climate sensitivity

[Old Rocks]

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Lunt et al. 2010

Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data
Daniel J. Lunt1,2, Alan M. Haywood3, Gavin A. Schmidt4, Ulrich Salzmann2,5, Paul J. Valdes1 & Harry J. Dowsett6



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AbstractQuantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research. Components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales, such as ice sheets and vegetation, could have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but have often been neglected. Here we use a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Taking these lines of evidence together, we estimate that the response of the Earth system to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 30–50% greater than the response based on those fast-adjusting components of the climate system that are used traditionally to estimate climate sensitivity. We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.

 

[waltky]

Climate change could cause stronger turbulence for airline passengers...

Climate Change Could Cause More Turbulent Flights
April 11, 2017 - Climate change could cause stronger turbulence for airline passengers, according to a new study.

Researchers at the University of Reading in England say “turbulence strong enough to catapult unbuckled passengers and crew around the aircraft cabin” could become two or three times more common. “For most passengers, light turbulence is nothing more than an annoying inconvenience that reduces their comfort levels, but for nervous fliers even light turbulence can be distressing,” said Paul Williams, who conducted the research. “However, even the most seasoned frequent fliers may be alarmed at the prospect of a 149 percent increase in severe turbulence, which frequently hospitalizes air travelers and flight attendants around the world.”

A new study suggests turbulence on flights could increase becuase of climate change.​

Specifically, researchers used supercomputer models to look at how wintertime transatlantic clear-air turbulence at an altitude of 12 kilometers will change when there is twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which could happen by the end of this century.

The models show light turbulence could increase by 59 percent, light-to-moderate turbulence could jump by 75 percent, moderate-to-severe turbulence could rise by 127 percent and severe turbulence could bounce a whopping 149 percent.

The reason, according to the researchers is that climate change “is generating stronger wind shears in the jet stream.” “Our new study paints the most detailed picture yet of how aircraft turbulence will respond to climate change,” said Williams. The study is published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.

Climate Change Could Cause More Turbulent Flights

See also:

Scientists Link El Nino to Increase in Cholera in Eastern Africa
April 10, 2017 - Researchers are reporting a link between a climate phenomenon know as El Nino and the number of cholera cases in eastern Africa. Predicting when there’s going to be an El Nino event could improve public health preparedness.

El Ninos are a global climate phenomenon that occurs at irregular times, approximately every two to seven years. During an El Nino, surface ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific off the coast of South America become warmer than usual. The warming trend begins around Christmas time. The following year, in the fall, sea surface temperatures also warm, if somewhat less, in the western Pacific, leading to extreme weather events like flooding and droughts, conditions that are ripe for cholera outbreaks. Approximately 177 million people reside in areas where the incidence of cholera increases during El Nino. But there’s been scant evidence of El Nino’s health impact in Africa.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found the incidence of cholera increased in countries in East Africa. “Because they can either lead to surface flooding that washes contamination into drinking water in areas where there’s open defecation," said epidemiologist Sean Moore, who led the study. "It also can lead to overflowing of sewer systems in urban areas which again can lead to contamination of drinking water.” There are approximately 150,000 cases of cholera per year, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, according to Moore, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Relatives of Samual Moro, 30, grieve after he died of cholera, outside the cholera isolation ward at the Juba Teaching Hospital in the capital Juba, South Sudan.​

But during El Ninos, researchers found the incidence swelled by some 50,000 cholera cases in eastern Africa, although the overall number of cases on the continent did not change — for reasons that are not completely understood, said Moore. Patterns of shift in the number of cholera cases were measured during El Ninos between the years 2000 and 2014. There also were 30,000 fewer cases reported in southern Africa during El Nino years compared to non-El Nino years, researchers found.. Scientists also saw a slight increase in the number of cholera cases in areas hit by drought due to El Nino. Moore said that’s because when water becomes scarce, available drinking water can become contaminated by bacteria in human waste.

Without treatment, mortality rates from cholera can climb as high as 50 percent. To the extent that the climate phenomenon can be predicted six to 12 months ahead of time, Moore said public health officials can prepare for outbreaks, which tend to occur early on. “An advance warning could, even if it doesn’t prevent outbreak, it could at least prevent the deaths that tend to occur during the early part of an outbreak,” he said. With oral rehydration therapy, Moore said the risk of death from cholera drops to 1 percent. He said there are now cheap cholera vaccines that could be used to prevent the disease when it’s known that an area is going to be hit by an El Nino.

Scientists Link El Nino to Increase in Cholera in Eastern Africa

 

[SSDD]

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is well on its way to zero...along with the credibility of climate pseudoscience.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, dumb cocksuck. With three of the warmest years on record in a row. Go back to your smart photons.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm..........not a scientist alive knows with any degree of certainty what the "sensitivity" of the climate is. In 2017, it is pure theory. Perhaps decades from now we may be starting to get some grasp on the true sensitivity of the climate but this will happen only with significantly more cooperation between skeptics and alarmists.

 

[skookerasbil]

90+ % of the models inaccurate according to study in England >>

http://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf


The only people who say the climate change models are accurate are the ones making the models!!

 

[polarbear]

This is getting ever more ridiculous, using some fringe group's home brew simulation as evidence.
So what is it these freak out "news" merchants are saying?
That CO2 radiates 3050 % more IR than 400 ppm CO2 could have possibly absorbed?
Them hyping it as 3050 % should have stimulated a few of your brain cells that are supposed to do some critical thinking.
In the extreme case ignoring all the other atmospheric gas CO2 could only back radiate 100% of the greenhouse gas IR.

 

[Weatherman2020]

THE COMPUTER MODELS THEY CREATED CONFIRM IT!

 

[skookerasbil]

THE COMPUTER MODELS THEY CREATED CONFIRM IT!

indeed......such a farce. Its like Chevy saying their engines are clearly the best.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is getting ever more ridiculous, using some fringe group's home brew simulation as evidence.
So what is it these freak out "news" merchants are saying?
That CO2 radiates 3050 % more IR than 400 ppm CO2 could have possibly absorbed?
Them hyping it as 3050 % should have stimulated a few of your brain cells that are supposed to do some critical thinking.
In the extreme case ignoring all the other atmospheric gas CO2 could only back radiate 100% of the greenhouse gas IR.

Link? Who, where, credibility of the publication.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sure, dumb cocksuck. With three of the warmest years on record in a row. Go back to your smart photons.

Warm to you cold to me...

 

[SSDD]

Sure, dumb cocksuck. With three of the warmest years on record in a row. Go back to your smart photons.

Entirely due to data manipulation....have you ever wondered why liberals are so universally vulgar?...you think that is an acceptable substitute for actually supporting your position...

Never mind, that would require actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability and we both know, that sort of evidence doesn't exist...guess you are left with impotent vulgarity.

 

[polarbear]

These vulgar eruptions is thee common denominator with them and lately violent mob behavior if you disagree or at the least silencing you any way they can.
Which is just fine by me. For one thing they expose themselves to the public what they really are much more effectively than we could if we would fling the same mud they do.
And for another, being hated by them means you never have to worry about the mailman delivering an invitation to the next gay parade at your front door

 

[mamooth]

This is getting ever more ridiculous, using some fringe group's home brew simulation as evidence.
So what is it these freak out "news" merchants are saying?
That CO2 radiates 3050 % more IR than 400 ppm CO2 could have possibly absorbed?
Them hyping it as 3050 % should have stimulated a few of your brain cells that are supposed to do some critical thinking.
In the extreme case ignoring all the other atmospheric gas CO2 could only back radiate 100% of the greenhouse gas IR.

Someone who wasn't a freakin' moron would have looked at link provided to the original paper, and found that the cut-and-paste left out a dash.

That is, it's 30-50%, not 3050%.

And yes, it is your fault for not spotting the typo. A non-moron would have instantly realized that 3050% was not physically possible, as it would mean we'd already have been roasted, and said non-moron would have gone to check the original paper.

 

[polarbear]

This is getting ever more ridiculous, using some fringe group's home brew simulation as evidence.
So what is it these freak out "news" merchants are saying?
That CO2 radiates 3050 % more IR than 400 ppm CO2 could have possibly absorbed?
Them hyping it as 3050 % should have stimulated a few of your brain cells that are supposed to do some critical thinking.
In the extreme case ignoring all the other atmospheric gas CO2 could only back radiate 100% of the greenhouse gas IR.

Someone who wasn't a freakin' moron would have looked at link provided to the original paper, and found that the cut-and-paste left out a dash.

That is, it's 30-50%, not 3050%.

And yes, it is your fault for not spotting the typo. A non-moron would have instantly realized that 3050% was not physically possible, as it would mean we'd already have been roasted, and said non-moron would have gone to check the original paper.

Whaaat? You hold me responsible for what OldRocks posted? The 3050% is in his post #1 of the OP and now you bicker at me because I said that`s not possible what he posted. Fuck you guys are twisted. If I had posted it and somebody of your freaks would have pointed it out then you sure as fuck would credit me with that bombastic mistake. As if everybody is supposed to click & visit everyone of these idiotic web pages you people post after each of your freak out propaganda google searches that he cut&pastes in here.
You dummies should have noticed by now that a lot of the crap you cut&paste isn`t all html code which copies easily. But each one of you is a brainless copy-cat with no thoughts and certainly no critical thoughts

 

[Billy_Bob]

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Lunt et al. 2010

Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data
Daniel J. Lunt1,2, Alan M. Haywood3, Gavin A. Schmidt4, Ulrich Salzmann2,5, Paul J. Valdes1 & Harry J. Dowsett6



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AbstractQuantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research. Components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales, such as ice sheets and vegetation, could have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but have often been neglected. Here we use a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Taking these lines of evidence together, we estimate that the response of the Earth system to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 30–50% greater than the response based on those fast-adjusting components of the climate system that are used traditionally to estimate climate sensitivity. We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.

Bwhaaaaaaaa...

Still using the Tajinder proxies inverted... And making wild ass assumptions with made up (infilled) modeling data..

The paper is a huge pile of crap. Just looking at the very basic controls and the data they are using shows just how incompetent they are..

IF you premise the calculations, on made up data, how accurate are the projections? How did this pass 'pier' review? it should have been drowned on that dock..

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is getting ever more ridiculous, using some fringe group's home brew simulation as evidence.
So what is it these freak out "news" merchants are saying?
That CO2 radiates 3050 % more IR than 400 ppm CO2 could have possibly absorbed?
Them hyping it as 3050 % should have stimulated a few of your brain cells that are supposed to do some critical thinking.
In the extreme case ignoring all the other atmospheric gas CO2 could only back radiate 100% of the greenhouse gas IR.

I assume (from the calculations they present in the paper) that the real text should have read 30-50%. But even that is so unrealistic its totally absurd. I am still wondering how they got a 30-50% increase in LWIR when the LOG of the trace gas would put it at just 0.3 to 0.5%.. a 300-500% increase is just not possible, unless that gas is able to create new energy to emit.

 

[mamooth]

Whaaat? You hold me responsible for what OldRocks posted?

I hold your responsible for not recognizing an obvious typo, yes.

You actually believed scientists said "Oops, we were off by a factor of 30 on climate sensitivity, no biggee", and then you went off on an idiot rant based on that stupid belief.

Nobody with a brain would have believed that. They would have said "That seems very wrong. I better go check the source."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 was really this awesome and powerful, there would be countless lab experiments. Why do we get profanities instead of lab results

 

[SSDD]

This is getting ever more ridiculous, using some fringe group's home brew simulation as evidence.
So what is it these freak out "news" merchants are saying?
That CO2 radiates 3050 % more IR than 400 ppm CO2 could have possibly absorbed?
Them hyping it as 3050 % should have stimulated a few of your brain cells that are supposed to do some critical thinking.
In the extreme case ignoring all the other atmospheric gas CO2 could only back radiate 100% of the greenhouse gas IR.

I assume (from the calculations they present in the paper) that the real text should have read 30-50%. But even that is so unrealistic its totally absurd. I am still wondering how they got a 30-50% increase in LWIR when the LOG of the trace gas would put it at just 0.3 to 0.5%.. a 300-500% increase is just not possible, unless that gas is able to create new energy to emit.

In climate pseudoscience world 30 to 50 is the same as 0.3 to 0.5 and even better if it scares little children.