In the forum where I formerly posted quite a bit, there were threads and frequent posts about science "deniers" and science "denial." All were about the science; none was about public policy. Your position is unique in my experience. Shaviv believes the Paris Accord temperature target for 2100 can be achieved without making any changes. I don't think the IPCC would endorse that.
Some of the comments by Shaviv are factually wrong. The fact that the climate sensitivity in the IPCC AR5 report is the same as the the range in the Charney report is a coincidence. All of the results from numerous sources on climate sensitivity studies when averaged give the same range as the 1979 Charney report. The fact is that Charney made a good guess and subsequent scientific studies have confirmed that he guessed right. So, Shaviv is misleading his audience. There was global warming since 2000 and during the so called "hiatus". The "hiatus" was a period in which the mean global surface temperature rose at a lower than projected rate due to a number of factors that weren't predictable. The oceans were warming during that time and gaining a substantial amount of energy so there was warming during the "hiatus". The "hiatus" period is not "embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity". I assume that he is referring to a climate sensitivity of 3 as large, but that it is what all of the research tells us it is . It isn't amazing to me that climate sensitivity isn't known with better accuracy than 3.0 +/- 1.5. The cloud feedback is a big source of uncertainty which could be either positive or negative but the evidence points to it being slightly positive. It could become more positive with increased warming. The effects of atmospheric aerosols produced by factories and coal power plants on the earth's albedo either directly or through cloud formation is difficult to measure and that leads to uncertainty when calculating climate sensitivity AR5 Summary for Policy Makers . The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2} Shaviv:The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! Shaviv is wrong. The body of evidence does not show that climate sensitivity is on the low side. The heat is hiding in the ocean. It hasn't escaped the earth.
Again, you're pointing at policy. And, you are intimating that we should follow a direction that is based on one outlier. ONE OUTLIER!!! And, I do absolutely and totally reject that idea, as it IS denying the vast majority of climatology. If Shaviv demonstrates the correctness of his ideas under that questioning of the rest of science, then he should get an award and the result should be listened to. It would change what the IPCC says, obviously, as the IPCC is a voice for the best understanding the world of science has. We didn't accept Einstein, a physics outlier, for many years, either. It's not some sort of insult to require his ideas to be met by the greater world of climatological sciences, especially those who study the sun and the atmosphere.
Nope. Failure after 41 years to narrow the ECS range within the 1.5-4.5C range is a paradigm failure that points to the need for a new paradigm. As for evidence: Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017 Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]
As you wish. Even if the Paris Accord were executed in full by every signatory state, the result would be miniscule. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05 ... www.lomborg.com › press-release-research-reveals-neg... A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global ... The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure ... Union exceeded the entire promised reductions, leaving the treaty essentially toothless.
The commitments made by individual counries aren't significant enough. And the US, which emits more greenhouse gas per population, ditched the whole process. This is a case where US leadership would make a difference. Rather than providing leadership, he US has promised to OPPOSE leadership. Gloating about THAT seems like searching for failure.
Lomborg's analysis assumes full US participation. "US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100."
The presentation at the "No Tricks Zone" of climate sensitivity doesn't represent current thinking among the vast majority of climates scientists. The "No Tricks Zone" is presenting crackpot ideas and research while trying to pass it off as legitimate science. It isn't worth my time or the time of any serious scientist.The quality of the studies is not discussed there because the only thing that the "No Tricks Zone" cares about is trying to persuade the reader that recent research is lowering the value of climate sensitivity, but that is entirely false. Studies of the paleoclimate are often used to set a boundary on the range for climate sensitivity and anything less than about 2 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 is very unlikely. Climate sensitivity is the response of the climate system to an external perturbation and it is a measure of how all of the climate feedbacks affect the global mean temperature once an equilibrium is established. That is typically around 50 years or longer. The water vapor feedback will amplify any perturbation very quickly because water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. Arctic sea ice is another positive feedback and the cloud feedback is also very likely positive. We should expect a doubling or more to the initial perturbation based on those considerations which translates into a climate sensitivity of 2 (minimum). So, it makes no sense to say recent climate sensitivity estimates are trending towards zero,because that isn't possible. A recent article published in the AGU, "An Assessment of the Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence" is an example of how to arrive at a conclusion using real science, not fringe science. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678 I copied part of the abstract. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely.
This is a chart from Skeptical Science, "How sensitive is our climate". The best way to make the determination is by using multiple lines of evidence. The AR4 IPCC range of 2.0 to 4.5 is supported by multiple lines of evidence as shown by the shaded blue area. Figure 4: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) is indicated by the vertical light blue bar. The Paleoclimate data below supports a climate sensitivty in the 2. to 4.5 range. Various paleoclimate-based equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from a range of geologic eras. Adapted from PALEOSENS (2012) Figure 3a by John Cook.
The AGU article is merely a "review article," that is to say it includes no original research. It is just a restatement of earlier claims -- sort of the academic equivalent of raising your voice to repeat what you said. The papers cited in the NTZ post are all peer-reviewed research results. An ECS of 1-1.5C provides the best fit for the record of 20th century warming.
This is an issue WITHIN science where your outlier disagrees with the majority of credentialed scientiss in this field. I would personally be curious to see the arguments made by the majority of science that cause that majority to not fully accept the results of Shaviv - or your new authors. Seeing just one side of the argument is WEAK. I spend little or more likley zero time arguing science here, because neither you nor I have any justification for expecting our various technical statements to have ANY WEIGHT AT ALL. The most important aspect of public discussion on these boards involves how we go about allowing our public policy direction to be informed by science. That is something where we have a valid opinion, as it has to do with how our various levels of governmnt must work - something WE decide.
No single piece of original reserach could possibly describe our Earth's climatology. And, suggesting that should be a requirement is WAY beyond absurd.
No one (certainly not I) is attempting to describe earth's climatology. The point of discussion was ECS. The review article, as the name indicates, includes nothing new. The original research does.
I've never suggeted that current commitments would reduce Earth's temperature. In fact, I've pointed to reasons that this effort has not yet been successful. More fundamentally, the US has NEVER made a commitment on climate or many other topics. Our process depends on at least two factors - presidents that are interested in keeping the word of the USA and congresses that are willing to ratify international agreements and work to support them. We have not had either. So, talking about "full US participation" is absolute and total BS. In fact it lables the entire argument being made as pure sophistry.
In the Accord, the US signed up for commitments just like other signatories. Lomborg's analysis assumes the US and all others meet their commitments. The result is miniscule.
I'm really not sure why the heck you would think I would accept majorly outlying ideas from your guy. It just makes no sense. If they are real, science wouldn't reject them.
This is pure sophistry. I've never seen such a claim sound so good, but be so ABSOLUTELY contrary to the truth. The US has made NO commitment on climate, and every country in the WORLD knows that. One can tell, because our president does not accept that we've made ANY commitment on ANYTHING.
You haven't done your homework. President Obama committed the US to both financial and emission reduction goals. Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know | NRDC www.nrdc.org › stories › paris-climate-agreement-ever... Dec 12, 2018 — ... announced that the United States, along with nearly 200 other countries, had committed to the Paris Climate Agreement, an ambitious global ... Paris Agreement Summary · Why Is the Paris Agreement ... · What Are the Paris ... Here's what the US actually agreed to in the Paris climate deal ... www.businessinsider.com › Science › Politics Jun 1, 2017 — That's how Trump is able to "cancel" the US's commitment to the accord. The Obama administration also enacted carbon-cutting measures to put ...
The peer-reviewed papers coming up with a low value for equilibrium climate sensitivity between 2012 and 2014 could be flawed or misrepresented. The peer-review process doesn't guarantee accuracy. This paper by Scafetta seems to be selectively choosing papers by climate contrarians in the 2012 to 2014 range. Nic Lewis, a climate contrarian, is featured twice on that graph, in 2013 and 2014. An article at Skeptical Science covers the 2013 paper. The effective climate sensitivity is usually less than the equilibrium climate sensitivity. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-single-study-syndrome-nic-lewis-edition.html Nic Lewis has written a paper on the subject of the Earth's climate sensitivity (how much surface temperatures will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) which has been accepted by the Journal of Climate. First of all, we would like to offer kudos to Lewis for subjecting his analysis to the peer review process, which is something few climate contrarians are willing to do. The paper is an outlier, finding a lower climate sensitivity than most other studies, and outside the likely range cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. It's most important not to fall into the trap of thinking that any single study will overturn a vast body of scientific evidence, derived from many different sources of data (or as Andrew Revkin calls this, single-study syndrome) Lewis (2013) Lewis took the approach of revising an analysis by Forest et al. (2006), applying Bayes' Theorem to a combination of an intermediate complexity climate model and recent instrumental data of surface and ocean temperatures. This Bayesian approach involves making use of prior knowledge of climate changes to establish a probability distribution function for climate sensitivity. Lewis describes his approach here. Forest et al. applied Bayes' Theorem to three climate model parameters – climate sensitivity, effective ocean diffusivity, and the aerosol forcing. Lewis applied it to the data rather than the model parameters, and also added six more years of data to the analysis. The resulting climate sensitivity estimate in the Forest approach was 2.1–8.9°C surface warming in response to doubled CO2, with a most likely value of 2.9°C. Using an 'expert prior' reduced the 90% confidence interval to 1.9–4.7°C. Using his approach, Lewis estimated the 90% confidence interval at 1.0–3.0°C, with a most likely value of 1.6°C. Even though Lewis refers specifically to "equilibrium climate sensitivity," The methodology used by Lewis is also not even necessarily an estimate of equilibrium sensitivity, but rather of effective climate sensitivity, which is a somewhat different parameter. The two may hypothetically be the same if all energy changes in the global climate system are accounted for (and to their credit, Forest and Lewis do include estimates of ocean heat content, including for the deep oceans), and if climate feedbacks remain constant. However, recent research by Armour et al. (2012) suggests that the latter may not be the case. Misrepresenting Aldrin et al. (2012) One significant issue in Lewis' paper (in his abstract, in fact) is that in trying to show that his result is not an outlier, he claims that Aldrin et al. (2012) arrived at the same most likely climate sensitivity estimate of 1.6°C, calling his result "identical to those from Aldrin et al. (2012)." However, this is not an accurate representation of their results. The authors of Aldrin et al. report a mean climate sensitivity value of 2.0°C under certain assumptions that they caution are not directly comparable to climate model-based estimates. When Aldrin et al. include a term for the influences of indirect aerosols and clouds, which they consider to be a more appropriate comparison to estimates such as the IPCC's model-based estimate of ~3°C, they report a sensitivity that increases up to 3.3°C. Their reported value is thus in good agreement with the full body of evidence as detailed in the IPCC report. Lewis's claimed value of 1.6°C appears nowhere in the paper itself. Rather, Lewis apparently ignored the authors' reported findings in favor of the mode he estimated from graphs in the paper. This misrepresentation both gives a false sense of agreements between the reported senstivity estimates as well as hides the mainstream values reported by the authors of Aldrin et al. These issues are discussed in detail at The Way Things Break along with the relevant figures from the paper. Most climate sensitivity analyses report the average value rather than the mode, including Alrdin et al. By instead reporting the mode, Lewis is not allowing for an apples-to-apples comparison with most previous climate sensitivity studies. However, this is less of an issue than presenting just one of several climate sensitivity estimates from the Aldrin paper, and one which excludes cloud and indirect aerosol effects. It is also worth noting that Scafetta used the 2012 Aldrin paper in his graph with a climate sensitivity of 1.6 but this misrepresents Aldrin's reported climate sensitivity of 3.3 when the influence of clouds and aerosols were included.
Congress never ratified the Paris "commitment" or the Kyoto Protocol. That's why Trump needed nothing to simply void that "commitment" and in fact remove us from the IPCC so we are not even among the 195 UN countries that take part in that climate organization. It's like if a president signs a treaty it still has no effect if congress refuses to ratify it. The USA never acknowledged any commitment on climate. But, I don't remember that being your real issue. You were pointing out that the commitments made by various countries were not sufficient to limit warming to the stated goals. Without checking in out, I'd be SHOCKED if whatever Earth's countries have committed to is sufficient. And, that is especially true of the USA federal government pointedly says that we like COAL and have NO interest in making climate progress. And, that even when we are the largest per capita emitterr of greenhouse gas. There are other countries that are emerging and note that their sacrifice (which for them is what would be required) to make up for our sloth and narcissism makes it a little difficult to pitch ideas to their own populations. This world DOES need leadership from those who find themselves on top - like the USA. And, we staunchly refuse any kind of leadership with our full commitment to "me first".
I do not deny science but I am sometimes surprised at how stupid some of the releases of scientific findings appear to be. (As an aside, I am also profoundly disappointed at the reception my questions have received in physics' forums when I ask questions about quantum physics, Time especially, Chance, and reality vs. illusion, etc.... They respond that I don't know enough mathematics so take a hike. And many of these physicists are teachers, who apparently do not wish to illuminate the darkness of the hoi poloi like me.) Back to the topic: Sometimes there are glaring examples of news "stories," (one liners really, lacking in depth and breadth), which obviously cause some of the herd animals to "deny" science. Here is one the herd must have raised their heads at, stopping their grazing and actually paying some attention to information before blowing it off as false news: A local TV presenter (reader) reads the monitor which says that scientists are now saying that masks not only stop one's sputum and other noxious fluids from infecting others, but can also protect the wearer from such infection-causing substances. REALLY? Who would have guessed? You mean the masks actually stop the crap from flowing both to and from the maskee? You mean they "discovered" the mask stops things from trying to kill you and others in both directionss? Oh blessed day! What a discovery! What will they come up with next? And you know the herd animals also thought: "I wonder how much money it costs to reach that obvious conclusion? See, news items like this cause people to balk, deny, refuse, lose interest, you name it. They see in such announcements that scientists, (plural, indiscriminate), are "stupid "for not knowing the obvious. It took the scientists since last February when the plague was recognized to have arrived and we all ran out to buy months of toilet paper, to discover what the herd surmised at the onset. Yes, Virginia, the masks work both ways. Revelation! Of course we also have the innumerable retractions of announcements years later that disprove studies, say they were wrong or even dangerous, and so forth. Yup, science is too slow and is often a matter of seeing what fails and what flies. The herd, resentful already for being common and uneducated, are all to ready to discount science for all these reasons. Oh, I forgot, opiods. Suddenly it is not okay to use them for pain because some people become addicted. Geez, you think? (Alcohol, for those of you who drive to the liquor store on Friday after work is still okay though.) And the TV presenter did not blink and eyelid; no expression at all. No raised eyebrows, nothing. I am repeatedly, relentlessly, inexorably tortured by humanity's ignorance every single day, and I am really sick of it now that I am old. You know, I feel justified at my advanced age for being sarcastic, but it wasn't me but Stephen Hawking who said humans were too stupid and selfish to survive.
