Our cooling world

[Zipperfish]

which certainly doesn't speak to any semblance of long-term feedback influence... let alone a true representation of shorter-term. Notwithstanding, of course, the so-called warming that still remains "in the pipe" and hasn't yet come forward to effect an impact on surface temperature.

I'm not trying to speak to a long-term climate influence. I'm saying the observed climate sensitivity to date, based on the instrumental temperature recod, is significantly lower than the IPCC approximation. End o' story. Maybe that warming is "in the pipe." Maybe we could stop emissions right now and it would continue to warm. Maybe. Maybe not. But based on current observations, the climate sensitivity is low, and therefore that is what I believe.

As for the distant past, the uncertainties are quite high, so I prefer more recent evidence.

again, you can't argue for low(er) climate sensitivity without providing a rationalization (vis-a-vis sensitivity) for the significant warming observed in the distant past. Your bifurcate point is suggestive of a "tipping point"... please sir, a certain brand of denier goes absolutely wonky when "tipping points" are spoken of!

I can argue for lower climate sensitivity based on the observable evidence from the instrumental temperature record. Tipping points is generally how complex systems work, fro checmial reactiobns, to lake ecology to atmospheric physics. The problem is that they tipping points aren't very predictable. We could oxidize all the fossil fuels and not hit a tipping point. Or it could happen next year.

 

[waldo]

I'm not trying to speak to a long-term climate influence. I'm saying the observed climate sensitivity to date, based on the instrumental temperature recod, is significantly lower than the IPCC approximation. End o' story. Maybe that warming is "in the pipe." Maybe we could stop emissions right now and it would continue to warm. Maybe. Maybe not. But based on current observations, the climate sensitivity is low, and therefore that is what I believe.

As for the distant past, the uncertainties are quite high, so I prefer more recent evidence.

I can argue for lower climate sensitivity based on the observable evidence from the instrumental temperature record.

what end of story? The IPCC 'most likely' estimate range certainly isn't one based on your reference to the current instrumental record... to, as you say "current observations" (and the less than doubling of CO2 that you yourself provided)... it certainly isn't based on anything short-term that doesn't properly encompass feedback influences... all of which your short(er) term reference doesn't properly address.

 

[Walter]

Only weather; means nothing.
14 STATES COLDER THAN MARS...

Record Snowfall Florida...

h/t Drudge Report

 

[Zipperfish]

what end of story? The IPCC 'most likely' estimate range certainly isn't one based on your reference to the current instrumental record... to, as you say "current observations" (and the less than doubling of CO2 that you yourself provided)... it certainly isn't based on anything short-term that doesn't properly encompass feedback influences... all of which your short(er) term reference doesn't properly address.

Yes, my estimate is based on the observation of the instrumental temperature record. The IPCC estimate is based primarily on models, with some estimates based on Bayesian probabilities.

My estimate is that the climate sensitivity will stay around 0.5 to 1.5 over the medium term until we hit the tipping point. Because the observed climate sensitivity is lower than or close to the lower bound of the IPCC estimate, the models have generally predicted more global wamring than has actually happened.

 

[Walter]

Yes, my estimate is based on the observation of the instrumental temperature record. The IPCC estimate is based primarily on models, with some estimates based on Bayesian probabilities.

My estimate is that the climate sensitivity will stay around 0.5 to 1.5 over the medium term until we hit the tipping point. Because the observed climate sensitivity is lower than or close to the lower bound of the IPCC estimate, the models have generally predicted more global wamring than has actually happened.

Is the tipping point like peak oil?

 

[taxslave]

what end of story? The IPCC 'most likely' estimate range certainly isn't one based on your reference to the current instrumental record... to, as you say "current observations" (and the less than doubling of CO2 that you yourself provided)... it certainly isn't based on anything short-term that doesn't properly encompass feedback influences... all of which your short(er) term reference doesn't properly address.

Actually the IPCC song is based strictly on their own defective computer models. Models that oddly enough gave the indicators necessary to create their globull warming hysteria.

 

[MHz]

Because the observed climate sensitivity is lower than or close to the lower bound of the IPCC estimate, the models have generally predicted more global wamring than has actually happened.

Perhaps they are using CO2 data for something other than what is good for, as an indication of plant life expanding or shrinking relative to the years being measures. If they want to mess around further they could use climate models in an accurate way to determine what the ratios would be in any setting from the earth being almost without anything green to there being no place on the planet that wasn't all green. Then start using the upper scale as being the 'safe limit' and the lower limit as being a time when we would be at starvation level. The rich and the politicians should be the last to be able to breath the better air as it is the ones at most risk that are the 'bosses' as they pay out to get 'good advice' rather than 'lies and bad advice', and have to pay more each year for the 'same service'.

Actually the IPCC song is based strictly on their own defective computer models. Models that oddly enough gave the indicators necessary to create their globull warming hysteria.

Use different data such as changes in the rate the rifts in the sea floor are slreading and you might find the numbers to be rather larger than a few sunspots. If sunspots were anything but another lie, a very expensive one at that, the each time mars and Venus cast their shadow on the earth there should be a weather change that is documented. If the rates are different in the Atlantic and Pacific the the changes will also reflect that so one side could experience warming effects and the other side the cooling effects. In this case the Pacific is spreading faster and the effects could end up being a lot more wet weather and the lack of spreading in the Atlantic means it falls as snow rather than rain. If the snow moves south the green area moves south at the same rate. That is the biggest part they they cover up as they keep insisting the deserts will get bigger, you know like they have every winter for the last 50 years and the 50M before that, without fail.

New fields that need to be purchased before they become productive is about the only reason to promote a lie of that magnitude.

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[MHz]

Boomer is looking for you, needs your shoulder for something.

 

[waldo]

Yes, my estimate is based on the observation of the instrumental temperature record. The IPCC estimate is based primarily on models, with some estimates based on Bayesian probabilities.

and paleo. You're speaking to transient... not equilibrium. Which is fine if you qualify it (and associate it with the the appropriate, in kind, IPCC estimate range). However, transient also presumes upon average temperatures taken off a centering point in relation to a doubling of CO2... and, again, current ~400ppm is a long ways off from the doubling 560ppm point. So, again... I'm not clear how you've arrived at your estimate and how you would presume to associate it with an IPCC range estimate.

My estimate is that the climate sensitivity will stay around 0.5 to 1.5 over the medium term until we hit the tipping point. Because the observed climate sensitivity is lower than or close to the lower bound of the IPCC estimate, the models have generally predicted more global wamring than has actually happened.

this suggests you're 'mixing' transient and equilibrium (ECS) definitions... your earlier reference to a lowering of the minimum range figure also aligns with ECS... and a 'tipping point' speaks to "feedback influences" (again, ECS). In any case, refinements continue as scientists work to better estimate sensitivity. In the same manner that the high-end range can be (should be) eliminated to exclude estimates above 4.5... I would suggest you should also accept the elimination of those low-end estimates (below 1.5); which then aligns with the IPCC ECS likely estimate of between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. Of course, the over-riding caveat in this presumes on uncertainties in long-term feedbacks and possibilities of compounding influences.

Actually the IPCC song is based strictly on their own defective computer models. Models that oddly enough gave the indicators necessary to create their globull warming hysteria.

the IPCC does not have it's "own" climate models. The IPCC engagement in this regard is to review all manner of existing related publications (and rely upon how those publications arrive at sensitivity estimates... which may involve models to varying degrees). Perhaps you could rise above your generalization and point out, specifically point out, what models you're attaching a "defective" labeling to. Notwithstanding, of course, it appears you have a perpetual focus on models and choose to ignore such things as empirical evidence.

 

[DaSleeper]

and paleo. You're speaking to transient... not equilibrium. Which is fine if you qualify it (and associate it with the the appropriate, in kind, IPCC estimate range). However, transient also presumes upon average temperatures taken off a centering point in relation to a doubling of CO2... and, again, current ~400ppm is a long ways off from the doubling 560ppm point. So, again... I'm not clear how you've arrived at your estimate and how you would presume to associate it with an IPCC range estimate.



this suggests you're 'mixing' transient and equilibrium (ECS) definitions... your earlier reference to a lowering of the minimum range figure also aligns with ECS... and a 'tipping point' speaks to "feedback influences" (again, ECS). In any case, refinements continue as scientists work to better estimate sensitivity. In the same manner that the high-end range can be (should be) eliminated to exclude estimates above 4.5... I would suggest you should also accept the elimination of those low-end estimates (below 1.5); which then aligns with the IPCC ECS likely estimate of between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. Of course, the over-riding caveat in this presumes on uncertainties in long-term feedbacks and possibilities of compounding influences.



the IPCC does not have it's "own" climate models. The IPCC engagement in this regard is to review all manner of existing related publications (and rely upon how those publications arrive at sensitivity estimates... which may involve models to varying degrees). Perhaps you could rise above your generalization and point out, specifically point out, what models you're attaching a "defective" labeling to. Notwithstanding, of course, it appears you have a perpetual focus on models and choose to ignore such things as empirical evidence.

Good post but we need charts.....
.............and graphs....

 

[gerryh]

I especially like comparing the "shadow" that Venus and Mars cast to sun spot activity. ESPECIALLY since Mars is in an oribit further out from the sun than ours. ROFLMFAO....unfu cking believable.

 

[Zipperfish]

Is the tipping point like peak oil?

No. From nature magazine: "A climate 'tipping point' occurs when a small change in forcing triggers a strongly nonlinear response in the internal dynamics of part of the climate system, qualitatively changing its future state. "

and paleo. You're speaking to transient... not equilibrium. Which is fine if you qualify it (and associate it with the the appropriate, in kind, IPCC estimate range). However, transient also presumes upon average temperatures taken off a centering point in relation to a doubling of CO2... and, again, current ~400ppm is a long ways off from the doubling 560ppm point. So, again... I'm not clear how you've arrived at your estimate and how you would presume to associate it with an IPCC range estimate.

Actually, I'm speaking to observed versus modeled. As stated earlier, I don't think the climate sensitivity is a constant anyways. It will change based on the changs in the environment. Once the permafrost goes, it will change, once the greenland ice caps start to really go it will change, The difficult one to predict is if water vapour is going to be positiv eor negative. There is a lot of uncertainty around that, whcih is why I don't really buy the IPCC numbers too much.

 

[darkbeaver]

No. From nature magazine: "A climate 'tipping point' occurs when a small change in forcing triggers a strongly nonlinear response in the internal dynamics of part of the climate system, qualitatively changing its future state. "



Actually, I'm speaking to observed versus modeled. As stated earlier, I don't think the climate sensitivity is a constant anyways. It will change based on the changs in the environment. Once the permafrost goes, it will change, once the greenland ice caps start to really go it will change, The difficult one to predict is if water vapour is going to be positiv eor negative. There is a lot of uncertainty around that, whcih is why I don't really buy the IPCC numbers too much.

And you are right not to, I have a lot of experiance with bad numbers, and these IPCC slobns are bad to the bone.

 

[MHz]

the "shadow" that Venus and Mars

Sorry for the confusion, obviously that should be Mercury and Venus, sorry for the unsolvable puzzle, you can keep the laugh though as it is certainly a mistake that makes the claim a physical impossibility, it isn't like you haven't given me many, many, many more.
So, got any data on the climatic changes they (should) have caused or is that not part of your knowledge base? (or has your mission been completed in full)

Any idea how much new surface area is made when a line 40,000 miles long spreads 5mm?

 

[gerryh]

Sorry for the confusion, obviously that should be Mercury and Venus, sorry for the unsolvable puzzle, you can keep the laugh, it isn't like you haven't given me many, many more.
So got any data on the climatic changes they have caused.

That's just as stupid, dumbass. But you just keep showing how ignorant you are. roflmfao.

 

[MHz]

That's just as stupid, dumbass. But you just keep showing how ignorant you are. roflmfao.

You are in luck I have pages and pages of **** like this. How many post like this before you start to take on that same appearance but in an even grander scale. I can be 'shy of the facts at time', it doesn't stay that way long. That is a difference between us that will never change, thankfully.

Both passing at the same time is going to have less effect than a cold rain on a hot day.

But belief in sunspots having a bigger impact is part of what you would call 'solid science' right? 140M sq mi of new area in the past 200M years can be reduced to small averages and the pictures for the reading impaired are of a high enough quality that you get a chart. From that chart you can overlay some ice-core data to see what the conditional changes were going on. Glacier ice is not made from fluffy snot, it is wind blown so any air trapped was from when the snow quit moving and that could have been some distance on an icecap that was polished almost smooth.

 

[JLM]

Something for you guys who like to argue about weather and climate, that should keep you out of mischief for awhile!
Which City Has The Most Unpredictable Weather? | FiveThirtyEight

 

[waldo]

Actually, I'm speaking to observed versus modeled. As stated earlier, I don't think the climate sensitivity is a constant anyways. It will change based on the changs in the environment. Once the permafrost goes, it will change, once the greenland ice caps start to really go it will change, The difficult one to predict is if water vapour is going to be positiv eor negative. There is a lot of uncertainty around that, whcih is why I don't really buy the IPCC numbers too much.

and again, you're speaking to some "bastardized' form of sensitivity that doesn't align with any formal definitions of same. If you're going to speak to transient you can't simply take a snapshot on the current observational data without first determining that center point off the doubling CO2 level and averaging off that... and that's still 160ppm from today's approximate level. And then, again, you speak to feedbacks which brings the discussion away from transient and back to ECS. Again, declare the sensitivity you're speaking to and your understanding of the IPCC range figure that coincides with it... as again, you appear to be pulling facets from different definitions. When you say you don't buy the IPCC numbers... and you, yourself, bring forward uncertainty reference to an example long-term feedback influence, it's questionable how you could argue for 'the lowest of the low' sensitivity. Certainly you're not suggesting permafrost melting wouldn't be a strong positive feedback... surely you're not, right?

 

[Walter]

The oceans must really be warming up for there to be so much more ice than usual in the Antarctic.