worlds populace, but there ya go.
People are fuckwits.
Hows ya WMD manufacturing, testing,selling, stash, and usage going yanks? Poms? Russians? Pakis? Etc etc…
LiD, I thought your post had some hidden meaning that I wasn’t getting.
WMD stands for weapons of mass destruction, so obviously they are bad.
Some say we will it the 2X number of 560 ppm of atmospheric CO2 levels by 2036, some say within 50 years.
My prediction is that whenever we hit 560 ppm, whatever year that is, that by then the central value of the probability distribution of ECS, which is currently 3C – will be below 3C.
In other words I predict it will go down, and not stay the same or go up (as of when we hit 560 ppm).
Does anybody agree, or disagree?
Now if I am wrong than I am an idiot and everything I have ever said is wrong and I shouldn’t have thought for myself, but relied on the experts – and so forth. I will agree with all of that – IF my prediction turns out to be wrong.
But ask yourself – what if my prediction turns out to be right?
What does that mean for consensus, for climate science, for our understanding of the climate, for how damaging CO2 emissions really are?
What if ECS turns out to be 2.5C or 2C?
What could that mean?
Maybe nothing – maybe people will just move the goalposts and say don’t worry about 2080 or 2100, but instead things will get really bad in 300 years or 1000 years (or whatever).
But if I turned out to be correct in my prediction, maybe it means we don’t actually know as much as we think we know about the climate.
Maybe we should think for ourselves and not just rely on experts in climate science.
Maybe, like when we get diagnosed with cancer, we need a second opinion.
Sometimes the experts are wrong.
Sometimes confirmation bias is actually worse in experts than it is in the non-experts.
Meanwhile, I will wait until we hit 560 ppm and then reevaluate my lay person’s view of the reliability of climate science.
But your prediction is apparently based on nothing whatsoever. It runs counter to the best scientific understanding. So why should anyone listen to you?
Short answer: they shouldn’t. They should listen to climate scientists with domain expertise in sensitivity. Who pretty much all disagree with you.
Yet you keep on (and on, and on) repeating your worthless, almost certainly incorrect ‘opinion’ as if it somehow mattered. What has to happen to convince you that it doesn’t? Which bit of ‘clueless’ don’t you understand?
SRSLY
Using BBD’s conclusion that ECS is 5/3 of TCR(certain person not here to dispute it), this would require warming below 1.8C by that time or a short time frame after that. Looks like we have gotten 1C already. To 2036, it is possible to stay under that. However, 150 PPM CO2 increase will probably take longer than 20 years.
Not mine, just the standard approximation. But yes, warming to date is incompatible with low ECS estimates and about right for ~3C for a doubling of CO2. Pity RickA can’t bring himself to understand this.
Take a look at this temperature data:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2017/08/Trend_png.jpg
.3C in 1945 ish
.6C through about 2013 ish
.75 in 2014
.95 in 2015
1.0 ish in 2016
So .2C of the 1.0C is from the el nino, which is currently cooling down.
Really, 1/5 of all of the warming from 1880 through 2016 happened in just 3 years (2014-2016) and it was not caused by CO2 emissions, but by an ocean currents releasing heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.
So I would argue that we really have about .8C of warming, excluding the el nino event of 2015-2016.
And as you all know – I question if all of the 0.8C of warming (excluding el nino) is really caused by humans.
I personally think some portion of that 0.8C was caused by nature and not humans.
So I think it is entirely possible that ECS will turn out to be less than 3.0C, less than 2.5C, and even less than 2.0C. Anything from 1.5C to 4.5C is within the probability distribution, and so not physically impossible – so 2.0C is possible and consistent with the data.
We simply don’t know what ECS will turn out to be.
All we can say right now is it is between 1.5C and 4.5C (probably), and yes, the consensus says the likely central value is 3.0C.
I think it will turn out to be less than 3.0C and I think the actual measurement of TCR (the temperature difference at 2X), which is an actual measurement and not a model or guess, will be very helpful in a better estimate of ECS. I am betting TCR as measured at 560 ppm will be consistent with a lower ECS than 3.0C.
We will see.
It should be easy to determine if I am wrong – but my prediction cannot currently be ruled out by the data.
RickA
Yet again you are ignoring what you have already been repeatedly told:
– unless past natural forcing increases are maintained until the present then modern warming is >100% anthro – and there is NO EVIDENCE that the combination of low volcanism and increased solar that forced the early C20th warming continued beyond mid-century. NONE. Get your head around the facts because this is the last polite explanation you will be receiving.
– as usual, you’ve ignored the offsetting negative aerosol forcing from coal burning, without which CO2-forced warming would be larger.
– ENSO is noise but it is riding up the forced trend.
– setting this aside even so, let’s do the numbers one more time with 0.8C warming, assuming 3C ECS and a transient response approximately 60% of the equilibrium response:
?T = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
~0.8C increase since pre-industrial (280ppm CO2) leaves 0.7C “in the pipeline” before equilibrium is reached. The current transient response is 53% of the expected equilibrium if CO2 stopped at 400ppm. This is consistent with an ECS of about 3C.
ECS values of the sort you favour are unphyisical. They are inconsistent with observations. They are inconsistent with palaeoclimate behaviour.
Pushing them is inconsistent with honesty.
BBD says “ECS values of the sort you favour are unphyisical.”
You better tell the IPCC – because they say that ECS could be as low as 1.5C (the bottom of their range).
Yes, 1.5C is less likely than 3C, because is it an end of the probability distribution – but it is by no means unphysical.
If it was unphysical it would’nt be the bottom of the range – it would have been excluded by physics.
Also, you assume an ECS of 3C and so your math seems consistent with an ECS of 3C.
The .7C “in the pipeline” is not the TCR response – it is merely 1.5C – 0.8C.
You could feed in 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2) and get 1.286 and say .486 was “in the pipeline”.
You could feed in 2.0ln(400/280)/ln(2) and get 1.029 and say .229 was “in the pipeline”.
That would make the numbers consistent with an ECS of 2.5 or 2.0 respectively.
My point is that we don’t currently know what ECS is and we have a broad range of physical possibilities, with the center of the distribution at 3.0C.
I think the center of the probability distribution of the year we hit 560 ppm will be lower than 3.0C.
That is my prediction (guess) based on what I have read and think.
It is consistent with energy balance approaches (Lewis and Curry for example) and it is not unphysical.
So my opinion is just as valid as your opinion and we will simply have to wait and see who is right and who is wrong.
I am not even asking you to admit you are wrong (that would be unreasonable).
I am simply saying we don’t know the future before the future has happened and we have to wait and see what ECS turns out to be.
I am very confident that the range will not remain from 1.5C to 4.5C (the same as it was in 1991), but will change once we have an actual measurement of TCR – which is fast approaching (when we hit 560 ppm we will have a 2X measurement – which we can use the 5/3 rule or the 60% rule – they are the same – to estimate ECS based on the actual measured TCR).
If it turns out to be lower than 3.0 (my bet) – than you can blame it on negative aerosol forcing from coal burning or some volcanic eruption which may occur in 2034 or whenever. We will see I guess.
I am in wait and see mode.
You are too – but you just refuse to admit it.
No, because your view is based on a bunch of errors you refuse to acknowledge vs me reporting the scientific position. Which you deny, which as has been pointed out before, does in fact make you a denier.
RickA, it was clumsily written by BBD, but make a note of TCR is ~60% of ECS.
At half a doubling, you would expect 1.5C ECS and about .9 TCR.
I suppose if we take the numbers as exact then .8C goes to 2.67C ECS, 2.36C if you use 410 PPM.
RickA sez
“… and it was not caused by CO2 emissions, but by an ocean currents releasing heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.”
and i smiled wryly at the ignorance…
Yes its magic fucking heat in the oceans isnt it.
Just pops out of nowhere like a unicorn fart.
Er, no. You just didn’t read it properly.
MikeN:
What I find funny about BBD’s equation is that he is using circular reasoning.
His equation has ECS as an input and so naturally he finds the result consistent with an ECS of 3.0.
His equation is Teq = ECS × ln(CO2end / CO2start) / ln(2).
So the “3” in his equation is ECS as an input to the equation.
If you plug in 560 for the end value (and use 280 as the start value) you get ln(2)/ln(2), so you get 1 times ECS (3) and so naturally get 3 for ECS, since that is the value he plugs in.
We are actually trying to find ECS – not use it to derive itself.
So when we measure TCR at 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can use the 60% rule of thumb to estimate ECS from an actual measurement.
That is what I am waiting for – the actual 2X measurement of TCR.
Than we will have a much better handle on ECS.
It should be interesting to see what it turns out to be.
How MANY TIMES do I have to tell you that what I did was simply to test the assumption of ECS = 3C by inputting that value into the calculation?
Every time something is explained to you, you just blank it and off we go again, ploughing the same old circle. I don’t think you are that unbelievably stupid. I think you are doing this on purpose to keep your rubbish circulating endlessly. It’s a mixture of trolling and dishonest propagandising and it stinks to high heaven.
What I did was to use the temperature NOW to estimate the ECS. You try different values for ECS to see what comes closest to observations. It turns out that observed warming of ~1C is about 60% of an equilibrium response of 1.5C (CO2 = 400ppm) which you only get if ECS is about 3C per doubling:
dT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium for 400ppm CO2
~1C increase since pre-industrial (280ppm CO2) leaves 0.5C “in the pipeline” before equilibrium is reached. The current transient response is 67% of the expected equilibrium if CO2 stopped at 400ppm. This is consistent with an ECS of about 3C. It rules out an ECS below 2C. If ECS were 2.5C then the equilibrium dT at 400ppm CO2 would be 1.3C and that’s really rather too low for an already realised transient response of ~1C. So try a higher estimate for ECS etc. See it now?
Keep reading that until you understand what has been demonstrated. Do not comment again until you have grasped what has been shown.
BBD:
Oh – I get it.
You said ” setting this aside even so, let’s do the numbers one more time with 0.8C warming, assuming 3C ECS and a transient response approximately 60% of the equilibrium response:”
Now I would take the .8 and divide by 60% and get 1.333 for the accrued ECS. Than set 1.333 equal to X times (ln(400/280)/ln(2) and solve for x and you will get 2.59C for ECS (based on the 0.8 warming you said you were going to use).
Your problem is the “assuming 3C ECS”.
So, if we take the 0.8 and use it to compute an ECS, you get 2.59C and not 3.0C.
And lets not forget that assumes all of the 0.8 is due to CO2, and the jury is still out on that assumption.
RickA
1/. The 0.8C value is too low. It should be about 1C (don’t forget that negative aerosol forcing from coal has *reduced* the actual CO2-forced warming to date).
2/. By all means use 0.9C and you get a very good fit:
dT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
0.9 is 60% of 1.5. But it doesn’t matter. The point here is simply to show that low values of ECS are already off the table.
3/. The ‘jury’s still out’ fallacy has been dealt with on this and many previous threads. It’s a false claim made only by those denying the scientific evidence. You can deny it – you are, after all, clearly a denier – but it’s been dealt with all the same.
So, this brings us back to a simple demonstration that ECS is indeed most likely about 3C. A demonstration you’ve had over and over and over again and about which you are still quibbling despite there being nothing for you to quibble about.
>What I find funny about BBD’s equation is that he is using circular reasoning.
Like I said, clumsily written. I think you finally caught on to his intention.
RickA has had this explained at much greater length several times which is why it is no longer necessary to go the whole nine yards. The problem lies not with my writing but with his unwillingness to accept what is being shown.
I’d appreciate it if you either shut up or apportioned the blame correctly.
Climate science does better than that, it has a consensus.
I know, I know, people like you object to a consensus — well tough, that is the way it is.
Now have you studied the sources suggested, by myself and by others over recent years? I doubt it, you don’t really read science.
Another interpreter of interpretations wrote:
Lewis and Curry have been found wanting.
Do study the whole of the article.
But there is more:
Source.
You have been wrong before, you are wrong now stop being dishonest with yourself let alone others.
Thank you for the cites. I had actually read both of those webpages before.
Of course the consensus is ignoring the energy balance approach, which uses real world data to constrain ECS, and will not take it into consideration until they are forced to. The reason is because it produces a value for ECS which is not very alarming.
Wait until we can actually measure TCR and we will have an actual measurement instead of a giant range, and we can use the actual measurement to provide a better real world ECS value.
By the way – the Lewis and Curry value of ECS is lower – it is just being ignored.
Most people don’t want to wait 40 or 50 years.
MikeN:
Well, it has already been 27 years since the IPCC first report came out with 1.5C to 4.5C for the range of ECS and we are still stuck with the same incredibly wide ECS range today.
It will take more time and more data to narrow that range.
If it takes until we hit 560 ppm (however long that takes), so be it.
Ultimately, the only way to verify a model is actual observations. And the only actual observation I see on the horizon, which directly relate to either TCR or ECS is the 560 ppm 2X point. Until then, all we are doing is taking the current snapshot of a non-linear system and linearly projecting it to the 560 ppm point, which is fun and all – but hardly conclusive.
To all the people who are disappointed we have to wait – I say tough bounce.
Maybe we will get lucky and science will figure this out sooner.
All we can do is hope (and wait).
Which was done just upthread and still you deny it. There is no reason or need to wait for an actual doubling – we can estimate just as I showed you using the observed transient response to 400ppm CO2.
The danger of failing to account fully for non-linearity is that we underestimate the rate of future warming because feedbacks to warming are increasingly nonlinear as temperature rises. And I’ve explained that to you before at least twice. But still on with the same drone of denial.
In all the years since I first came across you peddling denial dressed up as lukewarmerism at Kloor’s place, you haven’t shifted your position one inch. Which, given the years that have elapsed and the fact that you are still at it, is solid evidence that you are a denialist troll of the first order.
Another blatant lie from you.
The reason is that far from being based on ‘real world data’, EBM studies force what is basically a toy climate model with uncertain estimates for historical forcings and end up with lowball estimates for S. When the uncertainties are better constrained and / or a more sophisticated model is used, the bias goes away.
This has been explained to you – with references – at least twice.
RickA, what is so magical about 560PPM that we must wait until that number is reached? Why can’t you do a calculation at 550 PPM?
Or 400, as show ad nauseam in comments on this blog.
Short answer: because it indicates that ECS is probably around 3C and denier Rick cannot be doing with any of that shit, oh no.
MikeN asks “RickA, what is so magical about 560PPM that we must wait until that number is reached? Why can’t you do a calculation at 550 PPM?”
The IPCC definition of ECS builds 2X right into the definition.
I went through this in very very great detail on another thread with Wow.
280 ppm is the starting value the IPCC uses and 560 ppm is the doubling number – so that is why 560 ppm is so magical.
Any other number simply linearly projects from today to 560 – which doesn’t make sense for a non-linear system.
The question always will be – what if the second 1/2 (from 420 to 560) doesn’t behave the same, in terms of warming, as the first half (from 280 to 420). Since the system is non-linear, that is entirely possible.
it is like taking the DOW 30 of today and projecting it to 12/31/2017. It is just an estimate of what ECS could be based on a linear projection – but what if we have a crash before we hit 560 ppm?
There is no way to know what will happen.
At least that is how I see it.
Yes, but not in the way deniers aka lukewarmers pretend it will because the nonlinearity in feedbacks to temp is an upward curve.
BBD:
It is an upward curve when we are warming. It is a downward curve when we are cooling.
Let me know when the global warming trend reverses, and better still, explain how it could, given the sustained increase from CO2 forcing.
Nothing like it at all, the physics and palaeoclimatology (study the titles cited) informs the knowledge base as to what will happen, confirmed by climate models, which can form an iterative process. Economics is not science and one cannot treat the two the same.
RickA, halfway for our purposes is at 400 not 420, because of log scale. Let’s assume we reach 560 PPM at 2050. How would you then calculate ECS?
MikeN:
When we hit 560 ppm, we obtain the global average temperature (the way we do every year). Subtract the global average temperature from 1880. That give us delta T. Assume all of it is due to CO2, so assume the measured delta T is TCR (like BBD assumes the entire 0.8C is TCR). Divide the measured delta T by .6 (using the rule of thumb). That gives us an estimated ECS based on a measured TCR at 2X. It eliminates the linear projection to 560 because we measure at 560. It eliminates the non-linearity issue because we measure at the definition point (the 2X point).
If delta T at 560 ppm turns out to be 1.2C (the no feedback sensitivity), ECS is 2C (using the 60% rule).
If delta T at 560 ppm turns out to be 1.3C, ECS is 2.17C using the 60% rule.
If delta T at 560 ppm turns out to be 1.4C, ECS is 2.33C.
if delta T at 560 ppm turns out to be 1.5C, ECS is 2.5C.
If delta T at 560 ppm turns out to be 1.6C, ECS is 2.67C.
If delta T at 560 ppm turns out to be 1.8C, ECS is 3.0C.
And so forth.
Just another data point – but an important one in my opinion.
You don’t need to wait for doubling. TCR is a formalism used by the modelling community, not a Mosaic Law. We can use dT right now. As I keep *trying* to explain.
If dT at 400ppm is ~1C and the transient response is approximately 60% of the equilibrium response, then the equilibrium response to 400ppm is ~1.7C. What does this imply for ECS to 2 x CO2? Let’s try a few values for ECS and see which gives the best fit to observations:
dT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium (assuming ECS = 3C)
So ECS appears to be a bit higher than 3C…
dT = 3.2ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.6C at equilibrium (assuming ECS = 3.2C)
Not quite…
dT = 3.3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.7C at equilibrium (assuming ECS = 3.3C)
Bingo! ECS is >3C.
Calculations you make up are not data – they are simply exercises in calculations. You really don’t know what you are talking about do you?
OK. You are assuming both, TCR is 60% of ECS, and that all warming is due to CO2. With an assumption of non-linearity, ECS has no utility. Indeed, the TCR is 60% can’t really be assumed either if you say that you can’t know what will happen afterwards.
Leaving that aside for a moment, if delta T at 560 ppm is 1.8C, then what range would you give ECS? Temperatures can vary from year to year by as much as .22C. How would you deal with this?
And what of this other assumption, that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming? Would this impact your view in anyway?
Yep – that is all true.
We don’t know if the 60% rule of thumb is correct.
We don’t know if all of the warming since pre-industrial is actually due to CO2 (I don’t think it is).
Still, it would be a calculation one could do when we hit 560 ppm and it will be done, I am quite sure of that.
As for the yearly variation, I would just use the plus or minus of the year in which we hit 560 ppm – but I am sure many others will advocate for other approaches. Some might say, no – you have to wait for the year we are above 560 ppm for the entire year, in order to allow the temperature to go higher. While if the temperature is falling the next year, they will not argue that.
It really doesn’t matter. It is just a measurement which can be done which gets us an actual number, and not a giant range. It could be argued that this measurement should tighten up the range (when we obtain it).
We will see when we get there.
I should also point out that we will have other 2X opportunities after 560.
We could wait for 2X 290, at 580 and obtain a different 2X measurement.
It is just that 560 is the first 2X measurement we can obtain, because we don’t know the global average temperature before 1880 ish. Or I should say we don’t know the global average temperature when CO2 was less than 280 ppm (like when it was at a low of 180).
So we could actually have a whole series of 2X measurements, starting with the 560 ppm one.
Science is great!
We know it’s close. Close enough to use the simple calculations here to show that ECS is about 3C.
Yes we do. You keep denying the scientific evidence, but that doesn’t change anything.
It’s been game over for lukewarmers for quite a while now. But since most of them are just deniers trying to hide their true colours behind sciency-sounding rhetoric, they continue to blabber on.
We will see when we get there? So now your two significant digits precision that you listed in your calculations aren’t very accurate. Give us some examples of what would keep you from declaring 3C ECS at 560 PPM.
Mike – you are talking to RickA, yes?
Yes. His answers weren’t what I was suspecting, so I’m trying to pin him down first.
MikeN:
It is all about the delta T. If the delta T is 1.8, I will say ECS is estimate to be 3.0C.
If the delta T turns out to be 1.5C, than I will say ECS is 2.5C.
I am merely giving examples, to plug into the formula.
But we won’t know what the delta T is until we hit 560 ppm.
dT to 400ppm CO2 = ~1C therefore ECS is ~3C
I explained how you do this for the nth time just upthread and I notice that you blanked it and are still peddling your crap about the magic future dT which we don’t actually need to wait for. Dishonest little shit that you are, engaging in avoidance discourse to keep your lies going.
And then there is this.
Back to your calculators chaps, but first do more background reading on paleoclimate and models.
RickA, you wrote:
It could be argued that this measurement should tighten up the range (when we obtain it).
We will see when we get there.
Yet the answers you are giving have a very tight range of 0. What is there to see when we get there?
Also, with temperatures ranging by .2C or more from year to year, the range would have to be at least that much, right?
True. Because I am suggesting we measure TCR at 560 ppm and use it to estimate ECS.
It is just a measurement leading to an estimate, which can then shed light on the range we currently posit.
But there will be other doublings, like at 580 or 600, which lead to different estimates of ECS than the 560 ppm doubling ECS estimate. So there will still be a range.
And, as you point out, there is the plus and minus of the T for the year in which we hit 560.
I look forward to seeing what the scientists do with the 560 ppm global mean temperature measurement.
I look forward to seeing what ECS that measurement (when it happens) gives rise to, and what the scientists do to the ECS range once they obtain that (and other doubling global mean temperature measurements).
Because then we wont have to guess on what will happen between now and 560 ppm – or rely on linear projections from the delta T of today (which the future may or may not agree with).
As I said earlier, I predict that the 560 ppm temperature measurement will lead to an ECS which is less than 3.0C. However, I will have to wait until we hit 560 ppm to see if my prediction is correct.
As a layperson, what I am doing is not science. It is just an educated guess.
What I don’t understand is the resistance to some on this blog to the idea that a 2X measurement of global mean temperature delta T won’t be used to provide a check on model values of ECS. Once we get to the point we an measure a 2X delta T, we will be taking measurements as often as possible, and probably yearly. Over time, we will compile many TCR measurements and many estimated ECS calculations. That in turn will lead to validation of the 60% rule of thumb, and/or (hopefully) a narrowing of the ECS range. My guess is the range will be tightened and the center most likely value will fall below 3C.
Have you seen this post at Sceptical Science?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/interpreting-Paris-limit.html
Here they find that in order to take natural variability into account you have to subtract .5C from the 1.5C Paris target. To me that implies that at any given time, the current global mean temperature includes .25C plus or minus .25C.
What do you think this article is saying about how much of the .8C of warming we have experience from pre-industrial is natural variability? Do you see why I reject arguments which state that all warming since 1880 is caused by humans? If that were the case, why the yearly variable of .2C? Of course we have yearly variations – like the recent .2 from el nino. Of course el nino is not caused by humans.
I see this article as the smart scientists trying to get ahead of the curve and use natural variability in the manner most advantageous to their viewpoint. Of course, this undercuts the meme that all warming is caused by humans (I think).
Sorry – I meant to say that .25C plus or minus .25C of natural variability (i.e. non human caused warming or cooling).
First, the correct value is now ~1C so that’s the one we will be using from now on. Second, you are still trying to pretend that interannual variability is being confused with net anthropogenic warming. It isn’t (except by you, for rhetorical purposes). ENSO giveth and ENSO taketh away, but the net anthropogenic warming since 1850 is still ~1C.
RickA, I am trying to pin down not what the scientists will do, but whether you will accept the results or you will come up with another reason not to accept the ECS range they declare.
Let us say at 560 PPM, the delta T will be 2C, as well as the 3 year average. This will give 3.3C ECS.
Are you then going to say there is some amount that must be subtracted from the 2C to lower the ECS value?
MikeN
RickA is using a simple combination of fake agnosia with the rhetoric of avoidance:
He creates a deadlock by refusing even to acknowledge that we don’t need to wait for a doubling to extract a crude estimate of ECS from observations. This allows him to peddle his crap endlessly while pretending that he isn’t what he is – a denier.
MIkeN:
I would be happy to say ECS is 3.3C if the delta T is 2C, if that is the case and assuming all the warming is due to CO2 emissions.
I might still argue that we need to pin down how much of the warming from pre-industrial is actually do to CO2.
I think that is still being discussed and I personally do not think it is 100%.
Unlike many here I do not automatically say all warming from 1880 is due to CO2.
But that argument will occur no matter what I think.
But in this thread I have been happy to do calculations assuming that all the warming is do to CO2 – just to work the numbers.
You notice there is disagreement over the warming (0.8 or 1.0). That is because the three different datasets disagree about the warming. So expect fights about that to continue. Also, the ocean has cooled .2C, backing off the .2C warming from 2015-2016 from el nino and yet BBD still wants to use 1.0?
But I do not disagree with the math BBD is using, once we agree on delta T and assuming the 60% rule of thumb is valid.
If delta T is 1.0, than ECS does turn out to be 3C – doing the linear projection to 560 ppm. It is just that we do not know if that linear approximation is a valid assumption. We have to wait for the future to unfold before we can say what the delta T actually is at 2x – and not just speculate what the 2X delta will be and treat it as a measured number. That is what WOW did and I thought even BBD agreed that this was wrong (on a different thread).
I’ve explained REPEATEDLY on previous threads that the nonlinearity is in feedbacks to warming which are likely to increase ECS, not reduce it.
But on you go, still blanking that as well, still peddling your denier crap. And whining about it elsewhere, which didn’t get you very far, did it?
If you don’t like being called a denier, stop blanking out everything that is explained to you over and over again and revise your incorrect thinking in line with the scientific evidence.
They underestimate actual warming to differing degrees. This is all now well-established. Don’t you ever read anything relevant?
OHC is measured in joules, not Celsius, idiot. And you just made that up. Stop lying.
Total response to 400ppm to date is about 1C. That is what the scientific evidence shows so deal with it instead of this endless spew of denial.
BBD:
Here is a link to some monthly sea surface temperature data from HadSST3:
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/hadsst092017.png
It sure looks to me like the ocean has cooled back to where it started at the beginning of the el nino.
You’ve confused OHC with SST. But never mind.
OHC is right back up again because of the planetary energy imbalance.
As for GAT and SST, once the LN cooling goes away the ‘new normal’ post-2016 looks likely to be above the peak of the 1998 super EN. And remember just what a big deal that was at the time. In just this way, the new normal in a decade or two will be above the peak of the 2016 EN. And so it will go on, because the CO2-forced warming is intensifying. Except according to science deniers like you.
BBD said “You’ve confused OHC with SST. But never mind.”
I didn’t introduce OHC – you did.
But never mind that.
I am happy to wait for the scientists to write their papers and see what they decide about global warming after the el nino – I guess we will see.
No, oh physically illiterate tool, you used the words ‘the ocean has cooled back’. That means ocean heat content has fallen. If you meant SSTs, then say SSTs. Don’t pretend that your errors are mine.
BBD sez ” Total response to 400ppm to date.. ” and I thank BBD for it.
I think that ” to date ” thingie is not stressed enough in dialog because of the rising CO2 trend and focus on current level or the formulative doubling which is insanely high in reality
What if i posed the query, hows 340 ppm to date looking?
Things take time….
Li D
Australia
Be fucked the ocean has cooled back to anything.
The trend is very fucking clear as a bell.
>but what if we have a crash before we hit 560 ppm?
What you are suggesting is that ECS has no utility.
I agree that ECS has no utility. The reason is we can never measure it. In order to measure ECS you would need to wait 500 years or so for equilibrium, meanwhile holding everything constant during the 500 years. Impossible to do in practice.
So I have always thought ECS was useless as a metric, because all we can do is estimate it – and we can never validate any estimate with an actual measurement.
Even the 60% rule of thumb to use TCR to calculate ECS is based on a lot of speculation with very little hard data.
But ECS is what the IPCC uses and that is what we have – so it has to be considered, even if there is very little utility to it.
The IPCC uses ECS to estimate impact of CO2 emissions. Saying you have to wait until you reach the result, makes it useless. Indeed, waiting for 580 vs 290 comparison is also useless. By suggesting a non-linear response, then it is possible the 560-580 transition will have a sudden cooling effect.
It is the IPCC definition – not mine.
Perhaps you should direct your ire at the IPCC for defining ECS in terms of the delta T from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, or TCR in terms of 1% increase in CO2 for 70 years.
I think it is fairly useless – but that is what everybody is arguing about.
How warm will it be when we hit 560 ppm? That is the actual question that is being debated.
Not how reasonable is it to assume a linear projection from the warming of today – which all agree is just a tool, and probably not accurate because the climate is non-linear.
No it isn’t, you lying toerag.
This is what is being discussed.
Your refusal to even acknowledge the key point (aka passive denial) is duly noted.
Skipped link:
This is what is being discussed
Rick, you’re we have to wait and see, means that ECS is only defined as the warming from CO2 when it goes from 280 PPM to 560 PPM. Every other transition would have its own number.
There is already half a doubling. You suggest a different effect when you go from half a doubling to doubling.
In that case we should have seen such a difference when you go from 1/4 to 1/2 that is different from 0 to 1/4(about 333 PPM).
We did see a difference in the warming.
Take a look at the warming until 1945, which had a rate similar to 1980 to 1998.
Than take a look at the warming from 1945 to 1979.
These two periods are quite different and indicate that we have no idea what the global mean temperature will do over the next 150 ppm increase.
It could go up more than 1C or it could not go up at all, or anywhere in between, or very unlikely – it could actually go down.
We just have to wait and see.
That is what makes the linear projection from today to 560 ppm so uncertain.
Better to wait for the first 2X doubling to occur and then measure.
That way you are not guessing.
No rise = rubbish.
The forcings responsible for the pre-1945 warming (solar, volcanism, some CO2) have changed. The dominant forcing now and going forward is CO2. So CO2 will be the dominant influence on future climate change. Therefore it will continue to warm.
Your scientifically-illiterate bullshitting is grating on my nerves again.
So like the rest of your ‘argument’ – which is just denialism and advocacy for doing nothing, your ‘wait and see’ stuff is still completely wrong.
And besides, as I have pointed out repeatedly, we can use current observations. There is no need whatsoever to wait until 560ppm. That’s just you trying to derail any further discussion by insisting on irrelevant crap.
It’s a standard denialist rhetorical trick.
BBD:
If you want to pretend that you know what is going to happen in the future – be my guest.
I don’t know what is going to happen in the future.
So I am going to wait until we hit 560 ppm and then measure the temperature.
You sound just like WOW – pretending you know what the temperature will be 30, 40, 50 years in the future – however long it takes to get to 560 ppm.
BBD says “The forcings responsible for the pre-1945 warming (solar, volcanism, some CO2) have changed.”
But even though some of the warming from 1880 to 1945 was natural, you refuse to accept that and say all the warming from 1880 to the present is caused by CO2 emitted by humans.
If some of the .4C of warming that occurred by 1945 is natural (not caused by humans), than it should be subtracted out of your 1.0C. Only warming from CO2 should be considered TCR (per the IPCC).
Of course, I agree that not all of the warming from 1880 to the present is caused by humans. Yes – some of it is from the sun (more active sun during some of the previous century). But all natural variability doesn’t cancel out on a decadal scale – or how else do you explain the .9C cooling from the MWP to the LIA?
Oh physically-illitarate tool,
When the climate system warms, it also radiates at an increased rate. Therefore warming caused by forcings in the early C20th cannot persist into the present unless those forcings have also persisted into the present. This is not the case with the solar and volcanic components of early C20th warming. So something must have replaced them or the climate system would have cooled again.
That something has been the ever-increasing CO2 forcing.
As for your agnosia crap about ‘pretending to know the future’, it is possible to make scientifically-supported estimates of future conditions based on stuff we are pretty clear about, like the 3C ECS to CO2.
Only science-denying clowns like you insist that these have no validity. Everybody else can see which way the wind is blowing.
BBD:
Well at least you seem to recognize that your ECS estimate is actually an estimate.
Estimates of future values, say of TCR are not the same as measurements of future values.
Estimate all you want – but I will be checking those estimates against the measurement of global mean temperature when we hit 560 ppm. That is how science works.
I used the observed transient response to 400ppm. As I have said a dozen times and you dodge and blank and misrepresent over and over again. Because you are dishonest.
Just have the decency to admit that you haven’t got a leg to stand on when it comes to peddling agnosia and lukewarmerism. Or stop whining when you are dealt with exactly as you deserve.
BBD said “I used the observed transient response to 400ppm.”
I know that. I am talking about the observed transient response to 560 ppm (which has not occurred yet).
You are insisting on an irrelevance to avoid admitting that you can see that ECS is going to be close to 3C from current observations. It’s called ‘denialism’.
Yes.
How on earth do you find that in the thought experiment described?
Lionel A:
The part where they say that to be completely safe, we need to avoid hitting 1C in order to make sure that natural variability doesn’t cause us to exceed 1.5C. 1.5 – 1 = .5C
Perhaps you should review the post again.
RickA, if it’s the thread I am thinking of, that was one of the few times I actually agreed with WOW. They seemed to be talking past each other, with I think BBD missing a certain detail in the formula he was using. It ended up being an argument of 397 vs 400. I’m just glad Wow isn’t here to mess up this thread.
I would probably be arguing with you more except he always clogged things up.
Really? Which one?
>BBD said “I used the observed transient response to 400ppm.”
>
>I know that. I am talking about the observed transient response to 560 ppm (which has not occurred yet).
Is it your theory that some unknown process will make the change from 400 to 560 differ from the 280 to 400 change?
Or are you arguing that the attribution to CO2 is smaller than 100%?
But they don’t say that.
Some advice to people here. Take it or leave it. RickA is a complete and utter idiot. He should be ridiculed, tarred, feathered and either sent packing or ignored. His kind of denial is that which appears to argue that our understanding of the human fingerprint on the current warming is incomplete and to therefore intimate that we don’t need to do anything serious about it until we know more. Then, admitting that he isn’t a scientist (which should be patently obvious without the admission), he makes some patronizing bullshit about letting scientists get in with their jobs so that we know more.
He is wrong. We know enough. Most scientists would estimate that virtually all of the recent warming is down to us. More importantly, we don’t have the bloody time to procrastinate. The empirical evidence is piling up showing that climate warming is stressing natural systems, many which are at or near their breaking point. We are seeing serious effects on species interactions, phenology, marine and terrestrial stoichiometry, and terrifying global declines in species of birds, mammals, amphibians, insects, plants and other taxa which at least can be partially attributed to warming.
RickA’s shares aren’t going to be worth jack shit if we don’t get off if our collective asses and act. Reading his gibberish on here I have the repeated urge to hurl.
Jeff:
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
By the way – we won’t know if I am wrong until we hit 560 ppm.