Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[Crick]

This is the circular firing squad.

Ask everyone involved with the FRAUD if they support the FRAUD because it enriches and empowers them...

DUH...

Has it occurred to you to actually look at what they say rather than jumping to a conclusion and closing your eyes?

 

[jc456]

I never said IPCC has no scientists on board, just no honest scientists

Actually, YOU said they have no scientists and do no research, they just aggregate the paid works of Cult members masquerading as scientists

Well I know they have no scientists on board. They say so. They were formed from Meteorology. John Coleman was most likely the first meteorologist who said they were full of shit. And to date they demonize him as not a climate scientist. So if he ain't, they ain't.

 

[jc456]

Has it occurred to you to actually look at what they say rather than jumping to a conclusion and closing your eyes?

well you won't tell us what they say. You nauseatingly keep posting their utter nonsense.

John Coleman, Judith Curry, didn't hear back from you after you asked me for a name. I gave you two and you left.

 

[luiza]

IPCC is an independent bunch of non specialists set up to confuse and bamboozle stupid Sheeple .
And they do . Just read this thread .

 

[mamooth]

So, the usual.

The OP talks about the science.

A pack of authoritarian kooks immediately tries a mass-trolling campaign.

This is denialism now. They don't even pretend anymore that they can talk about the science. They're out to silence any talk of issue, by way of their censorship-through-trolling tactics.

 

[Foxfyre]

This topic comes up now and then and I thought it might be handy to have some reference material. This first post is the glossary entries under "Climate Sensitivity"

Climate sensitivity The change in the surface temperature
in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
concentration or other radiative forcing. See also Climate feedback
parameter.
Earth system sensitivity
The equilibrium surface temperature response of the coupled
atmosphere–ocean–cryosphere–vegetation–carbon cycle system to
a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration
is referred to as Earth system sensitivity. Because it allows ice sheets
to adjust to the external perturbation, it may differ substantially from
the equilibrium climate sensitivity derived from coupled atmosphere–
ocean models.
Effective equilibrium climate sensitivity
An estimate of the surface temperature response to a doubling of
the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration that is evaluated
from model output or observations for evolving non-equilibrium
conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at
a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state,
and therefore may differ from equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
The equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature
following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
concentration from pre-industrial conditions.
Transient climate response (TCR)
The surface temperature response for the hypothetical scenario
in which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases at 1% yr–1
from pre-industrial to the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO2
concentration (year 70).
Transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE)
The transient surface temperature change per unit cumulative carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, usually 1000 GtC. TCRE combines both
information on the airborne fraction of cumulative CO2 emissions
(the fraction of the total CO2 emitted that remains in the atmosphere,
which is determined by carbon cycle processes) and on the transient
climate response (TCR).

"The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks and Climate Sensitivity", Chapter 7 of "The Physical Science Basis" in the IPCC's Assessment Report 6 is the place to cover this topic. If you don't already have one, you can download a copy of the entire document at:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Chapter 7 begins on page 923. Climate Feedbacks are discussed in section 7.4, beginning on page 967. Estimate of ECS and TCR are discussed in section 7.5, beginning on page 992

While of course scientists should study our climate and environment and the effects of different forces on both, honest scientists acknowledge that the Earth's climate is constantly changing and we have gone through numerous periods warmer than now as well as ice ages.

The last ice age began 115,000 years ago and ended 11,700 years ago. The Earth undergoes many cool periods and many warm periods but will overall gradually warm until the next ice age and humankind has survived it all quite nicely.

Until all scientists are heard and allowed to speak and not just those profiting from predictions of disastrous climate change. . .

until some scientific 'predictions' start happening and they stop moving the goal posts. . .

until 'climate scientists' and/or their spokespersons stop falsifying or 'editing' data to eliminate extenuating evidence. . .

until those making and repeating the predictions start living their lives as if they actually believed them. . .

until the draconian measures they force on us to reduce CO2 make any difference whatsoever. . .

I will not believe climate change is the largest existential threat faced by humankind, and will believe governments should focus on constructive ways to adapt to it instead of trying to control it.

 

[EMH]

Has it occurred to you to actually look at what they say rather than jumping to a conclusion and closing your eyes?

DATA is DATA.

Painting up another fudge chart does not change THE DATA...

 

[ReinyDays]

What political source and what discussions? I was attempting to get out how the IPCC comes up with their climate sensitivity values. Would you also like to suggest that the IPCC has no scientists on board? Crusader Frank tried that a few days ago.

I'm suggesting you're not a scientist ... and you don't understand what the IPCC is saying ...

So ...

What is the climate sensitivity values the IPCC is using? ... is it a dimensionless ratio? ... what's this "sensitivity" value in relationship to SB's emissivity value? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

So, the usual.

The OP talks about the science.

A pack of authoritarian kooks immediately tries a mass-trolling campaign.

This is denialism now. They don't even pretend anymore that they can talk about the science. They're out to silence any talk of issue, by way of their censorship-through-trolling tactics.

Stefan-Bolztmann's Law is Denialism now? ... is that true for the all of astrophysics, or just the parts you don't understand? ... surprise surprise, we should be able to calculate these temperature values ... is asking for this prohibited? ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hardly doubling down. They narrowed the range and moved its centerpoint up half a centigrade degree. If you had even skimmed the text I pointed out you would have found that they put an enormous amount of study into coming up with that value.

There is no fraud. That's why you have no evidence of fraud. That's why you have no evidence that there is no warming. That's why you have no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 isn't the primary cause. That, apparently, is why you have decided to start lying to us.

Oh Really????

Why then do temperatures plummet for tens of thousands of years AFTER CO2 peaks?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, the usual.

The OP talks about the science.

A pack of authoritarian kooks immediately tries a mass-trolling campaign.

This is denialism now. They don't even pretend anymore that they can talk about the science. They're out to silence any talk of issue, by way of their censorship-through-trolling tactics.

Paid parrots squawking "Consensus" =/= science

 

[mamooth]

Stefan-Bolztmann's Law is Denialism now?

Oh, do tell us. How does S-B work into this?

This should be hilarious.

 

[mamooth]

While of course scientists should study our climate and environment and the effects of different forces on both, honest scientists acknowledge that the Earth's climate is constantly changing and we have gone through numerous periods warmer than now as well as ice ages.

The natural cycle should now be slow cooling. That means the current fast warming clearly isn't due to a natural cycle.

Plus, the directly measured stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the polar amplification and the changes in outgoing longwave are smoking guns for the human origin of the fast warming.

Until all scientists are heard and allowed to speak and not just those profiting from predictions of disastrous climate change. . .

All the corrupting bribe money flows to your side, so all of the fraud and garbage science comes from your side. Our side refuses the bribe money, which gives them even more credibilty. Your side regularly lies for money, and ours doesn't.

until some scientific 'predictions' start happening and they stop moving the goal posts. . .

The predictions from mainstream climate science have been excellent. That's why climate scientists have so much credibility, because they've earned it by being right over and over.

In contrast, your side has faceplanted with every prediction for over 40 years now. That's why your side isn't taken seriously.

I will not believe

Understood. You're not interested in the actual science. This is entirely a political and religious matter for you.

 

[mamooth]

Well I know they have no scientists on board. They say so. They were formed from Meteorology. John Coleman

John Coleman had a BS in journalism, and no science training of any sort. He just stood in front of the camera and pointed to the weather map. Someone would have to be kind of crazy to pay attention to his inane ramblings about climate.

 

[jc456]

John Coleman had a BS in journalism, and no science training of any sort. He just stood in front of the camera and pointed to the weather map. Someone would have to be kind of crazy to pay attention to his inane ramblings about climate.

Why didn’t you post his wiki page?

 

[mamooth]

Why didn’t you post his wiki page?

Because it's a well-known fact, and I assumed everyone was smart enough to find his wiki page, should they care enough to look.

Perhaps _you_ can't navigate to a wiki page, but that's your problem.

 

[jc456]

Because it's a well-known fact, and I assumed everyone was smart enough to find his wiki page, should they care enough to look.

Perhaps _you_ can't navigate to a wiki page, but that's your problem.

And you didn’t post it again, why?

 

[mamooth]

And you didn’t post it again, why?

Since you're just trolling again, kindly fuck off.

 

[jc456]

Since you're just trolling again, kindly fuck off.

So he was more than you posted, otherwise you would have posted it

 

[Billy_Bob]

DATA is DATA.

Painting up another fudge chart does not change THE DATA...

Crick is good at putting up failed modeling charts and calling them fact even when they are outed as having 10 times more warming than the empirically observed evidence shows. Circks Fantasy world along with the UN and the IPCC.. all a power and control grab with no basis in science.