The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

[mamooth]

Temp has already risen 1.2C with a 40% CO2 increase, which is half a doubling.

That pegs the observed TCS (Transient Climate Sensitivity) at 2.4C.

ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) has to be significantly bigger than that, because much of the warming from the current CO2 increase is still to come. It's likely in the range of 3.5C.

We can quibble about details there, but what's not debatable is that the lowball estimates of ECS, like calling it 1.0C, are flat out wrong, and the lukewarmer position is untenable.

 

[westwall]

Temp has already risen 1.2C with a 40% CO2 increase, which is half a doubling.

That pegs the observed TCS (Transient Climate Sensitivity) at 2.4C.

ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) has to be significantly bigger than that, because much of the warming from the current CO2 increase is still to come. It's likely in the range of 3.5C.

We can quibble about details there, but what's not debatable is that the lowball estimates of ECS, like calling it 1.0C, are flat out wrong, and the lukewarmer position is untenable.

So? We still haven't recovered from the LIA according to paleo climate records.

 

[mamooth]

So? We still haven't recovered from the LIA according to paleo climate records.

Sure we had. The lack of rising temps showed that. Recovery means temps go up. Temps were going .... down.

Hence, your deflection fails. And lukewarmerism is still nonsense.

 

[flacaltenn]

I gotta say --- I'm thrilled your here. I'm been asking for "better warmers" to discuss this with and you are a welcome relief from the juvenile and personal horsecrap that this forum has become on the GW topic.

I don't actually care that much for the "unprecedented", and would be perfectly fine with, "unprecedented, as far as our records show" or some amended version like that, if that removed your acrimony over the implied claim to knowledge that may not be there.

Fact is there are no methods to build a GLOBAL record with the resolution and accuracy to MAKE comparisons. And this knowledge SHOULD have been presented for what it was. An estimate of LONG TERM MEAN temperatures during those periods. The fact that each of these had the modern instrumentation tacked onto the right side of the graph is a sign of desperation and bad judgement -- if not outright corruption of scientific integrity...

THAT --- solves my "acrimony"...

On the other hand, if there's no known forcing that gets into the earth's system an amount of energy to cause a 1°C temperature increase, and then gets that energy out of the system again, and all in, say, 250 years, and leave no other traces, I'd say, that claim to "unprecedented" warming stands on sturdier feet. Still, I am not interested in quibbling about this, but was interested if there was more information behind your criticism.

I'm honestly NOT impressed by 0.6degC in our lifetimes. It's EASILY explained by a combination of natural variation and increased "insulation" from GHouse gases.. I gave you the BASIC calculation.. The FIRST doubling of CO2 since the Industrial Age has not yet occurred. That's 280 to 560ppm.. We won't hit that til WAAAY after 2050.. And the NEXT doubling will require we go from 560 to 1120ppm just to get the NEXT degree. At that rate -- there would not BE a TOP SHELF GWarming crisis with international attention..

Not sure that it NEEDS an explanation. Or at the VERY LEAST -- I'm CERTAIN as somebody who's invested heavily in this topic for 15 years with an EXTENSIVE science background --- that the more important thing is to FREE the appropriate communities to do GOOD GENERAL science on the thermal dynamics of the climate system as a whole. And I read THOSE sources quite a bit. Tend to ignore the OVER-HYPED public debate.

Just shortly, so maybe we get somewhere: There's but two plausible ways to get that energy into the system, increased irradiation, or energy trapped in the system. Agreed? We know the sun follows very regular cycles. So does the earth's orbit. I've seen nothing in that, or a combination thereof, that would account for such a short-term (in geological time scales) event, and of the required magnitude. That leaves energy trapped, presumably by an increase in greenhouse gases. The only candidate for that would be methane, because it might build up, and dissipate, on that time scale. The problem with that is that there is probably no explanation for the generation of such enormous amounts of methane that doesn't have other, detectable causes. CO2 it cannot be, because the required causes would be detectable (burning enormous amounts of wood or coal, or volcanism on that scale would leave traces in sediments), and it would linger for thousands of years. Increased concentrations of water vapor would be a consequence of warming, rather than the cause thereof.

You're asking for empirical confirmation that this relatively minor fluctuation is unique. I can't give you that. In fact, we''ve only had adequate tools in orbit to study the atmos and the sun from space for just 30 years. You ask for a lot here. You also make the mistake of calling it a "short term" event. It STARTS in a temperature of the LIAge about 1700.. Since then, the run-up of Total Solar Insolation (NOT SUNSPOT COUNTS, but actual radiation flux WITHOUT the baseline removed) has taken a step-up of about 1.2W/m2 at the surface.

Since we're looking to explain a forcing of about 3W/m2 to get the temp rise. This is UNDOUBTEDLY a part of it. Especially since I laid out the fact that time to new equilibriums and storage and thermal distribution paths are complex and not simple linear relations. So there are DELAYS involved, transient instability effects and all things that occur in a complex system. In addition you have those 12 or 20 CYCLIC variations spinning around the calendars at different periods and VOILA -- once in a blue moon they align to force a temperature spike by virtue of system transfer function..

Besides if you ever studied linear/nonlinear/stochastic systems theory, you know that any system with storage (integration) WILL produce a continuous RAMP (like your temperature curve that you're sweating) to a STEP input. Along with the expected transients if it's "underdamped".. So the chart above shows you --- "a step input" that remained flat throughout the past 3 or 4 decades. And energy from that step is STILL being "stored" in the oceans. Even tho the TSI has been flat.. And LIKELY soon to be DECLINING if the latest predictions of a Solar Minimum are correct.

The problem with that is that there is probably no explanation for the generation of such enormous amounts of methane that doesn't have other, detectable causes.

You're kidding right? NATURAL methane seeps are a big source WITHOUT additional warming. And you have termites -- alone as just one fucking species --- as probably 2nd only to man in methane production. More growth -- more termites. And I'm not impressed or pleased with the "accounting" on mankind's contribution to "excess" CO2.. First of all it's only 5% of the TOTAL yearly carbon cycle. Nature is 85%. And secondly -- mankind gets "charged" for domestic animal farts when it FACT -- those domestic herds merely REPLACED buffalo and other gassy animals as far as the eye can see. Thirdly, the sketchy claim is made that man's "fingerprint" is on the "excess CO2/Methane in the atmos".. This is a weak argument since the Carbon isotopes used to point to "old carbon" are highly over-lapped and somewhat ambiguous, and that this fingerprint is virtually INDISTINGUISHABLE from old carbon being coughed up NATURALLY stored for millenia in ocean and land rifts and seams.

Even if we get there, a 1°C increase, that still leaves the problem that you'd have to get that energy out of the system just as fast. I, for one, don't have the first clue as to how that's supposed to happen. Even if we increased the amount of energy trapped in the system by way of feedback mechanisms, these would probably also linger and preclude the quick cooling.

Here's a clue. Every hour of every day the LWIR from the Earth is a NET LOSS to space. The GH causes NO surface warming. It merely IMPEDES the rate of the loss to space. The Earth will probably always have a net loss to space or we're doomed. Even IF the next doubling of CO2 to 1120 is hit -- there will still a MASSIVE loss to space. And on a day to day basis --- WATER VAPOR is bigger determinant of net loss to space than any other GH gas..

Are you aware of the prediction for an imminent new Solar Minimum? If not, be advise, should this happen -- you will see the equivalent of thousands of atom bombs worth of energy disappear from the climate system in the matter of 50 to 80 years..

All in all, I don't see a prehistorical hockey stick, broken off somewhere in the middle of the warming phase. That does not mean it's impossible. I'd still like to see how the like could happen.

It's easier than that. As I said if you look at LOCAL High Resolution proxy studies (not the Global crap) you will see AMPLE climate variability in the pre-man past. I'll post some up for you in awhile...

 

[mamooth]

Besides if you ever studied linear/nonlinear/stochastic systems theory, you know that any system with storage (integration) WILL produce a continuous RAMP (like your temperature curve that you're sweating) to a STEP input.

No, it won't.

It will produce a C[1-exp(-KT)] type function.

That will be a ramp at first, then level out.

That's not happening. Temperature clearly isn't leveling out. It's not acting like a response to a step function.

And it's not possible we're still in the 'ramp" part, as that would imply an insanely high climate sensitivity to solar changes, something that would have been instantly obvious in the past.

Hence, your climate theory fails. And all scientists see that very clearly.

 

[Olde Europe]

You're asking for empirical confirmation that this relatively minor fluctuation is unique. I can't give you that. In fact, we''ve only had adequate tools in orbit to study the atmos and the sun from space for just 30 years. You ask for a lot here. You also make the mistake of calling it a "short term" event. It STARTS in a temperature of the LIAge about 1700.. Since then, the run-up of Total Solar Insolation (NOT SUNSPOT COUNTS, but actual radiation flux WITHOUT the baseline removed) has taken a step-up of about 1.2W/m2 at the surface.

Since we're looking to explain a forcing of about 3W/m2 to get the temp rise. This is UNDOUBTEDLY a part of it.

Yeah. We're looking at a maximum TSI change of about 1.6 W/m². Divided up over the Earth's surface that would be 0.4 W/m². It's also clear that around the solar highs, the output fluctuates most, and thus you get at most 75% of that on average, that is, 0.3 W/m². That again has to be reduced by the earth's albedo (30% reflected that don't warm the system), resulting in a fluctuation of actually absorbed solar input on the earth's surface of just over 0.2 W/m². Moreover, it isn't a short-term (on geological time-scales) event, such as you envisioned.

The rest of your contention seems to rest on the assumption there's a plausible scenario that buffaloes, deer, etc. and termites join to breed like crazy for a century, without an explanation as to the food sources suddenly newly available or the absence of predators to keep those methane producing populations in check.

All told, I don't think you get even theoretically to a 250-year event of 1°C warming and cooling, coming and going without leaving traces of some kind. I still don't think it's even possible based on natural causes.

Oh, and BTW, maybe if you stopped denigrating those who stick with science, scientific findings, physics as the most promising source of reliable information we have as "warmers", you could set an example for a more respectful tone around here on the "environment" threads. Just saying...

 

[SSDD]

Yeah. We're looking at a maximum TSI change of about 1.6 W/m².
.

There is a problem with only considering TSI...it assumes that the sun only radiates in a single frequency...it is as stupid as working with an average global temperature when on any given day the temperature spread at the surface is 200 degrees or more...Different frequencies, for example penetrate to different depths in the oceans...the TSI can remain fairly constant while the output at different frequencies can change altering the amount of energy imparted to the earth to a pretty large degree.

 

[Crick]

Which would alter the amount reflected back out to space which is monitored by satellite.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah. We're looking at a maximum TSI change of about 1.6 W/m².
.

There is a problem with only considering TSI...it assumes that the sun only radiates in a single frequency...it is as stupid as working with an average global temperature when on any given day the temperature spread at the surface is 200 degrees or more...Different frequencies, for example penetrate to different depths in the oceans...the TSI can remain fairly constant while the output at different frequencies can change altering the amount of energy imparted to the earth to a pretty large degree.

All just crackpot denier cult pseudo-science.....as proven by the moronic claim that the Earth couldn't possibly have an "average global temperature" because there are temperature differences across the globe.....which betrays a total non-comprehension of what 'average' actually means. And if he can't understand that, he doesn't understand anything!

 

[Crick]

This claim by him and FlaCalTenn that working with an average temperature for the whole globe somehow misses something or induces some error is just straw man crap.

If there's a problem with it...

everyone seems to have the exact same one.

 

[SSDD]

Which would alter the amount reflected back out to space which is monitored by satellite.

Not if it were stored in the oceans....you simply don't think do you?

 

[Crick]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah. We're looking at a maximum TSI change of about 1.6 W/m².
.

There is a problem with only considering TSI...it assumes that the sun only radiates in a single frequency...it is as stupid as working with an average global temperature when on any given day the temperature spread at the surface is 200 degrees or more...Different frequencies, for example penetrate to different depths in the oceans...the TSI can remain fairly constant while the output at different frequencies can change altering the amount of energy imparted to the earth to a pretty large degree.

All just crackpot denier cult pseudo-science.....as proven by the moronic claim that the Earth couldn't possibly have an "average global temperature" because there are temperature differences across the globe.....which betrays a total non-comprehension of what 'average' actually means. And if he can't understand that, he doesn't understand anything!

Poor old thunder...the delusions you live under are simply astonishing...but perhaps for you, delusion is far better than facing the reality of your childhood...never the less, here are some facts for you...take a look and you tell me how the average global temperature figure is anything more than wishful thinking...

1. The range of calculated annual temperatures for years between 1880 and 2013 vary between 13.5C and 14.7C, total range of 1.2C
2. The actual measured (real) temperatures vary between -65C and 53C in the Northern Hemisphere, as represented by 35 weather stations, with total range of 118C
3. The concept that our planet can reach thermal equilibrium, i.e. the existence of global temperature, is a total scientific nonsense which only exists in so called climate sciences and totally alien term in physical sciences
4. 90% of temperature data that makes up the average global temperature is collected in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.
5. The average global temperature must include both poles, the equator, the dark and light sides of the earth, deserts, forests, rain forests, oceans etc.

And one could go on and on with the problems associated with the notion of an average global temperature...of course, an average global temperature makes about as much sense as anything else coming out of climate science.

 

[Crick]

That you think there is some amount of deviation in local global temperatures that makes it impossible to calculate a mean - or even for one to exist - is just more de facto evidence that you an idiot and insane. Jesus, get some help.

 

[SSDD]

That you think there is some amount of deviation in local global temperatures that makes it impossible to calculate a mean - or even for one to exist - is just more de facto evidence that you an idiot and insane. Jesus, get some help.

You can calculate a mean...but the fact that you can calculate it doesn't mean that it provides any useful information at all...it is a pointless exercise done for political reasons...there is no actual scientific gain to be had from the results of the calculation...all you get is either smoke or a mirror.....or both..

 

[SSDD]

And how would it get "stored in the oceans"? Hmm... let's think. It would get stored by raising the ocean's temperature. And that would increase the amount of LW radiation escaping to space.

You simply don't think, do you.

Of course that depends entirely on how deep the SW is penetrating doesn't it?...and we have certainly seen an increase in IR at the top of the atmosphere...haven't we?

 

[Crick]

As one would when the ocean, the surface and the atmosphere are all increasing in temperature. However, given that the total increase in temperature is slightly over 1/287ths (0.35%) the amount of increase is small and can easily be overwhelmed by regional or transient effects.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
Abstract
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.


+http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GL014264/full

 

[SSDD]

Sorry crick...just more fake science to fuel the fake news..all fake all the time with you guys...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Temp has already risen 1.2C with a 40% CO2 increase, which is half a doubling.

That pegs the observed TCS (Transient Climate Sensitivity) at 2.4C.

ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) has to be significantly bigger than that, because much of the warming from the current CO2 increase is still to come. It's likely in the range of 3.5C.

We can quibble about details there, but what's not debatable is that the lowball estimates of ECS, like calling it 1.0C, are flat out wrong, and the lukewarmer position is untenable.

That's awesome. Can you direct me to the lab work showing how 200PPM of CO2 can raise temperature by 1.2C?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This claim by him and FlaCalTenn that working with an average temperature for the whole globe somehow misses something or induces some error is just straw man crap.

If there's a problem with it...

everyone seems to have the exact same one.

Can you show us the data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree?