Climate Sensitivity

[IanC]

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.

I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high ECS. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[waltky]

Climate change to affect food crops...

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.

However, future shortfalls could be offset by switching to crops which can thrive in those altered climates, according to new reports by the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research. Important crops like maize and wheat produce less grain at temperatures above 30 degrees Celsius. “Those kinds of temperatures are being reached on a regular basis and more frequently in many countries now,” says Sonja Vermeulen, head of CGIAR climate change research.

Widespread changes

Vermeulen says growing-season temperatures are not the only factors affected by climate change. Rainfall patterns are shifting, too. Water supplies will be strained in some areas, while others will see more floods. Climate change is also altering habitats for pests and diseases, she says. "And for some crops, particularly crops we really value, such as potatoes, we think those are really likely to increase and change in their patterns in the future.” Rice will not be spared, either. Higher temperatures, salt water encroachment, more flooding and more droughts are likely as the climate changes.

Maize vs. millet

Some crops in some regions will be able to adapt, “But for others, we’re really going to have to think about switching out of growing some crops entirely,” Vermeulen says. For example, by later this century large parts of Africa will no longer be suitable for growing maize. Sorghum, millet and cassava are becoming better options. “And when you start thinking through all that, it means changes in people’s diets," she says. "And these are fairly fundamental cultural changes.”

Vermeulen and her colleagues have just released two reports outlining the predicted impacts of climate change on food production, and also on food safety. She says warmer temperatures will mean foods will spoil faster. “This is something we haven’t thought a lot about, these kinds of infections that can harm humans that really might be on the increase,” she says.

Global vs. local

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[mamooth]

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.

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.

 

[mamooth]

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.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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..

 

[IanC]

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.

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.

Obviously you haven't followed the thread on Gergis 2012. It passed peer review only to fail web review in less than a week.

 

[IanC]

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.

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.

Care to post up actual corn yeilds for this year rather than op-ed s?

 

[4Horsemen]

Is that the new tag word for Global Warming... Climate Sensitivity?

still not buying it.

 

[flacaltenn]

IANC:

I was not comfortable following that discussion because all I could think of was "What area of coverage are they measuring???" . The opportunity of measuring the flux diff from a volcano is not neccessarily a "Global" event. Towards the bottom -- I ran into this.

The above analyses all use forcing estimates which are globally averaged, and they also assume that the satellite values of radiative flux represent global averages. In practice the coverage from ERBS is from 60S to 60N. Since Pinatubo was a tropical volcano, the spread of injected aerosols was from the tropics outwards. During the early period, we would therefore expect that both the forcing per unit area and the net flux response per unit area should be larger in magnitude over the tropical region than the extra-tropics, and larger over the ERBS region of coverage than over the total globe. We might therefore expect that the climate sensitivity values estimated above are biased towards being high.

How do you globally average a forcing function that's only measured from 60N to 60S and is likely not very consistently spread for that period?

I DO get the gist of why this opportunity yields much lower ECS numbers. And the end matches on graphs look impressive -- but I'm not really getting the assumptions about extending this outside of the ERBES coverage or to the density and distribution of the volcanically induced flux change.

 

[IanC]

IANC:

I was not comfortable following that discussion because all I could think of was "What area of coverage are they measuring???" . The opportunity of measuring the flux diff from a volcano is not neccessarily a "Global" event. Towards the bottom -- I ran into this.

The above analyses all use forcing estimates which are globally averaged, and they also assume that the satellite values of radiative flux represent global averages. In practice the coverage from ERBS is from 60S to 60N. Since Pinatubo was a tropical volcano, the spread of injected aerosols was from the tropics outwards. During the early period, we would therefore expect that both the forcing per unit area and the net flux response per unit area should be larger in magnitude over the tropical region than the extra-tropics, and larger over the ERBS region of coverage than over the total globe. We might therefore expect that the climate sensitivity values estimated above are biased towards being high.

How do you globally average a forcing function that's only measured from 60N to 60S and is likely not very consistently spread for that period?

I DO get the gist of why this opportunity yields much lower ECS numbers. And the end matches on graphs look impressive -- but I'm not really getting the assumptions about extending this outside of the ERBES coverage or to the density and distribution of the volcanically induced flux change.

fair enough criticism. unfortunately they have to work with the data available.

the reason I posted this was to point out the 'OJ alibi'. both papers made a real attempt to further understanding of the science but then backed away from making obvious next step that would embarrass climate science by showing that climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 and energy flux are mutually exclusive.

So of these two papers, Wigley2006 offers a climate sensitivity but fails to reconcile to the measured flux data. Soden2002 does seek to match the observed flux data but does not report on the implied climate sensitivity.

I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high ECS. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.

 

[flacaltenn]

IANC:

I was not comfortable following that discussion because all I could think of was "What area of coverage are they measuring???" . The opportunity of measuring the flux diff from a volcano is not neccessarily a "Global" event. Towards the bottom -- I ran into this.

The above analyses all use forcing estimates which are globally averaged, and they also assume that the satellite values of radiative flux represent global averages. In practice the coverage from ERBS is from 60S to 60N. Since Pinatubo was a tropical volcano, the spread of injected aerosols was from the tropics outwards. During the early period, we would therefore expect that both the forcing per unit area and the net flux response per unit area should be larger in magnitude over the tropical region than the extra-tropics, and larger over the ERBS region of coverage than over the total globe. We might therefore expect that the climate sensitivity values estimated above are biased towards being high.

How do you globally average a forcing function that's only measured from 60N to 60S and is likely not very consistently spread for that period?

I DO get the gist of why this opportunity yields much lower ECS numbers. And the end matches on graphs look impressive -- but I'm not really getting the assumptions about extending this outside of the ERBES coverage or to the density and distribution of the volcanically induced flux change.

fair enough criticism. unfortunately they have to work with the data available.

the reason I posted this was to point out the 'OJ alibi'. both papers made a real attempt to further understanding of the science but then backed away from making obvious next step that would embarrass climate science by showing that climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 and energy flux are mutually exclusive.

So of these two papers, Wigley2006 offers a climate sensitivity but fails to reconcile to the measured flux data. Soden2002 does seek to match the observed flux data but does not report on the implied climate sensitivity.

I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high ECS. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.

So you have this opportunity for nature to do a flux variation experiment. Gives us the perfect opportunity to put our "orbiting flux measurer" to work. And the published papers all shy away from doing the obvious ECS calculations for political reasons. This critique shows the criminal motivation for them not doing the obvious. I get all that.

But why aren't we happy to just calculate that ECS within the ACTUAL bounds of the ERBES data? Wouldn't be any less successful to point out the IMPLIED ECS for 60N to 60S is a lot lower than what's being used for a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity.

By insisting on the simplistic "one number covers the globe" outputs - like temp and ECS, we are encouraging the dumbing down of the science for mass consumption.

 

[IanC]

IANC:

I was not comfortable following that discussion because all I could think of was "What area of coverage are they measuring???" . The opportunity of measuring the flux diff from a volcano is not neccessarily a "Global" event. Towards the bottom -- I ran into this.



How do you globally average a forcing function that's only measured from 60N to 60S and is likely not very consistently spread for that period?

I DO get the gist of why this opportunity yields much lower ECS numbers. And the end matches on graphs look impressive -- but I'm not really getting the assumptions about extending this outside of the ERBES coverage or to the density and distribution of the volcanically induced flux change.

fair enough criticism. unfortunately they have to work with the data available.

the reason I posted this was to point out the 'OJ alibi'. both papers made a real attempt to further understanding of the science but then backed away from making obvious next step that would embarrass climate science by showing that climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 and energy flux are mutually exclusive.

So of these two papers, Wigley2006 offers a climate sensitivity but fails to reconcile to the measured flux data. Soden2002 does seek to match the observed flux data but does not report on the implied climate sensitivity.

I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high ECS. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.

So you have this opportunity for nature to do a flux variation experiment. Gives us the perfect opportunity to put our "orbiting flux measurer" to work. And the published papers all shy away from doing the obvious ECS calculations for political reasons. This critique shows the criminal motivation for them not doing the obvious. I get all that.

But why aren't we happy to just calculate that ECS within the ACTUAL bounds of the ERBES data? Wouldn't be any less successful to point out the IMPLIED ECS for 60N to 60S is a lot lower than what's being used for a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity.

By insisting on the simplistic "one number covers the globe" outputs - like temp and ECS, we are encouraging the dumbing down of the science for mass consumption.

I agree with you. I am just happy that baby steps are happening to start tearing down the edifice of CAGW. the climate sensitivity of 3C from climate models is shrinking due to real life measurements. once it is knocked down to a more realistic number then the catastrophic case will wither away. it takes time and energy to stop the train of IPCC climate census but it is happening.

 

[flacaltenn]

fair enough criticism. unfortunately they have to work with the data available.

the reason I posted this was to point out the 'OJ alibi'. both papers made a real attempt to further understanding of the science but then backed away from making obvious next step that would embarrass climate science by showing that climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 and energy flux are mutually exclusive.

So you have this opportunity for nature to do a flux variation experiment. Gives us the perfect opportunity to put our "orbiting flux measurer" to work. And the published papers all shy away from doing the obvious ECS calculations for political reasons. This critique shows the criminal motivation for them not doing the obvious. I get all that.

But why aren't we happy to just calculate that ECS within the ACTUAL bounds of the ERBES data? Wouldn't be any less successful to point out the IMPLIED ECS for 60N to 60S is a lot lower than what's being used for a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity.

By insisting on the simplistic "one number covers the globe" outputs - like temp and ECS, we are encouraging the dumbing down of the science for mass consumption.

I agree with you. I am just happy that baby steps are happening to start tearing down the edifice of CAGW. the climate sensitivity of 3C from climate models is shrinking due to real life measurements. once it is knocked down to a more realistic number then the catastrophic case will wither away. it takes time and energy to stop the train of IPCC climate census but it is happening.

Just in the knick of time too. I sense the AGW political wingnuts are winding up for another shot to capitalize on the "consensus"..

 

[IanC]

So you have this opportunity for nature to do a flux variation experiment. Gives us the perfect opportunity to put our "orbiting flux measurer" to work. And the published papers all shy away from doing the obvious ECS calculations for political reasons. This critique shows the criminal motivation for them not doing the obvious. I get all that.

But why aren't we happy to just calculate that ECS within the ACTUAL bounds of the ERBES data? Wouldn't be any less successful to point out the IMPLIED ECS for 60N to 60S is a lot lower than what's being used for a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity.

By insisting on the simplistic "one number covers the globe" outputs - like temp and ECS, we are encouraging the dumbing down of the science for mass consumption.

I agree with you. I am just happy that baby steps are happening to start tearing down the edifice of CAGW. the climate sensitivity of 3C from climate models is shrinking due to real life measurements. once it is knocked down to a more realistic number then the catastrophic case will wither away. it takes time and energy to stop the train of IPCC climate census but it is happening.

Just in the knick of time too. I sense the AGW political wingnuts are winding up for another shot to capitalize on the "consensus"..

you may be right. The Hockey team still has a pretty firm grip on their chapters of the IPCC report. we'll have to see if the counter evidence is kept out again, or whether room has been left for the sceptics to make their case on climate sensitivity, natural factors, etc.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe in global warming but I don't think it will be more than 1.5c by 2100.

These people are insane if they think we will warm 3-6c by 2100. Out of their blooming minds.

 

[waltky]

Link Between Climate Change, National Security...

New Report Highlights Link Between Climate Change, National Security
November 09, 2012 WASHINGTON — Report says climate change can present security threats similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks

The U.S. National Research Council released a report Friday on the link between global climate change and national security. The scientific study details how global warming is putting new social and political stresses on societies around the world and how the United States and other counties can anticipate and respond to these climate-driven security risks. The report by the congressionally-chartered research group begins with an assertion that global warming is real, and that the mainstream scientific community believes that heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are being added to the atmosphere faster today than they were before the rise of human societies.

And it says the consequences of climate change -- including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe floods, droughts, forest fires, and insect infestations -- present security threats similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks. John Steinbruner, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, says the U.S. intelligence community in particular needs to make climate change-related security threats a greater priority. “We are not as prepared as we need to be, I think [is] the better statement. It’s not that they are completely ill-prepared. It is not as if they are not monitoring in some sense, but it is not as organized or as developed as it needs to be,” he said.

Steinbruner says extreme weather events, for example, need to be anticipated where they can be and assessed in terms of their potential to destabilize countries and regions around the world. And he believes that a better understanding of how floods and droughts can trigger migration and civil conflict in parts of Africa and South Asia -- regions with weak governments and high levels of poverty -- will help developed countries better plan to prevent or respond to humanitarian disasters. The study urges greater international cooperation in gathering information on climate trends. Steinbruner notes that Pakistan and India currently refuse to share data on precipitation rates with the United States, information that could predict floods and droughts in South Asia. “There needs to be, if you will, a global diplomatic and scientific discussion saying, ‘Look, we need to set rules. We need to set processes where all of us are monitoring according to the same standards.' We all get the same benefit from it,” he said.

And Steinbruner says the U.S. military needs to anticipate new climate change-related threats -- for example, how the decreasing level of ice in the Arctic Ocean could lead to international competition or conflict over access to natural resources there. Alexander Ochs, the Climate and Energy Director at the non-profit Worldwatch Institute, says the report is an important reminder to world leaders of the complex problems posed by climate change: “So any investment we can make today in reducing emissions will make the problem smaller and it will pay out multi-fold in terms of the costs we have to pick up in the future,” Ochs said. The report, however, does not deal with how nations should go about reducing carbon emissions in the future. It focuses on the present and how the U.S. and the world can better manage potentially disruptive climate events.

New Report Highlights Link Between Climate Change, National Security

 

[IanC]

And it says the consequences of climate change -- including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe floods, droughts, forest fires, and insect infestations

when exactly are these consequences going to start? sea level rise is the same as it ever was, according to tide gauges. floods and droughts are not different than in the past if you look at real data rather than op-eds. forest fires are down, and I dont know about insect infestations but I suspect that they are overblown and distorted as well.