I don't feel like teasing DT about logarithms or whatever. If you want a lecture on WTF "forcing" is, among other things, watch this 4 part lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXdmrgvOdEMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_qlHfXlUfchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIoEPXopf4whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmMENmH-CtcBottom line, it's a lot of hackery. Some basic underlying tried and true physics from which a lot of theoretical voodoo is concocted.
Richard Lindzen wrote:If you are an engineer, and you are confronted by this... you know, even if you didn't understand the situation. You'd say, a few models are at least in range, how do they differ from all the other models? Let's throw away the other models, and find out why they did so much worse. Instead, in the democratic processes of the UN, all models are equal.
What DT doesn't get. And what I'd argue many others here also don't get. Is that the UN is a political body. The IPCC is a political organization. Might as well be citing the Discovery Institute in a discussion about evolution.
DT brings up this formula he doesn't understand. Why I have no clue. I'm waiting for him to discover that there are multiple formulas for forcing, not just the one, and what that means re consensus. I'd also like him to explain where 278 comes from, Chap offered a huge hint. And then I'd like DT to delve into earth response, how is carbon release due to warming factored in? Hint, it's not. But what I'd really like DT to do is explain the difference between inference and observation. IPCC determines that an increase in CO2 results in an increase in global temperature. How do they know that?
Well, they don't. It's all based on models, not empirical observation. The observations contradict their models, in fact.
What is the response to this?
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001Isn't that convenient. A theory, output from a model, which cannot be tested or disproved. Something something, scientific method.
Might models be failing to account for other potential influences which would alter their predictions?
A simple flow accounting of the mean values without consideration of uncertainty shows a net CO2 flow from surface to atmosphere of 4.4 GTC/y. In the emissions and atmospheric composition data we find that during the decade 2000-2009 total fossil fuel emissions were 78.1 GTC and that over the same period atmospheric CO2 rose from 369.2 to 387.9 ppm for an increase of 18.7 ppm equivalent to 39.6 GTC in atmospheric CO2 or 4.4 GTC/y. When uncertainties are not considered, the flow accounting shows an exact match of the predicted and computed carbon balance that may be presented as evidence that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by human (anthropogenic) emissions. This exact accounting balance is achieved, not with flow measurements, but with estimates of unmeasurable flows constrained by the circular reasoning that assigns flows according to the assumed flow balance.
A very different picture emerges when uncertainties are included in the balance. We have the published uncertainties from the IPCC for three of the nine flows. Uncertainty for the other six flows are not known. However, we know that they are large because no known method exists for the direct measurement these flows. They can only be grossly inferred. We therefore set up a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the highest value of the unknown standard deviations at which we can detect the presence of human emissions in the carbon cycle. For the purpose of this test we propose that an uncertain flow account is in balance as long as the Null Hypothesis that the sum of the flows is zero cannot be rejected. The alpha error rate for the test is set to a high value of alpha=0.10 to ensure that any reasonable ability to discriminate between the flow account with Anthropogenic Emissions from a the flow account without Anthropogenic Emissions is taken into evidence. The spreadsheet used in this determination is available for download from an online data archive Data Archive Link.
...
These results imply that the IPCC carbon cycle stochastic flow balance is not sensitive to the presence of the relatively low flows from human activity involving fossil fuel emissions and land use change.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/31/ ... t-problem/Someone remind me in 20 years.