Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

...More denial. I've already cited 1, here's another :http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tk0401.pdf and another : http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3638/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf?sequence=1 and another: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.8265%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNHd2Tg6wuV6H-DvPjpbRGJshQGfDQ&sig2=Oe_cz8bgpLdwvxr20QH95g&cad=rja and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjack.pixe.lth.se%2Fkfgu%2FKOO090_FKF075%2FArtiklar%2FP02.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNE7CqOUiTSdt4aZJSxPua98sJj6Pw&sig2=wHicR7nj9D_13xk61oYm9Q&cad=rja and another :http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3632/MITJPSPGC_Rpt17.pdf?sequence=1...

Let's look at the assertions, the proffered support,...and reality.

Assertion -

...It's accurate enough that scientists use it as a model parameter to run simulations. You're just handwaving here. It's about 1% and it's been that way for a while so there's no reason to assume just yet that it will be any different. And they have to assume because measuring the actual amount of increase or decrease isn't an easy task...

Proffered support -

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tk0401.pdf - "Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation:
Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization"​

After reading through this paper I see nothing that supports the assertion made, though I do see how someone with very little understanding of the involved sciences may have fixated upon a single sentence in the abstract and either misunderstood, or misconstrued, its contextual meaning, but this type of mistake is common among those don't understand the science and merely cherry-pick using google word/phrase searches to review published science.

Issue at focus - "...The CO2-induced SST changes from the global climate models, based on 80-yr linear trends from +1% yr^-1 CO2 increase experiments, range from about +0.8º to +2.4ºC in the three tropical storm basins studied..."

Reality -
In reading further into the study, the authors explain: "...The +1% yr^-1 compounded CO2-increase scenario represents an idealized greenhouse gas forcing scenario, rather than a forecast of future radiative forcing..." they then spend the rest of the study section describing how the senarios they selected for this research focussed on idealized responses and parameter selection in order to emphasize the impacts they were looking for with regards to hurricane formation (namely enhanced tropical sea surface temperatures and little change in lower tropospheric humidity - conditions identified inother studies as key elements of hurricane formation.

Furthermore, in the IS92a (as in an IPCC supplemental model that was considered fairly rigorous back at the time of the 1992 IPCC report! - details at http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi?More_Info-Emissions#IS92) climate model this 2004 report selected to use for its hurricane studies explains that the like the other +1% models they are not speaking of a 1% rise in CO2 but rather an average combined increase in CO2 equivilant GHG considerations:

...The 1% equivalent CO2 increase per year case is scenario IS92a before present and 1% per year compounded increase of CO2 into the future. Equivalent CO2 is a way of increasing the CO2 concentration to account for the radiative effects of the other greenhouse gases (N2O, CH4, O3, Halogenated compounds). The figure shows IS92a for CO2 alone (red) and equivalent CO2 (black). The CO2 concentration by 2100 is about 700 ppmv, but increases to about 1050 ppmv when the effects of the other greenhouse gases are included. The 1% increase per year scenario (blue) leads to a slightly larger increase than the IS92a equivalent CO2 scenario, resulting in around 1250 ppmv by 2100. The 0.5% equivalent CO2 increase per year case is actually just IS92d. The CO2 alone concentration for IS92d (light blue) results in 540 ppmv by 2100, whereas the equivalent CO2 (green) case actually used in the scenarios results in 730 ppmv CO2 by 2100. These concentrations were calculated from the radiative forcings developed for IPCC from upwelling diffusion energy balance models (T. Wigley, personal communication), using the radiative forcing functions in IPCC Technical Paper II (Houghton et al., 1997)...

The amazing thing is that with all of the amazing progress that has been made in modelling climate science over the last 20 years, and you have to dig up a reference from back then and then cherry-pick a distortion of its methods and statements in order to attempt to support your confused misunderstandings of the science.

I can see that you clearly don't understand that "supporting evidence" is actually supposed to support what you are claiming, not refute what you are asserting. I'll look at these individually, as it is apparent from this first link, that you either did not read the paper, did not comprehend what you read, and/or did not care so long as it contained a statement that you could pull out of context and flavor with ambiguity to claim that it supported your assertions.

 

[Trakar]

I accidentally submitted my last response too soon, please accept the following as an appendix to that posted response:


One of the peer-review response papers to the hurricane model study can be found at: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3592.1

NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE
Comments on “Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity
and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme”
(Manuscript received 26 October 2004, in final form 14 April 2005)

ABSTRACT
In a simulation of enhanced tropical cyclones in a warmer world, Knutson and Tuleya make several assumptions that are not borne out in the real world. They include an unrealistically large carbon dioxide growth rate, an overly strong relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity, and the use of a mesoscale model that has shown little to no useful skill in predicting current-day hurricane intensity. After accounting for these inaccuracies, a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane intensity in response to growing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels during this century becomes unlikely...

full response paper at above link.

 

[Furcifer]

Also worth nothing that your original claim was that it was both linear and constant, even though clearly a constant % increase each year isn't linear.

That just doesn't make sense. A constant is linear by definition. You are wrong.

I don't know if you understand physics or not but you're saying here amounts to "a constant acceleration isn't constant because the velocity increases". It pure baloney.

I asked for evidence, not handwaveing. Link us to what he said, show that it was not consistent with the published science and explain why you think his opinion is relevant to this thread.

lol, in 1996 there was no YouTube or Google and most of us were dying to get our hands on a 386 so we could spend 10 minutes downloading a picture of a boob off the net. There's no links. I might be able to find mention of a book tour during that period if I checked my transcripts and figured out what semester here was here in Windsor. If it was a book tour, it might have been just a lecture.
It's very convenient for alarmists to not have a record of what was being said at the time. All the predictions of what it could be like by the year 2000 lost. Sufficed to say none of them have materialized and now they're just pushed back another 25 years. The moderates or skeptics still pretty much where they were at back then, it's going to get warmer because of CO2, probably a couple degrees before we get it under control. This +2C pledge seems to have come from early predictions. In all likelihood that's what we're looking at before we get a handle on things. That number pops up early on in take about climate change and still comes up in sensitivity.

 

[Trakar]

Second cite offered in support of assertions regarding "linear 1% annual increase in atmospheric CO2"

...and another : http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3638/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf?sequence=1...

Before getting to the contents of the paper, it is important to note that while the first cite was a nearly decade old paper relying on out-dated models that was more than a decade old by the time of its usage by that study's researchers, this paper itself was published in 1996. Another problem with slip-shod term/phrase google searches when you don't understand or care about the actual science.

On to the paper:

"Global Warming Projections: Sensitivity to Deep Ocean Mixing" - http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3638/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf?sequence=1

It looks like the determination that this paper was relevent was determined by the mention that it tweaked a mid-eighties greatly simplified 2D MIT climate model to include a +1% CO2 annual increase among the simulations used to analyze thier considerations regarding deep ocean mixing.

...All simulations discussed below have been performed with a 1% per year increase in the CO2 concentration, while all other forcings were held constant. According to our results, when climate sensitivity is high, even a small change in the rate of heat uptake causes a significant difference in the predicted surface temperature increase. In the simulation with DTeq = 4.5 ûC and K = 0 cm2s-1 the surface temperature increase for years 91 to 100 of the integration, DT91Ð100, is 6.2 ûC. For heat diffusion with K = 0.5 cm2s-1, DT91Ð100 is 4.6 ûC. Thus, if the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean is close to that matching the behavior of the NCAR model, the increase of the surface temperature will be significantly higher than the highest estimate of possible warming given by the IPCC[1,2]...

Again, a 1996 paper discussing results obtained using 20 year old understandings in relation to the results obtained by the modification of 30 year old models in ways that aren't even intended to closely approximate reality in the first place. And this isn't to knock either of these first two papers, it's simply a matter that climate science understandings and evidentiary data have expanded and evolved tremendously over the last four years since the last full IPCC report, yet alone over the last couple of decades or so. The bad part is that even the authors and papers aren't supporting your assertions, and in fact are qualifying the usage of these figures are as anything but typical or normal and best reflective of reality. In fact they are generally talking about issues completely and distinctly different issues with a more coincidental word and phrase overlap, than offering any direct or substantive support.

Please, if you feel I am incorrect in my understandings and readings feel free to demonstrate through logical explanation and quoted supports from the papers, or published responses to the papers.

 

[Furcifer]

The amazing thing is that with all of the amazing progress that has been made in modelling climate science over the last 20 years, and you have to dig up a reference from back then and then cherry-pick a distortion of its methods and statements in order to attempt to support your confused misunderstandings of the science.

lol, I Googled "climate model study impact 1% increase in CO2 per year " and these were the papers on the very first pages. That's the furthest thing from cherry picking.

I can see that you clearly don't understand that "supporting evidence" is actually supposed to support what you are claiming, not refute what you are asserting. I'll look at these individually, as it is apparent from this first link, that you either did not read the paper, did not comprehend what you read, and/or did not care so long as it contained a statement that you could pull out of context and flavor with ambiguity to claim that it supported your assertions.

Unreal, I specifically don't cherry pick and go with simple search results, only to get incorrectly accused of cherry picking and then not cherry picking enough.

There's plenty more where that came from, it was only the first two pages of a Google search which returned 41 million hits. Shall we continue?

Here's one :http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CE0QFjAIOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.4164%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=WjnQTYigNomltwfmrsT5DQ&usg=AFQjCNGAsgkS40xBmOUm1laTaAkKl4djnQ&sig2=-vTt2upwoUQwCuhb1SVA4A&cad=rja and another :http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3592.1 and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEQQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fensembles-eu.metoffice.com%2Fmeetings%2FCoP13_Bali07%2Fflyer.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=0znQTbvEBdS2tgfSxezuDQ&usg=AFQjCNGPfu1_r3ke3CVLlGJaU758AV746A&sig2=gOxL0BCJoXFlTJnyHEewIw&cad=rja and another : http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol26-1-Zhai.pdf and another :http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CDQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Feetd.lbl.gov%2Fea%2Fems%2Freports%2Flbnl-1249e.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=GDrQTeunDY2ctwfDy_DkDQ&usg=AFQjCNE8sjtRkFHeZWeGVGfX1KPRz1RYlQ&sig2=cpBAgdUfSO5cZpl1jCMm1w&cad=rja here's a NASA study on quadrupling where they use a 1% increase: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CDQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Feetd.lbl.gov%2Fea%2Fems%2Freports%2Flbnl-1249e.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=GDrQTeunDY2ctwfDy_DkDQ&usg=AFQjCNE8sjtRkFHeZWeGVGfX1KPRz1RYlQ&sig2=cpBAgdUfSO5cZpl1jCMm1w&cad=rja

Here's another and I quote "Transient experiments are intended to mimic the more realistic situation of continuously changing emissions. In a typical set-up, CO2 concentrations are increased by 1% per year. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-1249e.pdf

Are we done playing your silly game or are you going to stop denying and admit it's a TYPICAL SET-UP? There's plenty more we're only on page 3.

 

[Furcifer]

Suzuki's a freaking nutcase wackjob. You want we should start in on that high priest?

Well Ted just put him to shame there. I have to admit I don't remember Dave talking about resorting to eating each other, but he was equally negative about things and the time frame was NOW.

I respected David Suzuki at the time. I expected him to be rational and present the facts. After the lecture I remember thinking either we're being lied to about the problem of he's overstating it considerably. When I found out he was over stating it I lost respect for him and became more skeptical.

 

[Trakar]

...and another: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.8265%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNHd2Tg6wuV6H-DvPjpbRGJshQGfDQ&sig2=Oe_cz8bgpLdwvxr20QH95g&cad=rja and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjack.pixe.lth.se%2Fkfgu%2FKOO090_FKF075%2FArtiklar%2FP02.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNE7CqOUiTSdt4aZJSxPua98sJj6Pw&sig2=wHicR7nj9D_13xk61oYm9Q&cad=rja...

((as an aside the direct Url is much shorter - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.8265&rep=rep1&type=pdf - and doesn't give away the google search strings you used "climate model study impact increase in CO2 per year"))

"Response of a Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Model to Increasing Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide: Sensitivity to the Rate of Increase"

published in 1998 (noticing a trend?)

Not sure what you feel this paper supports, it uses a range of potential rates of change from 0.25% to 4.0% for consideration and is primarily looking for response time issues between CO2 atmospheric ratio doubling and feedback with one of those "tipping point" events you claim not to have heard of/believe in, the slowing/stagnation of the THC (that concept was considered more significant in that era).

 

[mhaze]

Well Ted just put him to shame there. I have to admit I don't remember Dave talking about resorting to eating each other, but he was equally negative about things and the time frame was NOW.

I respected David Suzuki at the time. I expected him to be rational and present the facts. After the lecture I remember thinking either we're being lied to about the problem of he's overstating it considerably. When I found out he was over stating it I lost respect for him and became more skeptical.

I can see that. He's got a clear and simple way of explaining things, but he's certainly a true believer that indiscriminately lies for the cause. Ted is more my type of guy. Suzuki would be first served on the table by the likes of Ted.

 

[Furcifer]

I can see that. He's got a clear and simple way of explaining things, but he's certainly a true believer that indiscriminately lies for the cause. Ted is more my type of guy. Suzuki would be first served on the table by the likes of Ted.

You get the same level of denial from the alarmists and enviro-mental-ists (saw that on the YouTube video) as you do from the "deniers". One more than 1 occasion I've seen them deny that misrepresenting the science and overstating the facts has ever happened. Clearly Ted Turner and David Suzuki aren't the only ones that are over emotional and tend to get riled up.
If seeing people react like this and make outrageous claims isn't enough to perhaps take a second look at where your information is coming from and instead look to the actual scientific papers I don't know what is.

 

[Furcifer]

Not sure what you feel this paper supports, it uses a range of potential rates of change from 0.25% to 4.0% for consideration and is primarily looking for response time issues between CO2 atmospheric ratio doubling and feedback with one of those "tipping point" events you claim not to have heard of/believe in, the slowing/stagnation of the THC (that concept was considered more significant in that era).

It might not support it. I didn't cherry pick anything, I just searched for reference to a constant 1% increase. The point is a 1% increase is a Typical model scenario because it's taken from the last 30 years of tending.

Thanks for clearing up the issue about CO2 and GHG though. I wasn't thinking about the rest of gases and since they contribute to global warming it makes sense to lump them together and basically use an equivalent CO2 figure.

 

[Trakar]

...http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...a98sJj6Pw&sig2=wHicR7nj9D_13xk61oYm9Q&cad=rja ...

(again: http://jack.pixe.lth.se/kfgu/KOO090_FKF075/Artiklar/P02.pdf , same search string "climate model study impact increase in CO2 per year" )


"Positive feedback between future climate change and the carbon cycle"

Published 2001

abstract - Abstract. Future climate change due to increased atmospheric CO2 may affect land and ocean efficiency to absorb atmospheric CO2. Here, using climate and carbon three dimensional models forced by a 1% per year increase in atmospheric CO2, we show that there is a positive feedback between the climate system and the carbon cycle. Climate change reduces land and ocean uptake of CO2, respectively by 54% and 35% at 4 × CO2 . This negative impact implies that for prescribed anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the atmosphericC O2 would be higher than the level reached if
climate change does not affect the carbon cycle. We estimate the gain of this climate-carbon cycle feedback to be 10% at 2 × CO2 and 20% at 4 × CO2 . This translates into a 15% higher mean temperature increase...

Well it undoubtably contains your search terms, but it doesn't seem to support your posted assertions. Using the same words does not in itself support all specific assertions made with those words.

...Conclusions
Our results suggest that the future climate change impact on the carbon cycle can be large, with a risk of seeing both ocean and biospheric capacity to absorb anthropogenic CO2 significantly reduced as the Earth warms up, leaving larger CO2 fraction in the atmosphere and therefore enhancing the
climate change. In order to further explore these effects, it should be given high priority to develop comprehensive models where physical climate system and carbon cycle are explicitly coupled.

This study is a first attempt to quantify the climate–carbon feedback under elevated CO2. To help reduce uncertainties, and to identify the key processes controlling CO2 and climate requires a better understanding of the observed historical trends. In future scenarios, one should also specifically
account for changes in non–CO2 greenhouse gases, in future land use and land cover, in vegetation-climate feedbacks controlled by stomatal conductance and canopy development, as well as for alterations in land and ocean ecosystem distribution, and in the cycling of nutrients. In addition,
non-linear changes in the ocean-atmosphere dynamics [Manabe et al., 1992], could affect the magnitude of the feedback we have calculated here.

Hmmm, its even possible that this last concluding remark is warning against the problems of assuming linear function behavior in generalizations of modelling complex climate systems.

 

[Trakar]

... http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3632/MITJPSPGC_Rpt17.pdf?sequence=1 ...

"A Flexible Climate Model For Use In Integrated Assessments"
published in 1997

Unfortunately, it utilizes the same modified early '80s MIT 2D model, which brings with it the inaccuracies and problems mentioned earlier, as well as the same flawed and incomplete assumptions and 20 year antiquated undersandings. More than this, however, is the fact that again, while there are a few brief references to a +1% CO2 increase per year, it wasn't considered the typical or likely value for realistic considerations, merely one of and entire range of values simulated to gain undestandings of how the models play out with differing inputs and as inputs change.

Concluding paragraph:

...Our results show that there is a wide disagreement between coupled AOGCMs simulations on the rate of heat uptake by the ocean. The corresponding uncertainty in the surface warming is comparable in magnitude with the uncertainties in other parameters. The impact of oceanic heat
uptake on the sea level rise is more complicated and strongly depends on chosen values of model parameters. As a whole, the impact of the uncertainty in oceanic heat uptake is significant enough to be taken into consideration in determining overall uncertainty in climate change.

 

[mhaze]

You get the same level of denial from the alarmists and enviro-mental-ists (saw that on the YouTube video) as you do from the "deniers". One more than 1 occasion I've seen them deny that misrepresenting the science and overstating the facts has ever happened. Clearly Ted Turner and David Suzuki aren't the only ones that are over emotional and tend to get riled up.
If seeing people react like this and make outrageous claims isn't enough to perhaps take a second look at where your information is coming from and instead look to the actual scientific papers I don't know what is.

It's not possible for some simple reasons. The level of denial from the alarmists results in the comic hysteria which is the actual calculated result of the propaganda dished out on the subject. Denial of scientific facts from AGW deniers does occur, but doesn't result in anything as interesting as the comic hysteria I've shown in the last, what, 12 or so links.

If a AGW denier gets riled up, it's liable to be about the fact that the alarmists are trying to take over the economy (basically, true) that they are trying to raise his gas and utility prices (Yep, they sure are) that they are trying to control his life in a thousand ways (Yep, buy those little CFL bulbs, chump) and so forth.

The problem isn't well meaning scientists or lay people. It's those people that have the well known disorder, the Authoritarian Liberal Progressive Controller Personality Disorder whether or not it has morphed into the full blown megalomelanoma of EcoFascism.

B and large, what we see is naive and gullible people that just got caught up in the propaganda campaign. But numerous of these leaders of the movement - including --- Gore, Suzuki, Turner, Chompie ( ) they suck bigtime.

Naw....let's leave Turner out of that list. He sort of cool dude.

 

[Trakar]

lol, I Googled "climate model study impact 1% increase in CO2 per year " and these were the papers on the very first pages. That's the furthest thing from cherry picking.



Unreal, I specifically don't cherry pick and go with simple search results, only to get incorrectly accused of cherry picking and then not cherry picking enough.

There's plenty more where that came from, it was only the first two pages of a Google search which returned 41 million hits. Shall we continue?

Here's one :http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CE0QFjAIOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.4164%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=WjnQTYigNomltwfmrsT5DQ&usg=AFQjCNGAsgkS40xBmOUm1laTaAkKl4djnQ&sig2=-vTt2upwoUQwCuhb1SVA4A&cad=rja and another :http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3592.1 and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEQQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fensembles-eu.metoffice.com%2Fmeetings%2FCoP13_Bali07%2Fflyer.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=0znQTbvEBdS2tgfSxezuDQ&usg=AFQjCNGPfu1_r3ke3CVLlGJaU758AV746A&sig2=gOxL0BCJoXFlTJnyHEewIw&cad=rja and another : http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol26-1-Zhai.pdf and another :http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CDQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Feetd.lbl.gov%2Fea%2Fems%2Freports%2Flbnl-1249e.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=GDrQTeunDY2ctwfDy_DkDQ&usg=AFQjCNE8sjtRkFHeZWeGVGfX1KPRz1RYlQ&sig2=cpBAgdUfSO5cZpl1jCMm1w&cad=rja here's a NASA study on quadrupling where they use a 1% increase: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CDQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Feetd.lbl.gov%2Fea%2Fems%2Freports%2Flbnl-1249e.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=GDrQTeunDY2ctwfDy_DkDQ&usg=AFQjCNE8sjtRkFHeZWeGVGfX1KPRz1RYlQ&sig2=cpBAgdUfSO5cZpl1jCMm1w&cad=rja

Here's another and I quote "Transient experiments are intended to mimic the more realistic situation of continuously changing emissions. In a typical set-up, CO2 concentrations are increased by 1% per year. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-1249e.pdf

Are we done playing your silly game or are you going to stop denying and admit it's a TYPICAL SET-UP? There's plenty more we're only on page 3.

After spending longer than I should have on your first set of "supports," which in no way confirmed or supported your assertions, I think it is safe to assume that the rest of your offerings are in the same vein and state of subject matter "boggle ment." If you are willing to make a reasoned argument and support it with in-context quotes that actually support and confirm your statements, I will be happy to examine the issue in more detail, otherwise, it is apparent that you have little of substance to contribute to the consideration of this folder's issues.

 

[DC]

It's not possible for some simple reasons. The level of denial from the alarmists results in the comic hysteria which is the actual calculated result of the propaganda dished out on the subject. Denial of scientific facts from AGW deniers does occur, but doesn't result in anything as interesting as the comic hysteria I've shown in the last, what, 12 or so links.

If a AGW denier gets riled up, it's liable to be about the fact that the alarmists are trying to take over the economy (basically, true) that they are trying to raise his gas and utility prices (Yep, they sure are) that they are trying to control his life in a thousand ways (Yep, buy those little CFL bulbs, chump) and so forth.

The problem isn't well meaning scientists or lay people. It's those people that have the well known disorder, the Authoritarian Liberal Progressive Controller Personality Disorder whether or not it has morphed into the full blown megalomelanoma of EcoFascism.

B and large, what we see is naive and gullible people that just got caught up in the propaganda campaign. But numerous of these leaders of the movement - including --- Gore, Suzuki, Turner, Chompie ( ) they suck bigtime.

Naw....let's leave Turner out of that list. He sort of cool dude.

is there GW? is it Anthropic?
is AGW a huge conspiracy like Alex Jones claims?

 

[Furcifer]

Well it undoubtably contains your search terms, but it doesn't seem to support your posted assertions. Using the same words does not in itself support all specific assertions made with those words.

I said it was close enough to the real thing to be a common model parameter. There are plenty of models that use it, in fact it's the most common way of modeling the increase I can find. That's why they say it's "typical".

I don't know what you think they use?

Hmmm, its even possible that this last concluding remark is warning against the problems of assuming linear function behavior in generalizations of modelling complex climate systems.

If that's the case they better inform the rest of the scientific community. Oh and the planet, because the planet is doing it in a linear fashion, at least for the last 30 years.
(the actual statement isn't clear if they are talking about constants or rates)

 

[DC]

And the Warmer Religion purposefully engineered the use of the word Denier, and applied it to those who dared blaspheme against their true faith. Starting with Noam Chompsky, as I recall in 2006.

You know, Chompsky? The propagandist?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2002/mar/07/globalwarming.climatechange

2006? Chomsky?

your fabricated lies dont hold water.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you kidding me? I can't tell if you're being serious or if this is in jest. Obviously all of those have to be calculated first and then the temperature change calculated. It's the first step, the second is finding the temperature change. It's inherently easier to do 1 step than 2.

Let's go back to what you said, since you seem to have lost track :-

Odd that you'd say that considering it's much easier to predict how much CO2 might be emitted than to say what the average global temperature might be

There you say that one prediciion is easier than the other, not that one (emmissions) would be easier than both (emissions and resulting temperature increase). The true situation is as I stated it, for the reasons which I gave.

They're not, the physics may be well known but it's extremely complex and uses some of the biggest super computers in the world. I could calculate the CO2 from emissions using a pad of paper and a TI-36.

You think you could, and when you've done it you'll think you're right.

All you've said so far is "emissions will remain the same" at a cumulative percentage. You couldn't get the percentage right, but the total emissions you appear confident of. Presumably you think you have information about the future the rest of us aren't privy to.

I'm not following your logic here at all.

That would be your failing. Nobody else seems to be having a problem with it.

It's called trending and it's a perfectly valid scientific method.

Your claim is that a constant percentage increase is an accurate estimate of future emissions, despite the rather obvious fact that they haven't happened yet. You've actually no idea how accurate it is since you don't have the outcome to compare it to.

It's been pointed out that it's not 1% though, it's closer to 0.5%. I'm curious why they would over estimate it by this much. It appears to be a very "worst case scenario".

I see from your references that you got the 1% from its use as an arbitrary constant, not in model estimates of the real future world. The latter are the ones to pay attention to, and they do not use 1% cumulative per annum as anything other than an outlying scenario.

More denial. I've already cited 1, here's another :http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tk0401.pdf

That's a comparison of model behaviours, not a prediction of real world outcomes. There's in a clue in "11% yr[sup-1[/sup] CO2 increase experiments".

and another : http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3638/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf?sequence=1

Not a prediction of a real world outcomes again. The intent is to estimate how sensititve surface warming is to deep ocean heat uptake, and the CO₂ emission rate is arbitrary.

and another http://jack.pixe.lth.se/kfgu/KOO090_FKF075/Artiklar/P02.pdf

Another non-prediction of real world emissions.

another :http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3632/MITJPSPGC_Rpt17.pdf?sequence=1

Again, an arbirtrary value not meant to represent real world outcomes.

You guys don't really seem to know much about climate models at all. It's almost as if all you do is read about the extreme predictions based on worst case scenarios at RealCrapClimate.com and link them here. So much for skepticism.

You don't seem to know what the models are for in your referenced papers. They aren't designed to predict future global warming using a credible emissions scenario. They are models as experiments to probe particular aspects of climate. Globally Coupled Models are a very different thing. This much I know, and I doubt I'm alone.

No it's 0.5%. The models run 70-80 years and get a sensitivity of about +2.8C.

Sensitivity is not the actual temperature increase. The actual increase found "... ranged from about 0.8C to 2.4C in the three tropical storm basins studied." It's not a global model, of course, nor an attempt to predict actual global temperature changes. With polar amplification (not normally associated with the tropics) global temperatures will rise rather faster.

If it stays at 0.5% how long is that? 200 years? That's a long, long time to fix this problem.

If it were all to kick in in 200 years time. As it is, of course, the impact will be continuous and cumulative.

Consider what's already happened. Arcti sea-ice has radically diminished, glaciers have retreated, deluges have become more frequent and tropical expansion is leading to persistent drought in some major food-growing regions. That's what 0.5% compund increase has led to so far, and there's inertia in the system.

I don't know what you're asking? I put it in quotes because CO2 is a harmless gas, but some people are alarmed by the harm it could cause indirectly.

Why this thing about CO₂ not being directly harmful at atmospheric concentrations? It's entirely beyond any point. It plays well at WattsUpMyButt, I know, but you're amongst grown-ups here.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

So if I've misrepresented anything it's that the increase is a little less than 1% per year.

You have not misrepresented it: You have chery picked it which is a rather ignorant tactic associated with deniers and warmers.

You have shown that the current (post 2007) increase is linear at ~1%.
The subject has always been the trend in the Mauna Loa data over the last 30 years.
In case you cannot tell: 30 years is longer than 4 years !

Now do the same analysis for 30 years of Mauna Loa to get a straight line that matches the data as good as the straight line in the short term data.

FYI: It is impossible because the data is nonlinear. It starts at one slope and ends at another.

 

[CapelDodger]

I find this insane. First, that poll got twice as many votes as the polls before and after that. Second, how does he know that they don't shut down the poll at the same time automatically? Conspiratorial, accusatory and refuses to admit he's wrong until we say were sorry, evidently because he thinks well call them Nazi-lovers or something. Really, really stupid.

Dumber than a sack of hammers. There's no shortage of everyday stupidity out there, but Watts is a special type of stupid. His inability to comprehend that anomalies reported against different baselines will necessarily be different losed that case.

Watts and most of the denier cabal are of an age to remember Holocaust denial, but these days nobody would hear about it if they didn't keep bringing it up. It would be more appropriate for a Holocaust denier to be offended by association with AGW denial.