Climate sensitivity

and thank-you for confirming your own world view

I could post a link to a paper on making paper dolls and it would be touted as "Proof climate change is not happening"

Which is ludicrous because it is.

Now tell me - what exactly is your beef with climate science because the research on denialists shows that they often believe contradictory theories to support their contentions

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why the meta-analysis shows "confidence intervals"



Ever heard of them?

 

Strawman, where am I citing CO2 Science or Junk Science?

That there is such a thing as a "denialist view" (whatever that is) and therefore someone here has argued there is a lot of science to support this [strawman] view.

* Which does not make much sense, as I have never heard a skeptic refer to such a view that they hold.

Which rebuttal is not factual?

Where can a journal's "academic standing" be found?

Why should I not include a peer-reviewed paper on the list that supports a skeptic argument?

There are over 100 papers from Geophysical Research Letters as well.

You having an emotional problem with a certain journal (E&E) is not a reason to exclude those papers from the list.

Which of the following claims is unsubstantiated and is ONLY cited to my own website?

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 22 times
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Elsevier lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

We hit a new low in the ability for you to comprehend what you are reading and how to click on links.

You should not be so careless with your replies.

 

Huh? You provide a Google Scholar link that included all those papers. Was your intention to post a link that included so many skeptic papers? Or do you just not know how to use Google Scholar?

I have never seen any such "denialist" research so I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seem to be in denial of 17 peer-reviewed papers showing low climate sensitivity. Is this denial ideological?

 

But that added moisture eventually condenses out, forming clouds which reflect sunlight back out into space, and then falls as snow (which also reflects sunlight back out into space) or rain. You somehow "forgot" the much larger negative feedbacks that happen right after the positive one.

The paleoclimate record is very clear: there is a ceiling on global temperatures, and that requires negative feedback to completely dominate all positive feedbacks. The ice-albedo feedback is positive, which is why transitions to and from glacial periods are relatively sudden. The cloud-albedo feedback is negative, which is why the earth's climate has not continued to warm after the ends of glaciation periods.

Oh, just looking at clouds...

 

Sorry, but PT has owned you comprehensively and conclusively.

No, that is false, and you know it.

Who says it isn't?

No beef with climate science. Irrational, dishonest, cherry-picked, non-empirical alarmist bull$#!+, OTOH...

Ever hear of empirical science?

Ever find a climate model published before 2000 that predicted BOTH catastrophic CO2-based AGW in the 21st century and the absence of warming since 1998 despite continued exponential increase in atmospheric CO2....? Even one? Anywhere???

Thought not.

 

It is the RC fool who makes the rookie mistakes, including cherry picking, post hoc fallacies, unsupported assumptions, etc., etc.

I don't have time to go through that mess of garbage in detail. Here are just a few of the howlers:

"Due to the non-linearities in the system, you certainly can’t multiply the total greenhouse effect of ~33 C by 2% to get any sensible estimate of the climate sensitivity."

Sure you can. 2% of 33 is .66. That's close enough to Lindzen's estimate, cited elsewhere in the RC rant, of 0.5.

Strike One.

"Actually, I think it is quite easy to rule out a sensitivity as low as 0.5°C by considering the last glacial period about 20,000 years ago. At that time the temperatures were globally around 5 or 6°C colder than the pre-industrial, and the forcings (from ice sheets, vegetation, greenhouse gases and dust) are estimated to be around 6 to 11 W/m2 (a slightly broader range than I previously quoted, updated from some of the PMIP2 results). This implies a sensitivity of between 1.8 and 4°C for a doubling of CO2, with a most likely value of around 3°C."

It does no such thing, as no attempt has been made to demonstrate a causal direction linking CO2 increase to temperature increase in the absence of the ice-albedo feedback. It is nothing but a blatant post hoc fallacy.

Strike Two.

"In the question session (Q143), Lindzen goes into more detail on the reason why he feels that climate sensitivity is so low – specifically, he believes that water vapour feedbacks are not only less positive than models suggest, but actually negative. That is he feels that the amount of longwave aborbtion by water vapour will go down as the planet warms due to increasing GHGs."

False. It means the total contribution of water INCLUDING CLOUDS to positive forcings will go down as the planet warms BEYOND THE EFFECTIVE RANGE OF THE ICE-ALBEDO FEEDBACK that governs transitions to and from ice ages.

That's Strike Three, RC. You're out.

 

You need to learn that scientific referencing does not mean citing a peer-reviewed paper. It means citing a peer-reviewed paper that actually supports your argument.

"Denialism."

False -- and proof that you have no idea how actual peer-reviewed publication of scientific research works.

What "poor academic standing" would that be? The scorn of AGW alarmists?

Utter garbage with no basis in fact.

False. His statements are well substantiated, including by genuine references to peer-reviewed research.

You sure did.

 

That's rich! You demand "empirical" evidence and then you post a chart that uses the word "accurate" without mathematically/ scientifically defining what accurate means!!

 

Please illustrate where it is in error ?

 

Dude, you don't even get what "non-linearities" means. Your responses were a joke.

 

Clouds also participate in infrared positive feedback.

As it gets warmer the ice-snow melts and albedo drops.

Let's see if we can upgrade this a little. The upper side of clouds radiates out, the lower in.

Of course that has been the case. If not we would have gone Venusian by now. That doesn't change the fact that AGW is heating us up rapidly and should take the temperature well beyond previous interglacial levels.

More ice greater albedo, less ice less albedo. Pretty simple. At this point you haven't explained anything.

Low level stratocumulus clouds tend to have high albedo, high level cirrus clouds tend to have low albedo. As for total negativity you have proved nothing.

This wikipedia piece on cloud feedback may be helpful to folks interested in the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback

 

Non-linearity is irrelevant to RC's false claim.

 

It's not an error; it's a lack of definition.
From your link "Models Can't "Model" Accurately". What's their definition of "accurately"? Any scientist would give a numerical value for what's acceptable and what's unacceptable. Only pseudoscientists just declare the results to be inaccurate without stating any acceptable values.

 

That is garbage. The infrared flux from the ground is a tiny fraction of the visible spectrum flux from the sun. Your claim is deceitful garbage typical of AGW alarmism.

But the high albedo of the snow prevents it from getting warmer. Thus the negative feedback.

First you'd need to understand what I said.

Wrong again. Neither side radiates more in one direction than the other. What the upper side does is REFLECT the much larger visible spectrum flux from the sun back out into space, while the lower side reflects the comparatively microscopic IR flux from the earth back down to the earth. The balance is massively on the side of negative forcing by clouds. This is obvious from even the most basic understanding of radiative heat transfer.

Yes, actually, it does, because it shows that the claimed positive feedbacks and resulting high climate sensitivity are absurd and impossible.

I've explained why the claimed positive feedbacks and consequent high climate sensitivity are absurd and impossible.

The huge negative forcing of clouds is self-evident to anyone who knows anything about radiative heat transfer: they are white in visible wavelengths.

Man, the weaseling, just to avoid admitting that clouds are negative forcings...

 

climate change is just what it means yesterday it rained. today the wind blew like hell. and I am sure tomorrow it will change again.

 

Only in your denialist world.

If it snows on a rock the albedo goes up until it melts. In the world of AGW there is more ice-snow melting than snow-ice layering over an extended period, therefore less albedo.

What does a mirror do? It reflects ie radiates. Typical denialist cluelessness. The issue which you seem also to miss is does increased cloud cover increase solar radiation capture or diminish it. Lindzen appears to think it diminishes it where most of the studies I've read say it increases. And as I said it depends on the cloud formation. You seem to have a hard time even knowing what the discussion is about.

I don't what you're talking about and I don't think you do either.

You haven't explained anything. Just meaningless assertions.

What about cirrus clouds don't you get?

The guy strikes out on every point so like a true denialist he reverts to name calling.

 

There you go, increased humidity and lost ice albedo is irrelevant to the matter. Is this some kind of leg pulling? Really man.

 

And to anyone living in the 40 degree and poleward latitude range knows that clouds are a large positive feedback at night.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!!! Warmmonger bull(*)(*)(*)(*) put forward to designed to fool the ignorant.

The IR effect has little to do with why it is warmer in winter on a cloudy day. A cloudy low pressure system creates an inversion layer that prevents convection of warm surface air. Its a convection blanket. Only the ignorant who will buy any bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that some hack spews to them would think otherwise.

Go educate yourself on some basic physics.

 

Putting aside Ws usual absurdities, I'm not sure why the increased cloud blocking effect at night of earth radiation wouldn't apply right down to the equator.

On the matter of climate sensitivity here is a very extensive discussion of the matter with a little aside to give denialist favorites Spenser and Monckton a nice kick in the behind.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

 

Dingo, it does apply down to the equator, it's just more noticeable to us in the cold weather at night.

 

Its noticeable because blocking of convection is significant. It has little to do with IR.

 

That makes sense. 2 deg. above freezing would probably feel more significant than 2 deg. above 95. Perhaps also the higher temp. base would overcome some of the additional cloud trapping effect.

 

Really??? Go buy an infrared thermometer. Point it towards space on a cloudy night and then on a clear night. Let me know the results.