Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

I believe Alric is referring to such authoritave sources as the IPCC reports.

I had the district impression he relied on his own concepts of graphs with spurious correlation.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
You (and others) may have an interest in the March 2008 recent solar influences by Scafetti.

We contend that the changes in Earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth’s temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth’s average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions.

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.
​

Analysis: Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C. Does this support Douglass & Singer's finding of "no tropospheric hot spot?" Obviously, yes, and it accounts for the major part of the 0.57C temperature increase, without the need for said greenhouse heating a la the hot spot.

Taking 0.57C for 20th century warming, LN(365/295)/(31%*0.57) = 1.2.
Plugging that in to the doubling of CO2 formula, LN(2)/1.2 = 0.58C for a doubling of CO2.


​

More 'curve fitting'. There are a hundred and one people out there looking for correlations of the earths climate to the record. None of them have come up with an actual physical basis for their claims to be true. AGW theory has a physical basis.

So according to my little calculation (based on Scafetta), a doubling of CO2 results in a whopping temperature increase of 0.58C!

 

[a_unique_person]

I had the district impression he relied on his own concepts of graphs with spurious correlation.

You must be referring to David Archibald's presentation to the ICCC, if you are talking about spurious 'correlations'.

 

[a_unique_person]

So according to my little calculation (based on Scafetta), a doubling of CO2 results in a whopping temperature increase of 0.58C!

Scaffeta today, Watts tomorrow, Corbyn next week. These a whole smorgasbord of choices, thats the great thing about being a denier.

 

[Alric]

While mhaze purports his "spurious correlation" denial of the data and argue about where you place a thermometer this is the kind of paper published by Geophysical Research Letters:

http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2007GL032388&cls=edt

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388, 2008

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions

H. Damon Matthews
Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Ken Caldeira
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA

Abstract
Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.
Received 17 October 2007; accepted 11 January 2008; published 27 February 2008.

 

[mhaze]

While mhaze purports his "spurious correlation" denial of the data and argue about where you place a thermometer this is the kind of paper published by Geophysical Research Letters:

http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2007GL032388&cls=edt

All I've done is take the 20th century temperature rise and back out a climate sensitivity from it directly, getting 1.86C for a doubling of CO2. Then, just for grins, I applied Scafetti's analysis in which 69% of the warming was attributable to solar, and in this case, climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is only 0.58C.

Pretty simple.

Then I asked whether these numbers agreed with anything. Douglass and Singer 2007, yes. Schwartz 2007 Heat Capacity (Climate sensitivity 1.1C) Yes. Several others, yes.

Let me guess - climate models tell you otherwise?

 

[Alric]

Looks to me you are making up numbers using numbers other people have made up...

 

[mhaze]

Looks to me you are making up numbers using numbers other people have made up...

Oh, okay, peer reviewed research that does not agree with you is "numbers other people have made up".

I'll disregard that, but that means disregarding your comment.

In the meantime, I'm only addressing the science. If you don't want to do that, don't reply to my posts.

Certainly a reasonable point of view.

 

[CapelDodger]

Scaffeta today, Watts tomorrow, Corbyn next week. These a whole smorgasbord of choices, thats the great thing about being a denier.

Monckton will be miffed that his name didn't spring to your mind. But he can easily dismiss you as just a colonial whose opinion could hardly matter. 'Murricans love him, and isn't that what really matters?

 

[Slimething]

But that's the problem. You are not addressing the science. The observations that CO2 is rising along with temperature and that many empirical observations are consistent with a warming earth is the data. Do not fall for the contrarian arguments that because they don't understand it or someone dusagreees an observation is not true.

Alric, I'm not dismissing the physics underpinnings of AGW. However, from what I see, there is no compelling scientific reason to way to disentanble the effect from natural GW. The scientists working on delivering a falsifiable AGW posit are not able to deliver such yet. Strictly, AGW does not qualify as science yet.

You are trying to presume AGW is proven and thereby dictate change in the public's perceptions and habits. That's OK by me. High time, as a matter of fact. However, I don't think you need AGW to do that. In the event that AGW cannot be detangled from GW, that viewpoint still has validity just by virtue of the fact that pollution will kick our ass sooner or later.

With regards to climate change there is a consensus and the empirical observations are in. If you chose to ignore this you do so at our own peril.

Oh, I'm so afraid. Let me cower under my bed over 0.19K/decade warming. (See AUP's post.) Seriously, don't expect me to take the scare-thing seriously. I'm not built that way. Nor do I respect majorities or what you call "empirical observations" that are really your cherry-picked observations. There are other observations that are contrary to current AGW posits and you seem to be ignoring them. Even AUP's buddy at RealClimate is writing about "other physical processes" just like I've been doing.

Alric, relax. There are scientists working on delivering what you want to know. I doubt they will confirm what you perceive right now. The AGW signal is very weak compared to what most scaremongers want you to believe. That's fine. You still have a good point but I would frame it more in terms of total environmetnal toxicity than AGW. I don't think AGW will carry the day once all is said and done.

 

[Slimething]

Monckton will be miffed that his name didn't spring to your mind. But he can easily dismiss you as just a colonial whose opinion could hardly matter. 'Murricans love him, and isn't that what really matters?

What an idiotic thing to post. Clearly, you are more interested in the players than the game. Since you've retired so young and are so interested in physics, why not go to school and get a real degree that would allow you to understand the science you try to trumpet so loudly? Context is such a terrible thing for people like you.

CapedDodger, there's a guy at RealClimate who needs your correcting about "voodoo science" and "mystic physics". He also believes that there are "other physical forces" at work in the environment, specifically the tropics. Please correct him.

 

[Slimething]

Looks to me you are making up numbers using numbers other people have made up...

Alric, what mhaze is doing is fair game. He's using the first-order kinetics equation Ct= C0 e^(-kt). You can do the same but you have to justify your numbers as mhaze has done. Do you have differnt numbers? The important one is k. I'll help you with the derivation if you PM me your Ct's.

 

[bobdroege7]

from PNAS to be found at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713

Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing.

Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of 0.2°C (1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism. This trajectory is similar for all magnitudes of solar irradiance change or the magnitude of cooling before. High scaling of the solar irradiance leads to model temperatures by the end of the century that are only marginally (0.1°C) warmer than those from the low and medium scaled forcing. This finding suggests that, while solar irradiance changes and explosive volcanism were the dominant forcings in preindustrial times, their combined role has been changing over the past century. Although these natural forcing factors could be responsible for some modification of the decadal structure over the 20th century, they only played a minor role in the most recent warming.

Therefore, the 20th century warming is not a reflection of a rebound from the last Little Ice Age cool period, but it is largely caused by anthropogenic forcing.

By the end of the 20th century, global temperatures simulated with natural and anthropogenic forcings included are >0.5°C warmer than if only natural factors are allowed to change after 1870 AD.

In conclusion, our model results indicate that the range of NH-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories (cosmogenic isotope record as a proxy for solar forcing, and volcanic forcing) constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C. Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.

This group does seem to be able to differentiate the GW from the AGW.

Can anyone lead me to a model that does account for the 20th century temperature rise without taking account of greenhouse gases?

This group has the solar influence on twentieth century tempurature increase at <0.2 C.

 

[David Rodale]

from PNAS to be found at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713



This group does seem to be able to differentiate the GW from the AGW.

Can anyone lead me to a model that does account for the 20th century temperature rise without taking account of greenhouse gases?

This group has the solar influence on twentieth century tempurature increase at <0.2 C.

There's no shortage of pal reviewed horoscope papers using climate models from PNAS; forming a hypothesis with a hypothesis. Is that part of the scientific method?

Hey bob, would you do us the favor of listing all those PNAS "peer reviewed" articles in IPCC? Thanks! Be sure to include the 80 ft. sea level rise ones ok?

Maybe you missed this one?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031383.shtml

Climate forcing and climate sensitivity are two key factors in understanding Earth's climate. There is considerable interest in decreasing our uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This study explores the role of these two factors in climate simulations of the 20th century. It is found that the total anthropogenic forcing for a wide range of climate models differs by a factor of two and that the total forcing is inversely correlated to climate sensitivity. Much of the uncertainty in total anthropogenic forcing derives from a threefold range of uncertainty in the aerosol forcing used in the simulations.

In other words, the models are fudged......

 

[mhaze]

Scaffeta today, Watts tomorrow, Corbyn next week. These a whole smorgasbord of choices, thats the great thing about being a denier.

Consider the facts for a moment.

I allocated a part of the temperature increase to natural causes - only a part of it -and left the remainder to AGW.

You'd like to claim all 20th century warnings was AGW, but the "smorgasbord of choices" you scoff at indicates that is NOT the case. Science does not support what you want. Look at Bob's post. would you like me to recompile my number for climates sensitivity using his reference?

Originally Posted by Caspar M. Ammann et al,PNAS | March 6, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 10 | 3713-3718 Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing.

Result; climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 1.2C.

All 20th century feedbacks, positive and negative, and forcings are taken into account empirically.

ANALYSIS: What this means is that if the world continues as it is, emitting CO2 indiscriminately, by the time CO2 doubles over pre industial levels we may have (1.2 - 0.57) = 0.63C additional warming. And this is in line with the temperature trends (no warming) of the last ten years.

 

[bobdroege7]

Hey bob, would you do us the favor of listing all those PNAS "peer reviewed" articles in IPCC? Thanks! Be sure to include the 80 ft. sea level rise ones ok?

I didn't take much time on it but I think I listed them all above. Did I miss any.
Actually, on a fast skim of the IPCC report for 2007, I didn't find any peer reviewed articles cited. Did you?

Is this something you had in mind?

from

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/15/5326

However, a sudden reduction in air pollution without a concomitant reduction in global GHGs also can accelerate the warming in South Asia because, according to the present simulations, ABCs have masked as much as 50% of the surface warming due to GHGs.

J. T. Kiel doesn't seem to be on your side.

 

[Alric]

....justify your numbers as mhaze has done.

But he does not justify the numbers or references the equations used. He lost his argument with this sentence"

Given 20th century warming of 0.57C, and presuming 69% due to solar, the max that could have been due to greenhouse heating would have been 0.18C.

Why the presumptions? Where do they come from?

All that is needed to evaluate the validity of a claim.

 

[Megalodon]

There's no shortage of pal reviewed horoscope papers using climate models from PNAS; forming a hypothesis with a hypothesis. Is that part of the scientific method?

Hey bob, would you do us the favor of listing all those PNAS "peer reviewed" articles in IPCC? Thanks! Be sure to include the 80 ft. sea level rise ones ok?

Maybe you missed this one?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031383.shtml


In other words, the models are fudged......

And here we have it again, ladies and gentlemen:

Our very own loud-mouthed schmuck, yet again insulting a class of scientists and a leading scientific organization, all for your viewing pleasure!

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, step right up...

 

[Alric]

I knew I had seen something similar to mhaze's analysis. Stephen Schwartz has made a similar analysis without adding the made up solar component. His estimate is 1.1±0.5 deg C for C02 doubling. This is on the low end of other models that predict 2 to 4.5 deg C for doubling CO2.

Of course contrarians are going to take this discrepancy and argue is the end of AGW. However, as usual, if they took the time to read the paper they would find this statement:

Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.

In summary, Schwartz is proposing a novel method of analysis which he understands to need further refinement.

This is all underlined by the assumption that 1 deg C change won't kill our way of life. Which in truth it might.

Also important to note is that research in this area and the empirical observations agree warming occurs and is likely to increase. Its just a matter of how much and in what timeframe. I personally prefer empirical observations to modeling voodoo. That is why a graph like this has more meaning than any modeling:

 

[mhaze]

But he does not justify the numbers or references the equations used. He lost his argument with this sentence"

Why the presumptions? Where do they come from?

All that is needed to evaluate the validity of a claim.

Yes, I did justify the numbers and reference the equations used.

What isn't clear?

Alric, it really sounds like you are saying this -

"Those numbers can't be right because they are too low."