60% of equilibrium response in 25-50 years is consistent with my earlier post (which would have had sixty percent after forty-six years. Even if we made that
60% in just thirty-four years - twenty percent first-year response and two percent of the remainder each subsequent year - we would still conclude that the expected initial warming from the IPCC's historical forcing estimates has been amplified more than 100% in observed temperatures.
Code:
0.414Expected warming manifest in surface temperatures from radiative forcing
0.9Total warming, 1860 to 2012
117% amplification of base warming
2.46ECS estimate for 2x CO2 (3.71W/m^2)
0.29Expected warming manifest in surface temperatures from radiative forcing
0.6Total warming, 1950 to 2012
107% amplification of base warming
2.33ECS estimate for 2x CO2 (3.71W/m^2)
Of course, unlike you I am not pretending that my private little calculations are hard and fast science. Mostly, it's interesting just to point out how atrociously bad
your private little calculations have been. Unlike you, I recognize that even without such obvious errors this is still just dabbling around to see if I can understanding anything of scientists' conclusions. An ECS around 2.4 to 3 degrees seems to be the likely result from several different approaches I've looked into, which is encouraging since the majority of scientific studies also seem to reach best estimates above 2.4 degrees.
They have since the 1990s or so, as I've shown you numerous times in the link above... and as predicted by
a paper submitted by Hansen, Sato and Ruedy in 1994. Furthermore, one of the chief reasons why they expected the damping of the diurnal temperature range to level off was
because of thermal inertia; the reduction in DTR being introduced primarily from the initial forcings - aerosols blocking sunlight to reduce the daytime warming trend while GHGs strongly affect night-time warming - whereas the catch-up from thermal inertia should affect day and night-time temperatures equally. (Conversely, if the warming was due to solar influence it would obviously appear primarily in the daytime temperatures!)
"We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures will be small. . . . Second, as illustrated by Fig. 21, almost all of the damping caused by a climate forcing occurs immediately with the introduction of the forcing, while the mean temperature rise is delayed by the thermal inertia of the climate system. Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures. Third, as anthropogenic emissions level off the forcings which principally damp the diurnal cycle, aerosol and cloud changes, will level off, but the long-lived greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate. Thus, except for the small damping due to increased water vapor, the maximum temperature should increase as fast as the minimum temperature."
Still playing the game of how many lies can you cram into one thread? As I've just showed, the comparatively smaller trend of maximum temperatures was
always an expected consequence if anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols were the dominant climate forcings - unlike most if not all natural drivers - and since at least the early 1990s and probably earlier so was the turnaround when maximum temperatures would start increasing just as much, which has since been confirmed in observations.
I mean, in the past
you yourself have said that Svante Arrhenius in 1896 predicted this diurnal asymmetry, for Christ's sake! And now you're trying to baldly assert (without a shred of evidence or understanding) that it's some kind of fatal flaw in climate modelling. As others have noted, your rhetoric really has taken a nosedive lately; the 2014 record hottest year must have been hard enough to bear, and you could ignore 2015 and '16 because of El Nino, but 2017 and now even '18 shaping up hotter than 2014...? It seems to have taken a psychological toll.
Let's not forget that
your initial claim in this thread was that "maximum temperatures have not been climbing," which you are fully aware was a brazen falsehood.
