ghenghisclown wrote on 01/12/14 at 22:49:56:

the warming due to CO2 is just not alarming
Quote:

indeed, you got that right, I think that's reasonably possible

Update:

the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't trust its own models any more and lowers its predictions of future temperatures
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/
apparently you can read things like this in the IPCC's final scientific report: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
so they're finally saying: "we officially have no clue"
they also apply completely arbitrary cuts of 33% to some predictions of these climate models (if the models are apparently wrong, why look at their output at all?)
so some models have been exaggerating future warming? who would have thought??

Somehow, Tony, I still don't know what you're talking about. Apparently, what you're saying is that if CO2 is not shown to be warming the Earth towards the higher end of the prediction, then there must not be global warming:


Quote:


Above is the "it's happening" part, followed by the not enough part:

Quote:


Like I've said. It's been eliminated. Either you believe in science or you don't.

Quote:


That's not a math issue, it's a knowledge one. Yes, the ICC covers its butt by producing a range of  1.5°C to 4.5°C because no one can totally eliminate even higher temperature changes as a possibility. However, most of the studies (like James Hansen's) converge around 1.5°C to 3°C. 

And as for further agreeing with me, we know already that even if we take your very conservative number of 
"climate sensitivity might be more like 1°C" we still get half of observed surface temperature increases coming from this alone. 

That's IF we take that value, which of course relies on you shaving off some (according to your last post) due to solar activity. 

I haven't looked into the substance of your discussion here, but it would be more tempting to do so if you guys cut down on the snark.

Easier to clear up any differences and misunderstandings that way, you know?

ghenghisclown wrote on 01/11/14 at 23:29:13:

My point is that it makes a lot less difference in temperature than the alarmist predictions have been claiming.

Here's my reply finally

ghenghisclown wrote on 12/14/13 at 13:17:26:

You mean the Wikipedia article on climate sensitivity

Quote:

I hope you see that the figure 0.8 K/(W/m²) is not what we are talking about (you weren't thinking 'hey, this article says 0.8, and this is 0.8 too, so the models are completely correct', right?). 
What we are talking about is the 3° C ± 1.5 °C figure. First of all, what does it say? It says that for every doubling of CO2 the temperature is expected to rise by something between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. 
(By the way, I hope you discovered by now that this implies that every added CO2 molecule has less influence on temperature than the previous one. Everyone agrees with this, but it doesn't sound so catastrophic so it isn't talked about much.)
There is a huge difference between a 1.5°C warming and a 4.5°C warming, but IPCC scientists are apparently still unable to determine with more accuracy what climate sensitivity is. So this 3° C ± 1.5 °C figure can also be interpreted as: “We don't have a frigging clue how climate works.”
And now I have a good joke for you.
In the previous (fourth) IPCC report this likely range of climate sensitivity was 2°C to 4.5°C, but in the latest (fifth) IPCC report this has been enlarged to 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Why? (hold your breath) “This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.”
My paraphrasing would be: “We can state with a high confidence level that we're even more clueless than last time.”
And the mindboggling thing is that this 1.5°C-4.5°C range has been around since …..1979! Tons of 'research' has happened and the answer to the most important question is still as unclear as 34 years ago. You can read more on this on http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions
Now the reality check: my calculated 1.648°C is indeed within said range but barely (and it's not within the range of the previous IPCC report), I'm quite sure that if it could be established that climate sensitivity is indeed around that number, there would be a lot less global warming panic. But more importantly, this was based on the (unrealistic) assumption that all warming was caused by CO2. But there are several indications that variation in solar activity also has a significant impact on temperatures, although the exact mechanism of how this happens isn't completely clear yet (but more research, on for example cloud formation, is necessary).
Quote:

These expected negative feedbacks are already included in this 3° C ± 1.5 °C figure.

Quote:

A lag for some feedbacks is possible but you still didn't explain why the most important supposed feedback (the water vapour feedback) isn't being observed, as in: no hot spot in the higher troposphere above the tropics.

Quote:

???
You are bad at math, that much is clear to me. There are thousands of way of putting these data into a graph, so suggesting that this particular graph has some deep meaning is one of the most clueless arguments you can make.
Quote:

It is not warm enough to convince me that these IPCC models are correct, for the very simple reason that their predictions turned out faulty. Your claim about it being warmer than expected (posted on 12/12/13) is hopelessly wrong, is this ignorance supposed to convince me in any way?

Quote:


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/energy-desks-betting-on-a-big-future-for-carbon...

Who would have thought taxing the air you breathe would be big business?

The "0.8" number in tony37's post and in the work you cite have absolutely no relation.  They don't even have the same units (degrees Celsius vs Kelvin*watts per square meter^-1).  That should have been a huge clue.

Tony's post was comparing actual temperature change (0.8 C) to actual CO2 change to get a sensitivity per doubling.  Your quote was comparing modeled temperature change (3.0 C) as a function of radiative forcing and a climate sensitivity parameter.

You've claimed several times in this thread that those who disagree with you are ignorant, but I think it's clear at this point the Dunning-Krueger effect is in effect with regard to such claims.  

We're done here.