tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post172158634321583449..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Unsettled science, and more wickednesseduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87621883792050065912016-10-26T17:29:50.993+02:002016-10-26T17:29:50.993+02:00Andreas
in case you have not seen it, Nic Lewis w...Andreas<br /><br />in case you have not seen it, Nic Lewis wrote a rebuttal of Richardson/ Armour, see here:<br />https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/12/are-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity-values-biased-low/@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35253886646202768372016-10-17T02:38:24.998+02:002016-10-17T02:38:24.998+02:00@Reiner Grundmann
You want to emphasize that phra...@Reiner Grundmann<br /><br />You want to emphasize that phrase because it seems to indicate that non-CO2 forcings have to be considered when contemplating mitigation?spiegelbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53168244366361795992016-10-12T10:59:00.685+02:002016-10-12T10:59:00.685+02:00Andreas
The paper by Armour you link to is intere...Andreas<br /><br />The paper by Armour you link to is interesting. They say:<br /><br />"Although the third term, doubling of atmospheric CO2, is called for in the strict definition of climate sensitivity,<br />the observed warming has been driven by a variety of climate forcing agents — primarily CO2, but also other GHGs such as methane, sunlight-blocking particles called aerosols, changing land use (for example the shift<br />from forests to farms) and more. Recently in Nature Climate Change, Marvel et al. showed that these non-CO2 forcings have distinct effects on temperatures that are not directly equivalent to CO2. These findings call for what amounts to a downward adjustment to the effective forcing on climate, and thus for an upward revision<br />to observational estimates of climate sensitivity and TCR — another 30% (or so) that is multiplicative with the revision by Richardson et al."<br /><br />I want to emphasize the phrase "these non-CO2 forcings have distinct effects on temperatures that are not directly equivalent to CO2" but have partly driven the observed warming.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7555837895224126982016-10-04T16:28:15.811+02:002016-10-04T16:28:15.811+02:00That paper seems to have a very reasonable view on...That paper seems to have a very reasonable view on the situation, now how do you apply this to the debate? Where arguing is really happening, deep trenches have been dug already and the conversation resembles an artillery duel. This is due to the heated way people treat each other, sometimes caused by very questionable actions. <br />Additionaly there is a real imbalance of power, where one side is building up political entities (IPCC, energy policies, treaties) to force the other side but the effort and their cost could all be for naught. This very possible outcome is denied by all means.<br />Even the real money people have to spend for it is belittled by the "argument" these policies would be better anyways. This is increasingly shown to be nonsense and might be impossible to keep up with countries multiplying their CO2 emissions (China, India).<br /><br />This (to me) inexcusable behaviour has brought up opposition of all kind, from serious and thoughtful to shrill and unrelenting. The demonization by psychology, an adoption of soviet psychological denounciation policy (lets call the opposition fools) could be the final shot that ends all opportunity to a solution. <br />Can the fools be stopped?<br />Who will enter the middle ground and put up a prudent, reasonable and independent (that is no conquered by lobbyism) Position? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40665133067406992202016-10-02T16:17:08.385+02:002016-10-02T16:17:08.385+02:00Reiner Grundmann: "Wagner and Zeckhauser argu...Reiner Grundmann: "<i>Wagner and Zeckhauser argue that more uncertainty calls for more prudence and I agree with them.</i>"<br /><br />I fully agree with you. The uncertainty monster is not our friend.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72408033799666703732016-09-28T18:27:36.132+02:002016-09-28T18:27:36.132+02:00Marcel
I think wagner and Zeckhauser deliberately...Marcel<br /><br />I think wagner and Zeckhauser deliberately wanted to stay away from controversies about ECS so decided to use only IPCC data. Their point still applies, though: uncertainty persists.<br /><br />Werner<br /><br />The UN has signed many resolutions and made many aspirational statements. As Richard Tol points out, the Paris agreement obliges nations to have a climate policy, nothing specific. In practical political terms there is a competition in the political issue space, and it remains to be seen how climate change figures in this.<br />On the UN level I have not seen a statement that says climate change is the top priority, nor have I seen it at the national levels.<br /><br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46181437494741604692016-09-28T17:23:43.344+02:002016-09-28T17:23:43.344+02:00PS:
So I think the next IPCC report will raise th...PS:<br /><br />So I think the next IPCC report will raise the lower end of ECS to the old range of 2 - 4,5°C.<br /><br />But this should not affect the conclusions of Wagner and Zeckhausen or Reiner's points. So let's return to the main topic.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-372853531163071192016-09-28T17:18:13.650+02:002016-09-28T17:18:13.650+02:00@ Marcel Crok
I think the discrepancy between mod...@ Marcel Crok<br /><br />I think the discrepancy between model results (+ other observational methods!) and the results using a simple energy balance model (e.g. Otto et al, Lewis/Curry) has disappeared. In short: results for ECS based on energy balance concepts have a bias towards lower values.<br /><br />Kyle Armour gave a nice summary in Nature:<br />http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3079.html<br /><br />See also Victor Venema's blog post:<br />http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2016/07/climate-sensitivity-energy-balance-models.html<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81467761557722832072016-09-28T13:24:29.182+02:002016-09-28T13:24:29.182+02:00Wagner and Zeckhauser argue that more uncertainty ...Wagner and Zeckhauser argue that more uncertainty calls for more prudence and I agree with them. But the problem is that many other issues than climate change compete for the attention of decision makers, and the wider public. Most burning problems of today have to do with political violence, war, poverty, ill health. Climate activists like to proclaim climate change as the greatest problem facing mankind. But how do we know, and how could we measure and compare this?<br /><br />Ist das nicht eine falsche Frage? Meiner Meinung nach sollten die gar nicht konkurrieren, sondern auf ähnlicher, wie auch immer, Ebene behandelt werden, vielleicht sogar im Zusammenhang. <br /><br />Sie wollten wahrscheinlich fragen: sollten die Anliegen der Fossilindustrie auf der gleichen Aufmerksamskeitsebene liegen wie die Anliegen der Umweltaktivisten? Richtig? Sie konnten das bloß nicht so richtig ausdrücken, oder? Oder kamen sie gar nicht auf diese Idee?<br /><br />Naja.<br /><br />Gruß,<br />WAIIMHNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80327914064714937292016-09-27T22:55:26.059+02:002016-09-27T22:55:26.059+02:00Reiner,
you ask: "Climate activists like to ...Reiner,<br /><br />you ask: "Climate activists like to proclaim climate change as the greatest problem facing mankind. But how do we know, and how could we measure and compare this?"<br /><br />This is a strange question. Not only climate activists, but 192 or so presidents of states agreed in Paris that climate change is a problem of high importance that should be dealt with globally. Is that not enough? Who else has should agree? God? The angels? Donald Trump? Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-20244079373787697852016-09-27T15:56:18.713+02:002016-09-27T15:56:18.713+02:00"Second, estimates of the fundamental relatio..."Second, estimates of the fundamental relationships in climate change,<br />notably climate sensitivity, are unlikely to tighten markedly in the near-term future. Critical uncertainties will persist."<br /><br />Reiner, Although I totally agree with your final conclusions, I find it depressing that (smart) scientists just totally ignore the observational estimates of climate sensitivity that have become available. <br />At least they could have referred to Lewis/Curry 2014, that base their estimate for 100% on the numbers of the IPCC and on the assumption that close to 100% of the warming since 1850 is due to GHGs. Still the observations indicate a best estimate of around 1.65 C and a likely range of 1.25-2.45, see https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/<br />CMIP5 models have an average climate sensitivity of 3.4 C, so double the empirical estimate.<br /><br />The IPCC range in early reports was solely based on the GCM's. However, in AR5 it was based on the low values of the empirical estimates and the high values of the models (ignoring the paleo estimates for simplicity here, these are highly uncertain). They admitted this in footnote 16 in the SPM, which was the reason Lewis and I wrote our report.<br /><br />As Judith Curry has shown on her blog, US government is ignoring these empirical estimates as well for their calculations of the social cost of carbon.<br /><br />Marcel<br /><br /><br /><br />Marcel Crokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05408544549475636617noreply@blogger.com