______________________________________...
@Trevor: "... it’s (equilibrium climate sensitivity) believed to be in the range of 2.0°C to 4.5°C with a value close to 3.0°C being the most likely."
Actually, AR5 states that the range is 1.5-4.5C and they do not give a most likely value. Regardless, that statement does not align with recent research into climate sensitivity. See here for a summary: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/...
Notice that the IPCC AR5 climate models run hotter than virtually all climate sensitivity studies. It's no wonder that their models are diverging from reality.
>>"page 11:16 “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” <<
>>In other words, the scientists could not reach a consensus about climate sensitivity. <<
Don’t be so stupid.
The referenced note (page 11:16) has nothing to do with “scientists reaching a consensus” about anything. The “lack of agreement” refers to the probability distribution of the values in the solution set. In fact, selecting a point-solution within the range of possible solutions gives people – especially mathematical idiots and scientifically illiterate numb-skulls like you – the false and unrealistic impression that such an answer is somehow more accurate and superior.
====
>>BTW, physics tells us doubling the CO2 concentration will lead to a one degree rise in global temperature.<<
BTW, you're full of shlt. That is even more stupid than the other stupid things you have said.
=====
edit --
>>Full of ****? Really Gary? The relationship between CO2 and temperature has been known since the 19th century.<<
Yeah, but no one has ever heard of your stupid one-degree property of physics - because it is as phony as you are.
>>All you accomplished is showing off your ignorance and rudeness.<<
I'm a lot smarter than you. I'll take the rudeness comment as spot on.
<< And you got yourself reported<<
Oh, hurt me.
There is nothing worse than an arrogant holier-than-thou liar who is also a weenie.
Congratulations on hitting the trifecta of weakness - the personality "axis of evil".
=====
>>Here is a link to the one degree figure in a paper which cites IPCC 2007.
<<http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/...
Really? It "cites" IPCC 2007. That's too funny. You can't make a silk purse out of that sow's ear no matter how dedicated a liar and practitioner of willful ignorance you are.
Well, I have to get back to work now before I catch your stupidity-virus and forget how to do science.
Hi
BTW, physics tells us doubling the CO2 concentration will lead to a one degree rise in global temperature. I believe this.
Sorry I do not accept this, check out this article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/th...
Their has never been a consensus on how fast temperatures will rise nor on the specific results. There remains much to learn. On the other hand, that human activity is warming the environment and changing the global climate is beyond disputed among intelligent people, it is well past consensus. There is real scientific debate whether without changes the troposphere will rise by 1 degree or up to 4 degrees by the end of this century, but there is no real debate about whether it will rise. The only people who don't believe are those who think physics is a Marxist conspiracy, and those people can be ignored.
"physics tells us doubling the CO2 concentration will lead to a one degree rise in global temperature" Not quite. There are feedbacks as well. So, it's a misleading statement, typical of WUWT.
If you look back at the vast number of reports that have been published over the years you’ll find that none of them say that X will happen. What they do so is that the probable outcome lies within the range of X1 to X2.
We have never known precisely what equilibrium climate sensitivity is due to the very significant number of interacting variables that are involved. Over the years the range has been narrowed as we have learned more and today it’s believed to be in the range of 2.0°C to 4.5°C with a value close to 3.0°C being the most likely.
The most likely value of ≈3.0°C hasn’t actually changed, only the parameters within which it falls. Some of the earliest estimates of ECS were as vague as being anywhere between 1°C and 8°C. In years to come the range will undoubtedly narrow further and my own calculations suggest it is between 2.5°C and 3.0°C and likely to be in the lower range.
Most of the models are “running hot”, particularly the earlier ones and there are two main reasons for this.
The first is that no-one foresaw the rapid expansion of the Asian economies nor the vast amount of cooling agents that they would produce. In many parts of the world the emissions of aerosols, particulates, sulphates etc are strictly controlled, this isn’t the case in China and India and they’ve been releasing substantial amounts of these dimming agents into the atmosphere, this has the effect of masking the underlying warming. China has now said it intends to tackle these pollutants and if it does so then most of the so called Asian Brown Cloud will dissipate within 3 years allowing warming to bounce back.
The second factor concerns the accelerated uptake of heat energy by the oceans. The oceans have an average temperature of 17°C and a volumetric heat capacity of 4.2 Joules per cubic centimetre per Kelvin, the atmosphere has a VHC of just 0.0013, meaning that per unit volume the oceans contain more than 3,000 times as much heat energy as the atmosphere. Whilst there has been little change in the temperature of the atmosphere in recent years, the oceans have been warming rapidly. The total heat contained within the Earth’s systems continues to rise unabated.
Whilst it’s true that many models have overestimated atmospheric warming, they’re not actually that far off the mark and overall accuracy is around 85%. For example, the models had projected a 1°C rise in temperatures by now but in fact they’ve only risen by 0.85°C.
The medium term projections are the hardest ones to get right as these are the ones that are most influenced by oscillatory changes and other variables. Some are quite predictable but others aren’t. For example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes warming/cooling on an approx 30 year cycle but it’s hard to predict what phase it will be in at any given time in the future.
If we project say 100 years forward then the oscillatory influences are averaged out but over periods of say 10, 20 or 30 years these factors can significantly affect global climates and play havoc with model projections.
Again, nothing to do with global warming having gone away, just another example of how other factors can have short to medium term influences on our climates.
Mike, the science serves politics. Don't forget who pays these climate scientists. Unfortunately, reality is diverging from both science and politics.
The conferees at Stockholm agreed that the lower limit of ECS should be lowered further, but they didn't include the revised number in their report. They were, in effect, hiding the revised range from their employers.
I don't trust WUWT to adequately reflect the reality of the situation, so I don't believe you
There never was one its only a talking point by hacks .
No they can't accurately predict where and what changes will take place BUT they are convinced that AGW is happening That isn't likely to change
According to the latest IPCC asessment report, scientists are 95% certain AGW is happening. Point granted. But their own report goes on to say they really don't know how much temperatures will rise. Quote from the report:
"page 11:16 “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
In other words, the scientists could not reach a consensus about climate sensitivity. Furthermore, they report that some of the models are "running hot." And estimates for near term temperature is lower than the 5%-95% model range.
And they only have medium confidence (50%) in their medium term predictions. In other words, they really don't know what's going to happen. They said so in their own report.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/#more-100843
The concensous of all skeptics is that global warming is the biggest fraud ever
it is much less than before
Global warming is a HOAX
