Strong Negative Feedback Found in Radiation Budget

[CapelDodger]

Okay, you are talking about climate sensitivity in the generic. That makes a bit more sense.

Now what is left to make sense out of your stand is some specific meaning, range or clearer definition of what is "high" and "low".

As an example, the IPCC midpoint of a doubling of CO2 causing a 3C temperature change I consider "high". Spencer's calculation of 0.3-0.6C for the doubling of CO2 I consider "low".

The differences are in the feedback parameters which is why I asked about that.

Are you using "high" and "low" with regard to the actual sensitivity?

 

[CapelDodger]

So are you saying that if co2 sensitivity is low, but climate variability is high, then that is a problem later when there is more co2, because it is more or less a multiplier on the variability?

And this has nothing to do with feedbacks?

Yep, I'm not seeing that.

I'm not seeing it in what At In To posted either.

Putting it in plain English:

Please do.

On the premise that CO2 has a low sensitivity (and therefore Copenhagen, cap and trade etc are all economically and scientifically wrong) somehow high natural variability is a bad thing?

Well, maybe all those Copenhagen people could go on to natural variability?

Well that ranks a FAIL. What has a city in Denmark go to do with CO2 feedback? Do you bring up cap-and-trade because warmers politicise science? Please try to answer in Plain English.

Failing that (which I'll take as a given), why do you feel that natural variability which "just happens" can have as large an impact as we've seen in the world over the last few decades while the influence of CO2 is minor?

(I'm picking up the letters" P", "D" and "O" here ...)

 

[mhaze]

If CO2 sensitivity really were that low then we'd have a terrible time trying to explain how the planet recovers during the interglacials in the way that it does.

Yep. I wondered if the guesses about the interglacials/glacials would be brought in as some stretch of rationalization on this high/low sensitivity thing.

Not a bit deal, really, but that's not going to work as justification for the issues raised by At In To - whom you will note, did not bring interglacials in.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes, but just because your sparring partner hadn't mentioned them doesn't mean they don't exist. We are dealing with reality here, not hypotheticals. Unless Spencer has some other yet unknown positive feedback that would pull the world out of the glacials to the degree that it evidently is then it is highly likely that his sensitivity calculations are woefully wrong.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, but just because your sparring partner hadn't mentioned them doesn't mean they don't exist. We are dealing with reality here, not hypotheticals. Unless Spencer has some other yet unknown positive feedback that would pull the world out of the glacials to the degree that it evidently is then it is highly likely that his sensitivity calculations are woefully wrong.

You are dealing with hypotheticals here, not reality.

You are using one set of guesses about the ice ages, then trying to use that set as predictors of good and bad modern day science. I didn't suggest that was completely ridiculous, just that it was extremely weak.

Weak enough to not really be worth discussing.

 

[mhaze]

...What has a city in Denmark go to do with CO2 feedback? Do you bring up cap-and-trade because warmers politicise science? Please try to answer in Plain English.

Failing that (which I'll take as a given), why do you feel that natural variability which "just happens" can have as large an impact as we've seen in the world over the last few decades while the influence of CO2 is minor?
...

Well if you followed the discussion you would have seen why. As for what the implications are, well now.

If there are no implications for cap and trade or mitigation or adjustment to climate change as a result of scientific findings of low sensitivity of climate, then that's quite interesting.

Not only does the emperor have no clothes but that's to be public policy for all?

 

[bit_pattern]

They're not "guesses", they're solid calculations. See Knutti & Hegerl 2008, you're the only one trading in hypotheticals.

 

[Furcifer]

On the premise that the climate sensitivity is low, then high natural variability is not possible. You need to invent entirely new physics if you wish to show these to be compatible (low sensitivity and high variability).

It's called Chaos Theory and it isn't new.

By definition "climate" is a sufficient period of time where sensitivity is low. It is made up of natural periods of high variability we commonly refer to as "weather".

 

[mhaze]

No, it really doesn't matter. We are discussing variability and sensitivity here. Maybe an example will be illustrative. If you have a climate where a particular cycle produces one degree of warming at the high end, followed by one degree of cooling at the low end, it still goes to zero with time. If you have a different climate where the same cycle produces 0.01 degrees of warming at the high end and 0.01 degrees of cooling at the low end, it still goes to zero with time.

One climate is insensitive to the variations in that cycles forcing. The other is not. The average being zero doesn't mean that the climate is insensitive, it means that it is a cycle, which averages to zero. Cycles should wash out to zero, unless they aren't really cycles at all. The variability is what matters, and Tsonis' work with climate states clearly implies that variability is large, thus the sensitivity is also large. ...

Natural variability is large COMPARED to a scenario where the major part of the recent post 1950s rise in temperature was caused by CO2 with a minor or insignificant natural variability superimposed, yes. But total climate sensitivity and variability can be exactly the same as measured - then the issues are whether the forcings and feedbacks causing that are CO2, or internal climate variations.

When Tsonis looks at four major ocean cycles, these are multi decadal. They go to zero, yes, but over 60-80 years. So if they happen to line up in the post 1950s era to cause an apparent large warming, which may have been misinterpreted as being caused by CO2, where in that is evidence of "large sensitivity"?

It's the attribution of the temperature variability that's being discussed. separating out the natural component from that which may have been caused by CO2 is an important part of that process.

 

[macdoc]

Except there is small issue of you having to account for the C02 warming which is well established.

Oh yeah that's right....you deny the physics.

despite it's establishment for over a century
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

You also have to account for the radiative imbalance that is observed.
ANY multi-decadal cycle is merely moving heat around, and yes it could and probably does contribute to the accelerated warming in the north.

None of that accounts for more retained energy....only for where it happens to be.
Atmospheric temps are minor compared to other energy gains which have higher hysteresis.

 

[mhaze]

Except there is small issue of you having to account for the C02 warming which is well established.

Oh yeah that's right....you deny the physics.

despite it's establishment for over a century
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

You also have to account for the radiative imbalance that is observed.
ANY multi-decadal cycle is merely moving heat around, and yes it could and probably does contribute to the accelerated warming in the north.....

Odd, that radiative "imbalance" is in fact the subject of the OP and of this thread.

HeeelllllOOOOO????

 

[mhaze]

Odd, that radiative "imbalance" is in fact the subject of the OP and of this thread.



HeeelllllOOOOO????

Further, if this chart is right, then you need to show where that 1.6 watt per meter squared has accumulated since 1950 or so. This chart, remember, only guesses at the net outbound flux. Going down that road, you've got quite a bit of "mystery heat" hiding somewhere. Which is lurking in the deep, Lock Ness monster style?



But Spencer measured outbound flux. Who to believe, who to believe....someone that guessed at a number, or someone who measured it.....

Is the mystery heat going to arise, like Nessie from the deep? Or is this a silly Warmer fantasy?

 

[At In To]

Natural variability is large COMPARED to a scenario where the major part of the recent post 1950s rise in temperature was caused by CO2 with a minor or insignificant natural variability superimposed, yes.

You're editorializing. A secular trend is not minor or insignificant, and Tsonis et al. certainly never said it was trivial.

When Tsonis looks at four major ocean cycles, these are multi decadal. They go to zero, yes, but over 60-80 years. So if they happen to line up in the post 1950s era to cause an apparent large warming, which may have been misinterpreted as being caused by CO2, where in that is evidence of "large sensitivity"?

The large warming...read their other works, and the papers they cite if you have to:
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf

Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may
indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity.

And,

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe [2009]). If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].

 

[mhaze]

You're editorializing. A secular trend is not minor or insignificant, and Tsonis et al. certainly never said it was trivial.

The large warming...read their other works, and the papers they cite if you have to:
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf

And,

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

I'm editorializing? I'm the guy that asked for terms like "large" to be defined by those who used them...

And by the way "secular" means pretty much "background trend", which is not definitive as to whether it is "large or small".

 

[At In To]

I'm editorializing? I'm the guy that asked for terms like "large" to be defined by those who used them...

Where did I ever ask you to define "large" as it pertains to climate sensitivity, or variability? I think you have me confused with someone else.

And yes, you were editorializing there. You have no foundation from any of the material you posted to support your argument to call the secular trend in the data insignificant, or minor.

And by the way "secular" means pretty much "background trend", which is not definitive as to whether it is "large or small".

Can you cite a source for that from any econometrics/statistics resources? My statistics professor taught me that a secular trend in a time series is acyclical and has a long period. Such as the anthropogenic forcing on the climate...

 

[mhaze]

Where did I ever ask you to define "large" as it pertains to climate sensitivity, or variability? I think you have me confused with someone else.

And yes, you were editorializing there. You have no foundation from any of the material you posted to support your argument to call the secular trend in the data insignificant, or minor.



Can you cite a source for that from any econometrics/statistics resources? My statistics professor taught me that a secular trend in a time series is acyclical and has a long period. Such as the anthropogenic forcing on the climate...

This is not meaningful discussion as presented. I have linked to Tsonis's article, the extent of the secular trend which he subtracted is clearly described therein. Words such as "large or minor" have no meaning in this context, because "relative to what" is left undefined.

Further you should understand that this data subset is not "certainly" the effect of CO2. It is simply the extent of a background rising trend. It could be something else in entirety, or part of it could be the effect of greenhouse gases. That isn't part of the study by Tsonis, you see - to define what that secular trend consisted of.

But it would describe an upper limit to the effect of greenhouse gases, by using the presumption that it was 100% caused by them. (Dubious for other reasons, but still, that's an upper limit). Your stat prof described the phrase "secular trend" well, "background rising trendline" works also.

I'm not opposed to asserting that is to some extent caused by greenhouse gases. What I objected to earlier, was the incorrect presumption that the past 1950s temperature rise was caused by them. There is a big difference between that section of Tsonis's secular curve, and the past 1950's temperature rise. That difference cannot be attributed to greenhouse gases if you accept the remainder of the work that Tsonis did on periodic cycles.

 

[At In To]

This is not meaningful discussion as presented. I have linked to Tsonis's article, the extent of the secular trend which he subtracted is clearly described therein. Words such as "large or minor" have no meaning in this context, because "relative to what" is left undefined.

I'm only pointing out that when you say insignificant, and minor, based on your reading of Tsonis et al. that you are attributing qualifiers that this study does not allow.

Further you should understand that this data subset is not "certainly" the effect of CO2.

I do understand that, as do Tsonis et al. They have said "presumably" because so many others have found this signal in the climate.

But it would describe an upper limit to the effect of greenhouse gases, by using the presumption that it was 100% caused by them.

Now see that's editorializing again.

That difference cannot be attributed to greenhouse gases if you accept the remainder of the work that Tsonis did on periodic cycles.

If. Tsonis et al. is one puzzle piece in a 5000 piece puzzle. It's a huge mistake to take one study like Tsonis, or one like Spencer's, and think that somehow it is going to survive as the best explanation when there are so many others, others which have been tested, and others which have been shown to work.

 

[mhaze]

I'm only pointing out that when you say insignificant, and minor, based on your reading of Tsonis et al. that you are attributing qualifiers that this study does not allow.

I do understand that, as do Tsonis et al. They have said "presumably" because so many others have found this signal in the climate.

Now see that's editorializing again.

If. Tsonis et al. is one puzzle piece in a 5000 piece puzzle. It's a huge mistake to take one study like Tsonis, or one like Spencer's, and think that somehow it is going to survive as the best explanation when there are so many others, others which have been tested, and others which have been shown to work.

This is hardly worth responding to and here is why.

• Tsonis - reduction in uncertainty of natural vs man made forcings.
• Spencer - reduction in uncertainty of cloud effects

So these reductions in uncertainties (as per the current scientific understanding) are in your view:

<concepts that are not...> going to survive as the best explanation <because> ...there are so many others, others which have been tested, and others which have been shown to work.

After falling for the "us vs them" logical fallacy, you've missed the entire bigger picture, haven't you? You've missed the very uncertainties and gaps in the knowledge that are addressed by these two studies.

 

[At In To]

After falling for the "us vs them" logical fallacy, you've missed the entire bigger picture, haven't you? You've missed the very uncertainties and gaps in the knowledge that are addressed by these two studies.

There is no us versus them, that is projection on your part. There is what works, and what doesn't.

I have no problem with what Tsonis and colleagues have worked out, but your understanding of it is way off the chart. As for Spencer's work, it's like I said much earlier, he needs to apply this method to other forms of data.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's called Chaos Theory and it isn't new.

Chaos Theory does not explain high variability in a system with low sensitivity. It was developed to examine systems with high sensitivity to conditions at any point in time. Turbulent systems, for instance, such as weather.

By definition "climate" is a sufficient period of time where sensitivity is low. It is made up of natural periods of high variability we commonly refer to as "weather".

By definition climate defines the bounds within which weather can occur, and varies much more gradually than the weather itself. It varies due to changes in the system itself.

Climate is not chaotic. Weather is. Just as one roll of a fair dice is chaotic and unpredictable but the result of many rolls is not, even though it is made up of many individually unpredictable units.

Chaos theory is an interesting subject, you should look into it. It isn't a catch-all get-out from things you would rather weren't so.