IPCC climate sensitivities called into question

[CrusaderFrank]

CrosstardPunk!

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

And you have no real evidence that any of that is caused by a wisp of CO2

Crosstard, you piece of shit-trash, CO2 is like H2O, in that it is a molecule, with three atoms, and in the atmosphere, it traps IR, near the surface of the Earth.

Since CO2 is the main, three-atom molecule, in the atmosphere, it is the main greenhouse effect FORCER. If humans fuck up, and send CO2 levels up to 400 ppm, CO2 becomes the main climate warming forcer, to then trigger release, of loads of CH4, which can take over, under the circumstances stupid people are trying to line right up.

Otherwise, no problem! The sun would be the main climate forcer, like it usually is.

CO2 would be relegated, to forcing temperature, up and down, within the usual ranges, of the last 650,000 years, characterized by relatively steady CO2 plots, between 180 ppm and 280 ppm, every 100,000 years or so.

How bad will things get? The CO2 is coming out, 10x as bad, as before the PETM Extinction.

But the CH4 is coming out, faster, than during the split-up, of Pangea, 251 million years ago. That means we will see a killer planet, soon, and we won't be losing the CO2 or the CH4, which we need to do, to force temperatures back down. Any survivors of the cut-down, of the human population will be good, at living in a hot world, with big storms, and less land area, than we used to have, with either too much fresh water, or not enough.

The planet will be hotter, about every other year, maybe even two years, out of three, until YOU DIE, maybe from warming-related phenomena. Shit, you have a cross-up, going on, already. And you are a dead-head. You don't learn. DDD will DDDie. And somebody will take out the trash, and that will be that, Crosstard.

The Vostok Ice Cores confirm that CO2 is a laggard, not a leader.

 

[waltky]

Tree Die Off Due to Climate Change...

Tree Deaths Linked to Climate Change
September 11, 2012 - Aspen, the most widespread tree in North America, is suffering from what scientists call sudden drought-induced death from climate change.

Hot and dry conditions triggered by climate change are killing the world's trees, according to a new report which examines dozens of scientific articles on the subject. Stanford University graduate student William Anderegg has seen this forest die-off firsthand. His doctoral thesis documents the impact of drought on trembling aspen, the most common tree in North America. “These are complete hillsides of trembling aspens that are dying off," Anderegg says. "And when the main tree in a forest goes, you tend to see a lot of the other species, especially the grasses and the wild flowers, tend to disappear as well. But you lose a lot of those species from those forests.”

Changing ecology

With colleagues from Stanford and North Arizona State University, Anderegg co-authored the new report which presents a picture of accelerating worldwide tree deaths that appear to be linked to changes in the global climate. Anderegg says these changes, triggered by rising levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, are stressing the world’s forests. “One of the ways that we expect climate change to increasingly play out in forests is through these widespread tree mortality events where you stress the trees enough that you essentially push a whole region of them off the edge and in fact what happens afterwards, after a forest dies from drought is every bit as important and in some sense matters more to humans who rely on forests.”

Trees provide a range of ecological services. They hold soil in place, help purify water and shelter species. They are valued for timber and tourism. When trees die, the ecology and hydrology of a forest change, which in turn promotes insect infestation and fire. This can result in long-term shifts in the area’s dominant species and may even trigger a transition to a different ecosystem, such as grass land.

Devastating consequence

Anderegg says the most devastating consequence may be that the changing forests, in turn, will start affecting the global climate. “Because forests do a lot to stabilize the climate and to store carbon and when they start to die off, you can actually have forest die-off accelerate climate change," he says. "You get into a vicious cycle.” This is especially troubling for Anderegg because trees, which cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, absorb 25 percent of the climate-changing gases emitted into the atmosphere from cars, buildings and factories.

Forest monitoring

While scientists are getting better at tracking the effects of climate change on forests, data is still sparse. Anderegg says his study urges governments and specialists from many disciplines to support wide-scale forest monitoring. “It is not just ecologists, but we also need people working with satellites. We need people in government agencies. We need people on the ground to do this as well. It’s unfortunately not something that just the scientific research community can pull off on their own.” Anderegg, whose research is published in Nature Climate Change, says a better understanding of how climate change is killing off the world’s forests can help shape better forest management, business decisions and policies.

Tree Deaths Linked to Climate Change

 

[mamooth]

It's looking like the IPCC has been too conservative, and has been underestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. More precisely, it's been underestimating the CO2 and methane feedbacks that are being caused by the warming. But in general, the IPCC bows to what most governments want, which is to downplay the problem, and that's why the IPCC errs on the "less warming" side.

By the way, would the denialists care to make a point on this thread, other than to reinforce that they're all political cultists? The OP kind of started approaching a point, but then it all dissolved into a conspiracy theory concerning some 2006 paper. Even if the conspiracy was correct, it wouldn't make any sense, given how one 2006 paper does not represent the entire field of AGW science.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's looking like the IPCC has been too conservative, and has been underestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. More precisely, it's been underestimating the CO2 and methane feedbacks that are being caused by the warming. But in general, the IPCC bows to what most governments want, which is to downplay the problem, and that's why the IPCC errs on the "less warming" side.

By the way, would the denialists care to make a point on this thread, other than to reinforce that they're all political cultists? The OP kind of started approaching a point, but then it all dissolved into a conspiracy theory concerning some 2006 paper. Even if the conspiracy was correct, it wouldn't make any sense, given how one 2006 paper does not represent the entire field of AGW science.

Your review of thread convinces me of your inate inability to be objective. Doesn't appear you read or understood the OP -- or what the significance was of reviewing a paper from 2006... ((For which the author seems to have lost his data and notes))

Trying to assign ONE GLOBAL NUMBER to the Climate sensitivity multiplier is just more inane BS from the warmers. If it's not clear by now that Climate Sensitivity is NOT a global constant and varies spatially and temporally --- even by SEASON --- then I have no faith at all in bulk of work DERIVED from these attempts to quantify it.. Like for instance EVERY GCM IN EXISTENCE!!!!!

 

[IanC]

It's looking like the IPCC has been too conservative, and has been underestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. More precisely, it's been underestimating the CO2 and methane feedbacks that are being caused by the warming. But in general, the IPCC bows to what most governments want, which is to downplay the problem, and that's why the IPCC errs on the "less warming" side.

By the way, would the denialists care to make a point on this thread, other than to reinforce that they're all political cultists? The OP kind of started approaching a point, but then it all dissolved into a conspiracy theory concerning some 2006 paper. Even if the conspiracy was correct, it wouldn't make any sense, given how one 2006 paper does not represent the entire field of AGW science.

on a different thread you said 'the raw data is available online'. the OP is yet another example of how a flawed and unsubstantiated paper gets through peer review and then when someone wants to look at the 'data' it has been 'lost'. obfuscation is not part of the scientific method although it certainly seems to be part of the SOP (standard operating procedure) of many climate scientists, especially Team members.

 

[flacaltenn]

So Ian --- What's the deal here anyway? Why is there a SINGLE "climate sensitivity number for the entire earth? If it's a function of the feedbacks and the Albedo and water vapor content, how CAN there be a single number?

What dolt in the Climate community doesn't know that the S value for the Arctic is different from the Sahara? Plotting it as a Probability Density function? --- Forget that. Plot it REGIONALLY and temporally. Because like your 2nd post said -- the time lags alone tell you it's a function of time as well as region.. How mangled are the models if we multiply by some static ESTIMATED Global Sensitivity number to predict some Global Average Temp time series?

Seems to me it's highly likely that if the models are mute about REGIONAL differences and Temporal effects, that the farther we get into the "assumed" warming, the more they will fail to produce adequate predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yap, Yap, Yappity Yap.

The Global Temperature is just one of many indicators. It is an easy one to understand for most, and that is why it is used.

More important are the effects of the increase in temperature. Effects like stuck weather systems creating floods and droughts. Effects like storms dropping a lot more water in a shorter time than we have seen previously. Effects like at least a reduction of 25% on the 2007 Arctic Ice minimum so far this year. A March in which the record temperatures did not break the old records by 2 or 3 degrees, but by 20 and 30 degrees. Where the minimums were higher than any previous maximums.

But go ahead and continue the flap yap. As the weather events continue, you are going to look even more foolish than you appear at present.

 

[Oddball]

It's looking like the IPCC has been too conservative, and has been underestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. More precisely, it's been underestimating the CO2 and methane feedbacks that are being caused by the warming. But in general, the IPCC bows to what most governments want, which is to downplay the problem, and that's why the IPCC errs on the "less warming" side.

By the way, would the denialists care to make a point on this thread, other than to reinforce that they're all political cultists? The OP kind of started approaching a point, but then it all dissolved into a conspiracy theory concerning some 2006 paper. Even if the conspiracy was correct, it wouldn't make any sense, given how one 2006 paper does not represent the entire field of AGW science.

on a different thread you said 'the raw data is available online'. the OP is yet another example of how a flawed and unsubstantiated paper gets through peer review and then when someone wants to look at the 'data' it has been 'lost'. obfuscation is not part of the scientific method although it certainly seems to be part of the SOP (standard operating procedure) of many climate scientists, especially Team members.

The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

 

[IanC]

It's looking like the IPCC has been too conservative, and has been underestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. More precisely, it's been underestimating the CO2 and methane feedbacks that are being caused by the warming. But in general, the IPCC bows to what most governments want, which is to downplay the problem, and that's why the IPCC errs on the "less warming" side.

By the way, would the denialists care to make a point on this thread, other than to reinforce that they're all political cultists? The OP kind of started approaching a point, but then it all dissolved into a conspiracy theory concerning some 2006 paper. Even if the conspiracy was correct, it wouldn't make any sense, given how one 2006 paper does not represent the entire field of AGW science.

on a different thread you said 'the raw data is available online'. the OP is yet another example of how a flawed and unsubstantiated paper gets through peer review and then when someone wants to look at the 'data' it has been 'lost'. obfuscation is not part of the scientific method although it certainly seems to be part of the SOP (standard operating procedure) of many climate scientists, especially Team members.

The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

thanks oddball. that article is spot on for illustrating how consensus climate science works. the date is just before climategate happened but many of the leaked emails backed up the details.

 

[IanC]

So Ian --- What's the deal here anyway? Why is there a SINGLE "climate sensitivity number for the entire earth? If it's a function of the feedbacks and the Albedo and water vapor content, how CAN there be a single number?

What dolt in the Climate community doesn't know that the S value for the Arctic is different from the Sahara? Plotting it as a Probability Density function? --- Forget that. Plot it REGIONALLY and temporally. Because like your 2nd post said -- the time lags alone tell you it's a function of time as well as region.. How mangled are the models if we multiply by some static ESTIMATED Global Sensitivity number to predict some Global Average Temp time series?

Seems to me it's highly likely that if the models are mute about REGIONAL differences and Temporal effects, that the farther we get into the "assumed" warming, the more they will fail to produce adequate predictions.

oversimplification of many areas in climate science renders the 'big picture' conclusions ridiculous. eg radiation is proportional to temperature to the fourth power. a one degree rise at the equator would totally swamp a ten degree rise at a pole, interms of how much extra energy was being released.

 

[IanC]

time for an update.

Lewis informed the IPCC Working Group of one error, and to their credit they acknowledged it and published a correction. unfortunately their correction is also wrong.

Gabi Hegerl, quite properly, brought my letter to the attention of the IPCC WG1 Co-Chairs, and it was dealt with under the new formal "IPCC protocol for addressing possible errors". The result was the issue of a formal Erratum by the IPCC, stating that Gregory et al "implicitly use a uniform prior on transient climate response". I knew that this was also wrong, but Gabi insisted that the WG1 authors were sure it was right. In fact, Gabi was relying on Myles Allen, who I think was primarily responsible for the use of a uniform prior in sensitivity basis in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1.
....

Gabi and Myles were not keen to get the IPCC to issue a further Erratum, which would obviously be embarrassing, so I agreed not to pursue the matter further.

- Bishop Hill blog - An error too embarrassing to*correct

Lewis now has a rather technical post up at Climate Audit presenting some of the biggest statistical errors incorporated into last decade's worth of climate sensitivity papers.

....
In addition to the Forest 2002 and 2006 papers, I believe these errors also affected the Forest et al. 2008 Tellus A and the Libardoni and Forest 2011 GRL papers, and probably also 2009 and 2010 papers lead authored by Forest’s regular co-author Sokolov. It is to be expected that there will be multiple citations of results from these various studies in the AR5 WG1 report, . I put it to Myles Allen – who seems, along with Gabi Hegerl, to be the lead author of Chapter 10 primarily responsible for the sections relating to climate sensitivity – that in view of these serious statistical errors, results from the affected papers should not be cited in the IPCC report. However, whilst accepting that the errors were real, he expressed the view that the existence of these statistical errors didn’t really matter to the results of the papers concerned. His reasoning was that only error (b) had a potentially substantial effect, and that didn’t much matter since there was anyway considerable uncertainty in the ocean data that the studies used. I’m not sure that I agree with this approach.
....
Nic Lewis on Statistical errors in the Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study « Climate Audit

while it is always a case of three steps forward two steps back, the fight to bring back real science into global warming is progressing. more and more data is being released into the public sphere, more methodologies are being exposed to outside scrutiny, more unwarranted exaggerations are being subjected to public ridicule.

 

[flacaltenn]

THAT ^^^^^^ would be hysterical if the whole integrity of science wasnt at stake..

If the IPCC wants to be the encyclopedia on the topic --- they need better editors..

 

[IanC]

THAT ^^^^^^ would be hysterical if the whole integrity of science wasnt at stake..

If the IPCC wants to be the encyclopedia on the topic --- they need better editors..

here is a nice history of the IPCC and the HockeyStick. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holland/Bias_and_Concealment.pdf. the interesting part is the actual IPCC working notes, and how they were dealt (not) with. it is truly amazing how biased and inept the IPCC is. I cant see how it can be fixed and I hope the next report is the last one. hopefully some other group can take over the task and do a better job.

 

[IanC]

bump for abraham3.

you seem to think that I am totally unfounded in my concerns over the veracity of climate science papers, the adherence to principles by the journals publishing them, and the way the IPCC selects its references and deals with dissenting opinions.

this thread has it all. Lewis' voyage from finding errors in much cited data, being refused the data and code from the author, being refused by the journal to enforce their rules, to getting the IPPC to make a correction only to have the 'correction' be in error as well.

as a bonus for you there is also a history Mann's hockeystick graph as it wended its way through the third and fourth IPCC reports, and the NAS, Wegman and North investigations.

hahahaha, tell me again that I am just a denier conspiracy theorist! but dont forget to actually refute the information provided.

 

[Abraham3]

How mangled are the models if we multiply by some static ESTIMATED Global Sensitivity number to predict some Global Average Temp time series?

Seems to me it's highly likely that if the models are mute about REGIONAL differences and Temporal effects, that the farther we get into the "assumed" warming, the more they will fail to produce adequate predictions.

Seems to me as if you don't know what you're talking about. If you think a GCM that went to the trouble of gridding the planet in 3D to one minute resolution is going to apply a singler sensitivity value to the whole mess, you need to have another sit down.

 

[flacaltenn]

How mangled are the models if we multiply by some static ESTIMATED Global Sensitivity number to predict some Global Average Temp time series?

Seems to me it's highly likely that if the models are mute about REGIONAL differences and Temporal effects, that the farther we get into the "assumed" warming, the more they will fail to produce adequate predictions.

Seems to me as if you don't know what you're talking about. If you think a GCM that went to the trouble of gridding the planet in 3D to one minute resolution is going to apply a singler sensitivity value to the whole mess, you need to have another sit down.

BY DEFINITION -- these jerks are DERIVING a SINGLE climate sensitivity value to the ENTIRE planet.. Not taking into account dynamic effects over time, seasons, Regions, or ANY of things that actually determine HOW a specific chunk of the world will respond to a climate forcing...

Climate sensitivity numbers for GLOBAL GCMs are an OUTPUT --- not an input.. If you HAD the local, regional, and temporally varying Climate Sensitivities for the globe --- You wouldn't NEED to run a model.. Just MULTIPLY by the forcing function --- Again, by definition of the Climate Sensitivity coefficient..

 

[Abraham3]

How mangled are the models if we multiply by some static ESTIMATED Global Sensitivity number to predict some Global Average Temp time series?

Seems to me it's highly likely that if the models are mute about REGIONAL differences and Temporal effects, that the farther we get into the "assumed" warming, the more they will fail to produce adequate predictions.

Seems to me as if you don't know what you're talking about. If you think a GCM that went to the trouble of gridding the planet in 3D to one minute resolution is going to apply a singler sensitivity value to the whole mess, you need to have another sit down.

BY DEFINITION -- these jerks are DERIVING a SINGLE climate sensitivity value to the ENTIRE planet.. Not taking into account dynamic effects over time, seasons, Regions, or ANY of things that actually determine HOW a specific chunk of the world will respond to a climate forcing...

Climate sensitivity numbers for GLOBAL GCMs are an OUTPUT --- not an input.. If you HAD the local, regional, and temporally varying Climate Sensitivities for the globe --- You wouldn't NEED to run a model.. Just MULTIPLY by the forcing function --- Again, by definition of the Climate Sensitivity coefficient..

First off, where do you get off calling these people "jerks"? Eh? You don't know ANY of these people and to be honest, neither of us is qualified to judge their work. If you think they're all "jerks" you've simply joined the massive conspiracy wing of the denier cult.

Some GCMs do produce climate sensitivity as an output while in others it is an input parameter.

What makes you think sensitivity in a region is a constant?

This phobia or fixation or obsession you've got with averages is ridiculous. You really need to conduct a reality check on the matter cause it's starting to sound as if you're mounting bolts are getting a little loose.

 

[flacaltenn]

BY DEFINITION -- these jerks are DERIVING a SINGLE climate sensitivity value to the ENTIRE planet.. Not taking into account dynamic effects over time, seasons, Regions, or ANY of things that actually determine HOW a specific chunk of the world will respond to a climate forcing...

Climate sensitivity numbers for GLOBAL GCMs are an OUTPUT --- not an input.. If you HAD the local, regional, and temporally varying Climate Sensitivities for the globe --- You wouldn't NEED to run a model.. Just MULTIPLY by the forcing function --- Again, by definition of the Climate Sensitivity coefficient..

First off, where do you get off calling these people "jerks"? Eh? You don't know ANY of these people and to be honest, neither of us is qualified to judge their work. If you think they're all "jerks" you've simply joined the massive conspiracy wing of the denier cult.

Some GCMs do produce climate sensitivity as an output while in others it is an input parameter.

What makes you think sensitivity in a region is a constant?

This phobia or fixation or obsession you've got with averages is ridiculous. You really need to conduct a reality check on the matter cause it's starting to sound as if you're mounting bolts are getting a little loose.

No wonder you don't understand Ian's posts on this topic.. You have no idea what a Climate Sensitivity of 3.2 implies..

I'm not the JERK who develops single global numbers assuming that "Sensitivity in a region is a constant" with respect to time.. Those would be the JERKS that you worship for their fame and credentials.. I'm the guy telling you that it most CERTAINLY IS NOT a constant. As evidenced by what happens when the Arctic Ice melts. Or Ocean cycles align to increase or decrease cloud cover.

That simple-ass construct is ALL OVER the Warmer Bible.. The modeling that produces GLOBAL TEMPERATURES over time and generally fails to predict anything important are DERIVING Climate sensitivities from forcings, circulations, feedbacks and albedos, etc.. The latter 3 of those are WHAT DETERMINE a climate sensitivity..

IN FACT --- THESE Climate Sensitivity numbers in question are often applied to the change in temperature with respect to CO2 as a forcing (as in a Doubling).. And it's ASSUMED that any other forcing would behave the same. But the justification for that is not clear at all. Since there is no reason to believe that changing the dials on SOOT or SOLAR would display the same climate sensitivity result from the modeling..

All these idiotic simplifications and GLOBAL scale models are the work of jerks. NOT folks who seek to understand the MECHANICS and system schematics of planetary thermal distribution and climate change.

I'll bet you $500 that the concept of a SINGLE TIME INVARIANT number for climate sensitivity doesn't survive the decade... Yet it's probably been the MOST IMPORTANT result of EVERY IPCC report since the bastard organization was hatched..

 

[Abraham3]

I bet you a dime to a donut that the AVERAGE climate sensitivity for the planet is a GREAT deal more stable than the climate sensitivity for any particular region.

Show me some evidence that it is common in GCMs to assume regional sensitivity is more constant than it is. I thought you had just complained that they were treating it as constant across the entire globe.

 

[westwall]

I bet you a dime to a donut that the AVERAGE climate sensitivity for the planet is a GREAT deal more stable than the climate sensitivity for any particular region.

Show me some evidence that it is common in GCMs to assume regional sensitivity is more constant than it is. I thought you had just complained that they were treating it as constant across the entire globe.

Tell you what, you get us some source code and we'll be happy to oblige. Funny how the AGW fraudsters will never release ANYTHING.