tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post2989231091669788090..comments2023-06-09T05:51:20.174-07:00Comments on Climate Consensarian: MODTRAN Radiative Atmospheric Model Part 1Brandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-29797366098731713482021-06-11T23:58:52.115-07:002021-06-11T23:58:52.115-07:00Very interesting article, I really appreciate it.
...Very interesting article, I really appreciate it.<br /><a href="https://bioglobereview.wordpress.com/2021/05/24/bioglobe-singapore-why-choosing-the-proper-filter-is-necessary/" rel="nofollow">Bioglobe</a> has a proven track record of resolving the most demand of water filter that helps in improving water issues in residential, commercial, and industrial settings. Get the most sophisticated purification and filtration systems to ensure that your water is pure, germ-free, dirt-free, and fresh. Visit our website to learn more about our product.<br />Bioglobe Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04173583441651548218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-64658118107882644372021-05-06T04:19:33.318-07:002021-05-06T04:19:33.318-07:00very nice article, thank you for sharing with us.
...very nice article, thank you for sharing with us.<br />Water retains us hydrated and increases our immune system but impure water is damaging to our health. <a href="https://bioglobereview.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/what-things-you-should-keep-in-mind-when-buying-bioglobe-water-filter/" rel="nofollow">Bioglobe</a> offers the best purifier system for Clean and safe drinking. Our system does not kill ionized calcium and other essential, beneficial minerals. For any suggestion for buying water filter, then you can get in touch with us today.<br />Bioglobe Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04173583441651548218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-33227243244803696432021-05-01T05:46:08.674-07:002021-05-01T05:46:08.674-07:00This is very nice article thank you for sharing wi...This is very nice article thank you for sharing with us.<br /><a href="https://www.pinterest.de/bioglobe12/bio-globe-singapore-pte-ltd/" rel="nofollow">Bioglobe</a> provides the best quality mattress and water purifier system. Combining science and nutrition they improve your drinking water benefit your family with the best source of bitter water. We also design our product as a convenient of yours.<br />Bioglobe Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04173583441651548218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-67392202235024289552021-05-01T05:42:36.227-07:002021-05-01T05:42:36.227-07:00This is very nice article thank you for sharing wi...This is very nice article thank you for sharing with us.<br /><a href="https://bioglobereview.blogspot.com/2021/04/what-things-you-should-keep-in-mind.html" rel="nofollow">Bioglobe Singapore</a> <br />Bioglobe Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04173583441651548218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-24441076828985250422021-03-12T01:56:27.788-08:002021-03-12T01:56:27.788-08:00Very interesting to article i really appreciate it...Very interesting to article i really appreciate it.<br /><a href="https://bioglobesingapore01.blogspot.com/2020/07/benefits-of-direct-selling.html" rel="nofollow">Bio Globe Singapore</a><br />Bioglobe Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04173583441651548218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-60909648399898421622021-02-26T04:19:37.385-08:002021-02-26T04:19:37.385-08:00Really informative and valuable blog, keep sharing...Really informative and valuable blog, keep sharing, I will make sure to be reading your blog more<br />Do you like to install the finest quality water filter in your residing place of the leading company like <a href="https://www.jobstreet.com.sg/en/companies/826698-bio-globe-singapore" rel="nofollow">Bioglobe</a>? If so, then visit this company and buy products of your choice at the very competitive price. Its water filter Biolytes kills almost 99.9% harmful bacteria from your drinking water. <br />Bioglobe Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04173583441651548218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-58520057598081580072016-04-05T05:24:22.295-07:002016-04-05T05:24:22.295-07:00The range itself tells me it's not.
I believe...<i>The range itself tells me it's not.</i><br /><br />I believe I made this point before, but I'll make it again here since it's pertinent. The entire range for climate sensitivity includes potentially catastrophic outcomes on a business-as-usual emissions pathway. If CS is ~2°C then we have a little extra time, but not more than an additional decade or two. If CS is in the 4.5°C range then we're really behind the 8-ball.<br /><br />If one argues for CS below 2°C, then they need to also be ready to argue the upper end could potentially be higher as well (where there are much greater uncertainties related to methane releases).<br /><br />We could spend the next two decades trying to further constrain CS, but to what purpose? What it all comes down to is risk analysis. We already have a strong level of confidence that we have a massive challenge regardless of a precise estimate of CS. What it comes down to is economic impacts. Which costs less? Do you spend now to mitigate the problem or wait and spend later to adapt? Every economic study suggests that mitigating now presents the lowest economic impact.<br /><br />RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-70294181970392297772016-04-05T04:25:06.913-07:002016-04-05T04:25:06.913-07:00From the Knutti paper...
- - - - -
"Ever si...From the Knutti paper...<br /><br />- - - - - <br /><i>"Ever since concern arose about increases of CO2 in the atmosphere causing warming, scientists have attempted to estimate how much warming will result from, for example, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Even the earliest estimates ranged remarkably close to our present estimate of a likely increase of between 2 and 4.5 °C (ref. 24). For example, Arrhenius25 and Callendar26, in the years 1896 and 1938, respectively, estimated that a doubling of CO2 would result in a global temperature increase of 5.5 and 2 °C. Half a century later, the first energy-balance models, radiative convective models and general circulation models (GCMs) were used to quantify forcings and feedbacks, and with it the climate sensitivity S (refs 9, 21, 27–31). Climate sensitivity is not a directly tunable quantity in GCMs and depends on many parameters related mainly to atmospheric processes. Different sensitivities in GCMs can be obtained by perturbing parameters affecting clouds, precipitation, convection, radiation, land surface and other processes. Two decades ago, the largest uncertainty in these feedbacks was attributed to clouds32. Process-based studies now find a stronger constraint on the combined feedbacks from increases in water vapour and changes in the lapse rate. These studies still identify low-level clouds as the dominant uncertainty in feedback4,5,33.<br /><br />Requiring that climate models reproduce the observed present-day climatology (spatial structure of the mean climate and its variability) provides some constraint on model climate sensitivity. Starting in the 1960s (ref. 27), climate sensitivities in early GCMs were mostly in the range 1.5–4.5 °C. That range has changed very little since then, with the current models covering the range 2.1–4.4 °C (ref. 5), although higher values are possible34. This can be interpreted as disturbingly little progress or as a confirmation that model simulations of atmospheric feedbacks are quite robust to the details of the models. Three studies have calculated probability density functions (PDFs) of climate sensitivity by comparing different variables of the present-day climate against observations in a perturbed physics ensemble of an atmospheric GCM coupled to a slab ocean model35–37. These distributions reflect the uncertainty in our knowledge of sensitivity, not a distribution from which future climate change is sampled. The estimates are in good agreement with other estimates (Fig. 3). The main caveat is that all three studies are based on a version of the same climate model and may be similarly influenced by biases in the underlying model."</i><br />- - - - - <br /><br />In other words, as I read it, any potential damping effect has been sufficiently eliminated even though there are uncertainties with low clouds. I know Andrew Dessler did a empirical study on low cloud effects and found that they are most likely positive, not negative.<br />http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/amplified-warming.html<br /><br />This is further confirmed by geologic events like exit from snowball earth events. And it's evidenced by the necessary radiative forcing to get glacial-interglacial cycles over the past million years.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-70344064125020918912016-04-05T04:01:51.656-07:002016-04-05T04:01:51.656-07:00I think this may just be what you're looking f...I think this may just be what you're looking for...<br /><br />http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf<br /><br />Myhre et al 1998, <i>New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases;</i> GLR Vol 25, No 14, pages 2715-2718RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-52571050840154200622016-04-05T00:28:00.092-07:002016-04-05T00:28:00.092-07:00Chic,
I did answer it before by saying that labor...Chic,<br /><br /><i>I did answer it before by saying that laboratory experiments that simulate the atmosphere would be good, albeit problematic even if I had unlimited resources.</i> <br /><br />I'd think it would need to be a pretty big apparatus. And there's always the issue of validation. How do we know that it's an accurate model when there's so much uncertainty in how the real atmosphere works? A lot of really bright people have been working on this for decades. When they say that computer modelling is providing useful insight into the actual system, I tend to believe them.<br /><br /><i>Would it satisfy you if I simply say that proof is impossible, but the CS range has got to be narrowed down?</i><br /><br />I'm happy with the concession that proof is impossible. I'm dubious that a narrower CS range would make any difference to you. Too narrow, and you start asking how they got the error bars to be so small. You know your mind better than me, of course. But from the outside this is what it looks like to me:<br /><br />Me: Theory says a,b,c.<br /><br />You: Where's your evidence?<br /><br />Me: Evidence says x,y,z.<br /><br />You: That could mean anything, where's your theory?<br /><br />Me: @$%@$^^@$!$%@#$!!<br /><br /><i>Open a brewski and say "Praise the Lord, consensus at last!</i><br /><br />You're killing me here. For one thing, "consensus" doesn't mean "unanimity" to two decimal places. I exaggerate for effect, of course.<br /><br />For another thing, *is* a consensus that we're having an effect. How much, how soon, and what happens then, not so much. All narrowing down CS gives you is, maybe, an indication of how much time it would take to reach a given temperature level assuming some future (and unknown!) emissions scenario. It tells you diddly-squat what happens at that temperature level.<br /><br />There's also a consensus on what 280 ppmv looked like, that's really just a matter of history. We know that wasn't catastrophic ... we're here ain't we? It's difficult to play the odds when you don't know what the odds *are*.<br /><br />Hindsight may not be exactly 20/20 in this case, but it beats the hell out of our present foresight.<br /><br /><i>I will stop commenting until I make some progress on evaluating the CAM5 model equations.</i><br /><br />That could definitely keep a guy out of trouble for a decade or two.<br /><br /><i>Also I hope to have a post on the GTE ready, if you'll have it and I get it done soon.</i><br /><br />I'll be on the lookout for it. Cheers.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-68136253237231286162016-04-04T23:49:06.316-07:002016-04-04T23:49:06.316-07:00OK, one more comment. I mean it this time.
Rob, ...OK, one more comment. I mean it this time.<br /><br />Rob, there are two basic formulas for CS. One is the simple one without feedbacks, like I outlined above. The formula(s) with feedbacks goes something like this: lamda = dT[2xCO2]/(1-f) where f represents the total feedbacks. So if wv feedback is negative, the CS is lower than predicted otherwise. You can read up on it here: http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Knutti_nature08.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-85535020166273639282016-04-04T23:05:54.950-07:002016-04-04T23:05:54.950-07:00Brandon,
What is my standard of proof? I did ans...Brandon,<br /><br />What is my standard of proof? I did answer it before by saying that laboratory experiments that simulate the atmosphere would be good, albeit problematic even if I had unlimited resources. Would it satisfy you if I simply say that proof is impossible, but the CS range has got to be narrowed down?<br /><br /><i>"And for the love of Pete, what would you do with that information if you had it?</i><br /><br />Open a brewski and say "Praise the Lord, consensus at last! <br /><br />I will stop commenting until I make some progress on evaluating the CAM5 model equations.<br /><br />Also I hope to have a post on the GTE ready, if you'll have it and I get it done soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-57772080391780012672016-04-04T22:44:19.605-07:002016-04-04T22:44:19.605-07:00Rob,
These are all aspects of climate science est...Rob,<br /><br /><i>These are all aspects of climate science established in the available research. Number 4 is not an assumption.</i><br /><br />Now you are back to assertions and arguments by authority again. I will never respond to that. You already stated how you think CS is well-quantitated. The range itself tells me it's not. What have you said that would make me change my mind?<br /><br />I'm not arguing to be right on this stuff. I'm investigating the details because I don't trust the consensus, especially SkS. No hard feelings I hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-11540115063871485662016-04-04T22:30:28.738-07:002016-04-04T22:30:28.738-07:00Brandon, I was just sharing my experience. Don...Brandon, I was just sharing my experience. Don't feel you have to jump to anyone's defense.<br /><br />Rob, I was being cheeky about the pause. I don't need any more work on my plate, but thanks for link anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-69295064940786525232016-04-04T21:54:02.461-07:002016-04-04T21:54:02.461-07:00Yeah, as if they know any better than everyone els...Yeah, as if they know any better than everyone else what the results of the inevitable warming will be. The mind boggles.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-29339812765194791032016-04-04T21:47:42.841-07:002016-04-04T21:47:42.841-07:00Chic,
The point is nowhere in this scenario is th...Chic,<br /><br /><i>The point is nowhere in this scenario is there any confirmation of exactly what the sensitivity to CO2 alone is.</i><br /><br />I'm going to start asking you this every time I see you doing this from now on: what is your standard of proof? IOW, what *would* convince you? How do you propose to *exactly* determine climate sensitivity to CO2 is? And for the love of Pete, what would you do with that information if you had it?Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-9835963085677613472016-04-04T21:38:48.713-07:002016-04-04T21:38:48.713-07:00Chic,
Then the climategate emails surfaced. That&...Chic,<br /><br /><i>Then the climategate emails surfaced. That's when I decided to question everything orthodox.</i><br /><br />Similar experience here, with a slight difference. I didn't so much question everything orthodox so much as it marked the beginning of me studying the science in greater depth than I previously had.<br /><br /><i>There's no sense in dredging up climategate.</i><br /><br />Unless this is a carryover from a previous conversation somewhere else, in this thread it appears you were the first to bring it up.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-40184773551076551482016-04-04T16:58:29.551-07:002016-04-04T16:58:29.551-07:00Maybe we needed some volcanic activity in 2000 to ...<i>Maybe we needed some volcanic activity in 2000 to explain the pause. I admit I don't know the forcings and models well enough to argue against your explanation. </i><br /><br />Gavin Schmidt has done a forcings adjusted representation of model outputs here:<br /><br />https://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/modeltempschmidt15.jpg?w=502&h=417RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-32649898628506692662016-04-04T16:55:21.539-07:002016-04-04T16:55:21.539-07:00Why do you think these are assumptions? These are ...Why do you think these are assumptions? These are all aspects of climate science established in the available research. Number 4 is not an assumption. That has been the position put forth by hundreds of scientists working on the IPCC reports for decades now. Number 9 is well established and represented in the radiative forcing chart I've posted several times now. RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-62486240404937350292016-04-04T16:34:44.942-07:002016-04-04T16:34:44.942-07:00What I don't get is the idea that you think th...What I don't get is the idea that you think the direct CO2 sensitivity holds any special information. That's a well defined and well accepted figure. As mentioned before, most prominent skeptics focus on feedback and accept the forcing due to CO2.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-53986053865554208032016-04-04T15:03:16.759-07:002016-04-04T15:03:16.759-07:00Yes, I was glad to learn the term and be reminded ...Yes, I was glad to learn the term and be reminded of the application to TCS and ECS. Do you have any thoughts/references on whether that applies to CO2 sensitivity alone? I'm still not confident you understand the distinction I see. Maybe there is none. I'd like to know. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-72412075265168781712016-04-04T14:57:43.711-07:002016-04-04T14:57:43.711-07:00Rob,
There's no sense in dredging up climateg...Rob,<br /><br />There's no sense in dredging up climategate. It won't bring us any closer to agreement on the science will it? It really is my goal.<br /><br /><i>"That one's pretty well understood...."</i><br /><br />Maybe we needed some volcanic activity in 2000 to explain the pause. I admit I don't know the forcings and models well enough to argue against your explanation. <br /><br />Still, why do you think I didn't get your answer to my question at RealClimate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-13424152963012537372016-04-04T14:33:43.180-07:002016-04-04T14:33:43.180-07:00I finished the SkS citation "How do we know C...I finished the SkS citation "How do we know CO2 is causing more warming?" My critique is not intended to change your understanding of all this, but to let you know where I think the missing links are in AGW orthodoxy. This is an outline of Dana1981’s post: <br /><br />1. Comparison of ULWR spectra show differences in flux for IR-active gases. <br />2. Assume DLWR spectra differences represent warming due to specific gases.<br />3. Radiative transfer models predict these energy fluxes with good accuracy. <br />2. Describe the change in CO2 concentration by the formula dFc = 5.35 ln(C/Co).<br />3. Define climate sensitivity as dTi = lamda * dFi where Fi represents all forcings.<br />4. Assume a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature change ranging from 2 to 4.5 K. <br />5. Assume dFc = dFi and calculate the climate sensitivity as lamda = (2 to 4.5)/3.7 K/W/m2 = 0.54 to 1.2 K/W/m2.<br />6. Calculate temperature change expected to date as dT = (0.54 to 1.2)*ln(390/280)/ln 2 = 1 to 2.2 K.<br />7. Observe only 0.8 K of warming to date.<br />8. Rationalize that there is 0.6 +/- 0.4 warming to come, at least.<br />9. Assume the other forcings cancel out, so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives a good estimate as to how much further temperature change to expect.<br /><br />Notice how many assumptions are in that outline. Some can probably be justified, but the assumption at 4 comes out of nowhere. The assumption at 9 is required to justify the assumption at 5. <br /><br />If readers aren’t confused enough, Dana calculates a best-case scenario by assuming sensitivity is only 1 K instead of something in the 2 to 4.5 K range, which results in a CS of 0.27 K/W/m2. <br /><br />The point is nowhere in this scenario is there any confirmation of exactly what the sensitivity to CO2 alone is. There is an assumption that sensitivity including feedbacks is 2 to 4.5 and there is an assumption that all feedbacks cancel out. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-59273856189404191802016-04-04T14:29:06.215-07:002016-04-04T14:29:06.215-07:00Chic... An addendum to one point in the previous t...Chic... An addendum to one point in the previous thread: I got confirmation that CS is, indeed, an emergent property that comes out of modern climate models. RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-51194062017579855572016-04-04T12:17:57.735-07:002016-04-04T12:17:57.735-07:00Chic,
I'm still going through it.
It's a...Chic,<br /><br /><i>I'm still going through it.</i><br /><br />It's a lot to go through.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com