• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An interesting post on TRC at Climate Etc.

jmotivator

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
34,977
Reaction score
19,438
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Frank Bosse on Climate Etc. has posted some interesting calculations using George Foster's (Tamino) data and adjustments for natural variation from ENSO, TSI and Volcanic events.

His conclusion matches the earlier findings by Nicholas Lewis of a TRC of 1.35°C. This value falls within the IPCC range between 1.3°C and 3.3°C.
 
jmotivator said:
Frank Bosse on Climate Etc. has posted some interesting calculations using George Foster's (Tamino) data and adjustments for natural variation from ENSO, TSI and Volcanic events.

His conclusion matches the earlier findings by Nicholas Lewis of a TRC of 1.35°C. This value falls within the IPCC range between 1.3°C and 3.3°C.
Click to expand...
I think the TCR and the ECS are at the extreme low end of the IPCC range.
Based on the warming that ended by 1939, the ECS amplified feedback of less that 75 years,
would be under 2 C for a doubling of CO2.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Tamino’s adjusted temperature records and the TCR[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/26/taminos-adjusted-temperature-records-and-the-tcr/"]October 26, 2016[/URL] | 45 comments[/FONT]
by Frank Bosse
Separating out the impacts of internal variability on evaluations of TCR.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...


That is the article I linked to, yes. ;)

This topic really exposes the abject failure of the CAGW movement. We skeptics don't disagree that CO2 is a green house gas, nor do we disagree that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming. What we are skeptical about is the feedback model that posits the idea that CO2 net effect on climate is 50%-100% higher than can be explained by CO2 alone, leading to effective warming of 2°C+ per doubling. Based on the work done, and redone on this subject it would appear that the feedback from the global climate on CO2 is

So what do the CAGW warriors try to label us with? Denialism... worse, something akin to Holocaust denial. All the while pointing to a "97% consensus" that doesn't even ask the question that separates skeptics and believers. As I think all skeptics here have said numerous times, we all fall into the 97% based on the two questions asked. But 3G and others simply troll this forum with misinformation and baseless accusations. They are anti-science. They are scientific theory as a form of religion.
 
jmotivator said:
This topic really exposes the abject failure of the CAGW movement. We skeptics don't disagree that CO2 is a green house gas, nor do we disagree that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming. What we are skeptical about is the feedback model that posits the idea that CO2 net effect on climate is 50%-100% higher than can be explained by CO2 alone, leading to effective warming of 2°C+ per doubling. Based on the work done, and redone on this subject it would appear that the feedback from the global climate on CO2 is
Click to expand...

Actually this topic exposes the dishonesty from the denialists who write this kind of misleading garbage and the ignorance of those who believe it.

There is a reason why real scientists use models to try and determine what the Transient Climate Response(TCR) might be when the amount of CO2 is doubled. It is because they are also estimating the amount of positive(and negative) feedbacks that will likely increase as the planet heats up. You know... like when snow and ice on land and water melts it exposes surfaces that will absorb even more heat. Or when methane is released from permafrost or from ocean sediments that also add to the heating. Or when temps go up the atmosphere will be able to hold more water vapor(the most potent GHG) to further increase heating. To determine a TCR from just recent past temps without a proper explanation just leads to people like we have here who make the incorrect assumption that the TCR will be the same when CO2 levels actually double.

longview said:
I think the TCR and the ECS are at the extreme low end of the IPCC range.
Based on the warming that ended by 1939, the ECS amplified feedback of less that 75 years,
would be under 2 C for a doubling of CO2.
Click to expand...

So yeah... I know you guys disagree on what the feedbacks will be and how much but to think that the TCR will be as low as it was in the recent past is basically saying that there will be little or no positive feedbacks at all when CO2 levels do actually double. Do you really believe this?

jmotivator said:
So what do the CAGW warriors try to label us with? Denialism... worse, something akin to Holocaust denial.
Click to expand...

I wish all you denialists would quit playing the victim and stop whining about the term denial. The word is not exclusively associated with people who don't want to admit that the holocaust happened. And it is only you guys who ever bring up the holocaust. You might have a point if we warmists were constantly talking about the millions of people who have or will be killed... oh wait.... that's what Tim the Plumber loves to do. Never mind.
 
Buzz said:
What... was my response to your thread too technical for you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, do you not have an answer to my question? It's an important question needed to gauge your understanding of the person you have chosen to to call a "denialist". Tell me what is being denied and we can continue.

Also, if you have the time, please point to the part of your post that was technical.
 
jmotivator said:
Sorry, do you not have an answer to my question? It's an important question needed to gauge your understanding of the person you have chosen to to call a "denialist". Tell me what is being denied and we can continue.

Also, if you have the time, please point to the part of your post that was technical.
Click to expand...

icon_lol.gif


Not really that technical... Obviously. But I am wondering why I need to repeat myself. I tried to write my response in such a manner that even Jack Hayes might understand and reply in his own words(not going to hold my breath on that one). Did you understand the point I am making? Do I really need to point out specifically what is being denied?

Well... knowing the stupid games you guys love to play I may as well just get it over with....

Lewis isn't specifically denying anything in this instance but what he is doing is hiding the positive feedbacks that are most likely going to make AGW much worse than you deniars want to admit.

It still counts as denial as far as I am concerned.
 
Buzz said:
Do I really need to point out specifically what is being denied?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you really do. When you set out to argue with a pejorative, and pass a non-technical post off as technical I have a hard time believing that you are worth debating.

Show me that you understand the skeptics position (what you would call "denialist"), even if you don't agree with it, and maybe we can have a discussion.
 
Buzz said:
Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
I think the TCR and the ECS are at the extreme low end of the IPCC range.
Based on the warming that ended by 1939, the ECS amplified feedback of less that 75 years,
would be under 2 C for a doubling of CO2.
Click to expand...
So yeah... I know you guys disagree on what the feedbacks will be and how much but to think that the TCR will be as low as it was in the recent past is basically saying that there will be little or no positive feedbacks at all when CO2 levels do actually double. Do you really believe this?
Click to expand...
It is not what I believe or not, but rather what the actual data shows,
Whatever the climate feedbacks of less than 75 years are, they are included in the current temperature.
We had pre 1939 warming, that never went beck down, so any climate feedbacks would be attached to that warming.
The feedbacks of the system would be incapable of discriminating the source of the warming, only that warming had occurred.
Additionally, since the direct feedback of added CO2 produces a know and accepted quantity with near zero latency,
the warming from the CO2 added since 1939 would be excluded from the total of the feedback.
total GISS warming since 1939 = .74 C
CO2 warming since 1939 = 1.73 * ln(400/311)= .44 C (this is based on 1.2 C for doubling the CO2 level)
.74 - .44 = .3C
The maximum amount for all the additional variables know and unknown can only be .3 C.
This means that even if we assumed ALL of the remaining warming were caused from the amplified feedback,
the gain of our atmospheric amplifier would be the input times 1.22, or an ECS of just under 1.5 C.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, you really do. When you set out to argue with a pejorative, and pass a non-technical post off as technical I have a hard time believing that you are worth debating.

Show me that you understand the skeptics position (what you would call "denialist"), even if you don't agree with it, and maybe we can have a discussion.
Click to expand...

You want me to explain the denialist position?!?!

lmfao.gif


And then you will decide if I am worth debating?!?!

lmfao.gif


Look... I have already told you twice whats wrong with this thread and you have yet to even show that you really know anything about Transient Climate Response or the point I'm making. Maybe this whole topic really is too technical for you to understand. You started this thread... now its time to defend it.

Or are you just going to play stupid games?
 
longview said:
It is not what I believe or not, but rather what the actual data shows,
Whatever the climate feedbacks of less than 75 years are, they are included in the current temperature.
We had pre 1939 warming, that never went beck down, so any climate feedbacks would be attached to that warming.
The feedbacks of the system would be incapable of discriminating the source of the warming, only that warming had occurred.
Additionally, since the direct feedback of added CO2 produces a know and accepted quantity with near zero latency,
the warming from the CO2 added since 1939 would be excluded from the total of the feedback.
total GISS warming since 1939 = .74 C
CO2 warming since 1939 = 1.73 * ln(400/311)= .44 C (this is based on 1.2 C for doubling the CO2 level)
.74 - .44 = .3C
The maximum amount for all the additional variables know and unknown can only be .3 C.
This means that even if we assumed ALL of the remaining warming were caused from the amplified feedback,
the gain of our atmospheric amplifier would be the input times 1.22, or an ECS of just under 1.5 C.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think that you don't really understand my point either. This discussion is about TCR. Do you know what that is?
 
Buzz said:
You want me to explain the denialist position?!?
Click to expand...

So you don't know the skeptic argument and argue purely from ignorance and pejorative. As I figured.
 
Buzz said:
I'm beginning to think that you don't really understand my point either. This discussion is about TCR. Do you know what that is?
Click to expand...

You haven't made an argument.
 
Buzz said:
I'm beginning to think that you don't really understand my point either. This discussion is about TCR. Do you know what that is?
Click to expand...
Transient climate response is the shorter of the two responses used to describer the climates response to changes.
The reality is that the cause of the input warming is irrelevant to the feedback mechanisms, and their latency,
So my example in post #11 is relevant.
We do not know what all the feedbacks are, or even all the energy pathways in and out of the atmosphere,
but whatever they are, they are included in the empirical data.
In this case (1939 to 2014) all of the feedbacks with a latency of less than 75 years are present.
 
jmotivator said:
Buzz said:
You want me to explain the denialist position?!?!
Click to expand...
So you don't know the skeptic argument and argue purely from ignorance and pejorative. As I figured.
Click to expand...

Please.... someone with a better memory than me or more time to look it up... Please tell us what logical fallacy jmotivator is using here.

jmotivator said:
You haven't made an argument.
Click to expand...

WOW!!! Really j??

Before I go off on you and start calling you an idiot or a liar I am going to repeat the two arguments I have made here and give you a chance to respond to them and show that you actually understand the topic at hand and are not an idiot or liar.

Here they are:

Buzz said:
There is a reason why real scientists use models to try and determine what the Transient Climate Response(TCR) might be when the amount of CO2 is doubled. It is because they are also estimating the amount of positive(and negative) feedbacks that will likely increase as the planet heats up. You know... like when snow and ice on land and water melts it exposes surfaces that will absorb even more heat. Or when methane is released from permafrost or from ocean sediments that also add to the heating. Or when temps go up the atmosphere will be able to hold more water vapor(the most potent GHG) to further increase heating. To determine a TCR from just recent past temps without a proper explanation just leads to people like we have here who make the incorrect assumption that the TCR will be the same when CO2 levels actually double.
Click to expand...


Buzz said:
Lewis isn't specifically denying anything in this instance but what he is doing is hiding the positive feedbacks that are most likely going to make AGW much worse than you deniars want to admit.
Click to expand...

Now are you going to defend the thread you started or are you just going to give us all another perfect example of climate denialism?
 
longview said:
Transient climate response is the shorter of the two responses used to describer the climates response to changes.
The reality is that the cause of the input warming is irrelevant to the feedback mechanisms, and their latency,
So my example in post #11 is relevant.
We do not know what all the feedbacks are, or even all the energy pathways in and out of the atmosphere,
but whatever they are, they are included in the empirical data.
In this case (1939 to 2014) all of the feedbacks with a latency of less than 75 years are present.
Click to expand...

Yes.... all of the feedbacks are present. The point that no one except me seems to be able to address is that those feedbacks are unlikely to stay as low as they are now or have been in the recent past(75 years). Fact of the matter is that these feedbacks are most likely going to increase. And that increase could be dramatic.

From jmotivator's IPCC link in his first post:

...external forcing is likely to continue to increase through the coming century...
Click to expand...

So.... When you want to compare the TCR of the recent past with what it will likely be in a few decades you are being outright misleading or dishonest.
 
Why would the feedbacks change?
There may be longer latency feedbacks,
But I can assure you all those of 75 years and less are already present.
The feedbacks are not a response to the
Added CO2, but rather to the direct response warming from the CO2.
The source of the input warming from any
Other source, would cause the same collection of positive and negative feedbacks.
 
Buzz said:
Please.... someone with a better memory than me or more time to look it up... Please tell us what logical fallacy jmotivator is using here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, if there is a logical fallacy, I don't see it.

He has asked that you explain the "denialist" position. If you are going to call people "deniers," shouldn't you know what a denier really is?

I am one who does my best to run deniers out of this forum. I think we have had three since I joined some years back.

Buzz said:
WOW!!! Really j??
Click to expand...
What argument have you made, besides silly accusations, with no merit?

Buzz said:
Before I go off on you and start calling you an idiot or a liar I am going to repeat the two arguments I have made here and give you a chance to respond to them and show that you actually understand the topic at hand and are not an idiot or liar.

Here they are:
Click to expand...
LOL...

At least you have some things right...

1) might...

2) estimate...

At least you didn't commit yourself to saying these were accurate! But what you said about Lewis... How do you know? You obviously don't know diddly about this aspect of science.

Buzz said:
Now are you going to defend the thread you started or are you just going to give us all another perfect example of climate denialism?
Click to expand...
Pure loss here.

You really need to understand what a "denier" is. You prove yourself to be very ignorant when you call those of us here "deniers."

Maybe that why he asks you for your definition of a denier...

So he can rip your response apart!

I don't care much. There is no difficulty in pointing out your ignorant arrogance.

Yawn...
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
From jmotivator's IPCC link in his first post:
...external forcing is likely to continue to increase through the coming century...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LOL...

Seriously?

The IPCCC's "opinion" of "likely?"

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

How about a peer reviewed paper?

Please???

Pretty please???
 
Buzz said:
Please.... someone with a better memory than me or more time to look it up... Please tell us what logical fallacy jmotivator is using here.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect microcosm of your contribution here.
 
jmotivator said:
This is a perfect microcosm of your contribution here.
Click to expand...

Transient Climate Response is TCR, not TRC (as you posted incorrectly not only in your thread title, but in your OP as well).

Tamino's name is Grant Foster, not George Foster.

I'm inclined to think that getting basic things like that wrong is "a perfect microcosm of your contribution here"
 
Lord of Planar said:
Sorry, if there is a logical fallacy, I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't! Since many of your denialist's arguments are nothing but logical fallacies you have to pretend they are legitimate arguments.

Lord of Planar said:
He has asked that you explain the "denialist" position. If you are going to call people "deniers," shouldn't you know what a denier really is?
Click to expand...

I know perfectly well what A denier is and jmotivator has just given us all another perfect example of denialism. He started this thread and I responded with arguments against it twice and he DENIED that I had even made any arguments. When you guys deny proven and undeniable facts it makes you denialists. Deal with it or quit denying the truth!

Lord of Planar said:
I am one who does my best to run deniers out of this forum. I think we have had three since I joined some years back.
Click to expand...

What a huge steaming pile of bovine fecal material!!

Lord of Planar said:
What argument have you made, besides silly accusations, with no merit?
Click to expand...

Just arguments that are similar to whats documented in the IPCC reports and supported by peer reviewed and published papers. You know... the IPCC reports you have stored on your hard drive. And the papers you have read with all your journal subscriptions.

Lord of Planar said:
At least you have some things right...
1) might...

2) estimate...

At least you didn't commit yourself to saying these were accurate! But what you said about Lewis... How do you know? You obviously don't know diddly about this aspect of science.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about this aspect of science?? Obviously you are in denial.

Lord of Planar said:
How about a peer reviewed paper?

Please???

Pretty please???
Click to expand...

I was going to find you some papers but then I remembered a time not too long ago where I asked you provide evidence to support one of your assertions and you told me that the subject had already been discussed and that I should find it myself. So fair is fair and I just decided to see if this subject had in fact already been debated. Sure enough it had and less then 2 months ago and both you and Longview participated in that debate. So... since you obviously have read and remembered every single post in this forum there is no point in me providing any peer reviewed papers. You have already seen some of them.

The really annoying thing about this revelation is that it is obvious that both of you are being dishonest when you act like I don't have a valid point here. Sure... maybe I and the IPCC and 97% of climate scientists are wrong but for you two to act like I am just making stuff up is outright dishonest. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom