Newest CIMP6 climate models showing ECS on the order of 5 degrees C

Threegoofs · Apr 17, 2019

I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

Mycroft · Apr 17, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

If they can get past the GIGO effect, maybe people will take the climate change alarmists seriously. Getting rid of ridiculous people like AOC and her "12 years till the end" nonsense would help, too.

Threegoofs · Apr 17, 2019

Mycroft said:
If they can get past the GIGO effect, maybe people will take the climate change alarmists seriously. Getting rid of ridiculous people like AOC and her "12 years till the end" nonsense would help, too.

Getting rid of ridiculous people will help.

But your example is bad. The ridiculous people are the ones that think somehow science can be safely ignored and climate change won’t be serious because of political stances this cycle.

AGW is real and is going to be a huge problem whether you whine about AOC or not.

The Mark · Apr 17, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

I don't feel very relaxed about that, although it's so hard to grasp on a personal level that I can easily sleep at night.

But there are some promising indications that we're moving towards avoiding total disaster, so I'm hoping we at least can keep some of the coastal cites in the long run.

The Mark · Apr 17, 2019

Mycroft said:
If they can get past the GIGO effect, maybe people will take the climate change alarmists seriously. Getting rid of ridiculous people like AOC and her "12 years till the end" nonsense would help, too.

If we don't fight this thing now, we're going to have plenty of problems that make the current ones look like pinpricks before it starts getting better.

Hell, even if we do fight this now.

Surface Detail · Apr 18, 2019

The Mark said:
I don't feel very relaxed about that, although it's so hard to grasp on a personal level that I can easily sleep at night.

But there are some promising indications that we're moving towards avoiding total disaster, so I'm hoping we at least can keep some of the coastal cites in the long run.

I suppose that most coastal cities will migrate inland (at enormous expense) as the waters rise. Those lying on large coastal plains will probably be lost in the long run, though. I think our descendents will count themselves lucky if a reasonable proportion of the world is still habitable when the Earth's temperature has reached equilibrium again.

longview · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

We had a range before, what is the new range of predictions, is 5°C the top the middle or the bottom?
Without saying that, the article and it's number is meaningless.

Threegoofs · Apr 18, 2019

longview said:
We had a range before, what is the new range of predictions, is 5°C the top the middle or the bottom?
Without saying that, the article and it's number is meaningless.

I guess you’re dropping the ‘all the new data says ECS is less than 2’ line.

longview · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess you’re dropping the ‘all the new data says ECS is less than 2’ line.

Not at all, I am asking a questing about an article that you posted?
What is the new range if they are saying that 5°C is part of the new range?

Threegoofs · Apr 18, 2019

longview said:
Not at all, I am asking a questing about an article that you posted?
What is the new range if they are saying that 5°C is part of the new range?

According to the below, it’s between 2.8 and 5.8.

Not sure why a range is so critical to you here, but it’s apparently so critical you couldn’t bring yourself to read about it.

I guess that’s one way to state ‘I’ve never read anything that...’. And have it be sorta true. Must be some new denier technique.

longview · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
According to the below, it’s between 2.8 and 5.8.

Not sure why a range is so critical to you here, but it’s apparently so critical you couldn’t bring yourself to read about it.

I guess that’s one way to state ‘I’ve never read anything that...’. And have it be sorta true. Must be some new denier technique.

What below? that range was not mentioned in the article you cited.

Jack Hays · Apr 18, 2019

What’s the worst case? Climate sensitivity

Posted on April 1, 2019 by curryja | 93 comments
by Judith Curry
Are values of equilibrium climate sensitivity > 4.5 C plausible?
Continue reading →

ECS < 0: impossible
0 > ECS < 1 oC: implies negative feedback (unverified possibility)
1.0 ≤ ECS ≤ 1.2 oC: no feedback climate sensitivity (strongly verified, based on theoretical analysis and empirical observations).
1.05 ≤ ECS ≤ 2.7 oC: empirically-derived values based on energy balance models from the instrumental period with verified statistical and uncertainty analysis methods (Lewis and Curry, 2018) (corroborated possibilities)
1.15 ≤ ECS ≤ 4.05 oC: empirically-derived values including paleoclimate estimates (Lewis and Grunwald, 2018) (verified possibilities)
2.1 ≤ ECS ≤ 4.1 oC: derived from climate model simulations whose values of TCR do not exceed 2.0 oC. (Table 9.5, IPCC AR5) (verified possibilities)
4.5 < ECS ≤ 6 oC: borderline impossible
ECS > 6oC: impossible

Threegoofs · Apr 18, 2019

longview said:
What below? that range was not mentioned in the article you cited.

Its from one of the links. I forgot to post, but you are too uninterested to look it up, so why should I bother?

Jack Hays · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

The accurate headline would be: "Modelers Struggle to Find Their Common Error."

It's just modeling BS substituting for news.

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.

Threegoofs · Apr 18, 2019

Jack Hays said:
The accurate headline would be: "Modelers Struggle to Find Their Common Error."

It's just modeling BS substituting for news.

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.

What?

Your denier blogs haven’t posted about this yet, so you need to just do your general uninformed dismissal?

Jack Hays · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
What?

Your denier blogs haven’t posted about this yet, so you need to just do your general uninformed dismissal?

It's a propaganda nothingburger.

Sunsettommy · Apr 18, 2019

Jack Hays said:
The accurate headline would be: "Modelers Struggle to Find Their Common Error."

It's just modeling BS substituting for news.

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.

Gosh another unverifiable modeling construct for warmists to have fits over!

When will the warmists ever realize that their 81 years into the future 2.0C guesses, isn't any warmer than the Holocene Optimism warm level, when life flourished just fine.

Threegoofs · Apr 18, 2019

Sunsettommy said:
Gosh another unverifiable modeling construct for warmists to have fits over!

When will the warmists ever realize that their 81 years into the future 2.0C guesses, isn't any warmer than the Holocene Optimism warm level, when life flourished just fine.

You didn’t read it either.

No shock there.

longview · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
Its from one of the links. I forgot to post, but you are too uninterested to look it up, so why should I bother?

So you agree you posted incomplete information?
the article also said they did not understand why the models were running higher than in the past.

Jack Hays · Apr 18, 2019

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[h=1]Why Climate Models Run Hot[/h][FONT=&quot]by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…
[/FONT]

Tans · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

Yup. That's what it is. Imaginary. That's what computer models like this are.

Quaestio · Apr 18, 2019

Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/why-climate-models-run-hot/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Why Climate Models Run Hot[/h][FONT="]by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…
[/FONT]

Posting that dishonest propaganda Christie graphic AGAIN? You have no shame Jack.

Once again...

Comparing models to the satellite datasets

There are four decisions made in plotting these graphs that are problematic:

Choice of baseline,
Inconsistent smoothing,
Incomplete representation of the initial condition and structural uncertainty in the models,
No depiction of the structural uncertainty in the satellite observations.

Each of these four choices separately (and even more so together) has the effect of making the visual discrepancy between the models and observational products larger, misleading the reader as to the magnitude of the discrepancy and, therefore, it’s potential cause(s).

Bullseye · Apr 18, 2019

Threegoofs said:
I guess all that research the deniers claim they have been seeing is... just imaginary.

New climate models predict a warming surge | Science | AAAS

But we can all relax, because amateur retired engineers and plumbers who do arithmetic well tell us it’s all ok.

So one model disproves another? How long until the next one disproves this one?

Jack Hays · Apr 19, 2019

Quaestio said:
Posting that dishonest propaganda Christie graphic AGAIN? You have no shame Jack.

Once again...

View attachment 67255356

Comparing models to the satellite datasets

There are four decisions made in plotting these graphs that are problematic:

Choice of baseline,
Inconsistent smoothing,
Incomplete representation of the initial condition and structural uncertainty in the models,
No depiction of the structural uncertainty in the satellite observations.

Each of these four choices separately (and even more so together) has the effect of making the visual discrepancy between the models and observational products larger, misleading the reader as to the magnitude of the discrepancy and, therefore, it’s potential cause(s).

There is nothing wrong with the graph, but as usual the fly objects to the swatter.

Threegoofs · Apr 19, 2019

Jack Hays said:
There is nothing wrong with the graph, but as usual the fly objects to the swatter.

LOL.

Detailed rebuttal of exactly what is wrong with the graph leads to ‘there’s nothing wrong with the graph’ retort.

Denial. It’s not just a river in Egypt.

Newest CIMP6 climate models showing ECS on the order of 5 degrees C

Sophisticated man-about-town

Genius is where you find it.

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sporadic insanity normal.

Sporadic insanity normal.

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter

Traveler

Sophisticated man-about-town