Climate Sensitivity

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/pinatubo-climate-sensitivity-and-two-dogs-that-didnt-bark-in-the-night/

    Lucia is a lukewarmer. she and the other competent statisticians that frequent her site look at the data rather than the politics. sometimes it is difficult to discount politics though.

    this is an example.

     
  2. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    really? no one is interested in the most important aspect of CAGW? if there is no positive feedback to multiply the small effect of CO2 then there is no problem.

    it is only climate models that expect large positive feedbacks. the climate sensitivities based on actual data show small feedbacks, sometimes negative. the IPCC has been chastised for its suspicious mathematical reasoning in formulating the climate sensitivity, even though it has been coming down in recent years.
     
  3. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,776
    Thanks Received:
    1,788
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,858
    Climate change to affect food crops...
    :eusa_eh:
    Climate Change Could Alter Global Eating Habits
    November 05, 2012 - Climate change might force changes in diets around the world as certain staple foods become harder to produce, according to international agriculture researchers.
     
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,864
    How do you take it seriously as a "science" when they continue on as if nothing happened even after they discover they are off by a factor of 50% on their estimation of ocean absorption of CO2?
     
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    farmers already adapt. while it is easy to see how colder temps can decrease crop yeilds, it is much more difficult to factually make a case for warmer temps and more CO2 (plant food) as a detriment to growing crops.
     
  6. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,650
    Thanks Received:
    2,442
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,611
    I'm not going to pretend I can follow the science in that piece. But others can, and if it's good, it should get written up and put through the peer review process, which will be a bit more stringent than the blog review process. Shouldn't be a problem, if the science is actually good.

    That is, unless someone is going to declare how the peer-review process is part of the great worldwide AGW conspiracy.
     
  7. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,650
    Thanks Received:
    2,442
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,611
    It is trivial to make such a case, given that rainfall and soil are both far more important for crops than temperature or CO2. There's no soil to speak of in northern canada, just acidic arctic bog and granite bedrock. If the growing belt shifts up there, you still can't grow crops. And it's not the heat causing farmers to abandon corn in the USA, it's the lack of rain.
     
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,016
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    Somehow -- I missed this one for a week.. I'll read it tonight. It's time for the participants to grow up and stop pretending that there is ONE STATIC ECS.. We KNOW that the zonal responses are waay different and vary with season.

    You're burying too much information when you insist on taking the globe as a whole and deriving a common number for the models. Even the concept of Global Average Temps is (to me) an exercise in "packaging" the AGW sales pitch rather than anything truly insightful.

    But I like the idea of PROVING that high ECS numbers are in conflict with the modeling and theories -- so I WILL read it.. Thanks..
     
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    Obviously you haven't followed the thread on Gergis 2012. It passed peer review only to fail web review in less than a week.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    Care to post up actual corn yeilds for this year rather than op-ed s?
     

Share This Page