The term scourge of drugs was mentioned yesterday.
The image that came into my mind was not that of a drug addict but that of a person suffering from despair. What else would drive most people to use and continue to use drugs that have such a terrible effect on their lives.
Some people obviously use drugs out of curiosity initially. What sort of effect does it have?
This is a discussion of clouds precisely because they are a very important part of the climate puzzle.
“Clearing Clouds of Uncertainty by Mark Zelinka, David Randall, Mark Webb and Steven Klein. Their commentary is really a summary of our recent understanding and – as illustrated by the figure on the right – they conclude that the evidence is converging on the cloud feedback likely being positive.”
From FAR 1990 positive but cloud feedback represented the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity among atmospheric models.
To SAR Second Assessment Report; 1995), more climate models were predicting the mass of cloud liquid and ice, and generally finding negative cloud opacity feedbacks, albeit of widely differing strengths. The report concluded that it was not possible at that time to judge the sign of the net cloud feedback.
TAR 2001 …the sign of [the cloud] feedback remains unknown.
AR4 2007 it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable
AR5 “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is…likely positive”
BUT Cloud opacity feedback “is highly uncertain”
“I don’t really see why I should be expected to post comments that are certain, but wrong.”
I repeated a fact, “Averaged globally and annually, clouds cause cooling ” from the article overview. I said in view of this,
“any increase in cloud cover should have a stronger negative than a positive effect.”
The current point of view says this is likely wrong but admit to high uncertainty still in areas like cloud opacity. There is a threefold variation in the global sensitivity parameter FAR 1990 due to
differences in cloud feedback.
This is a most important discussion which is not yet settled and needs open discussion.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 6, 2017 at 9:44 am
Jai John Mitchell says:
“The range of estimates of ECS on the low-end are dominated by observational estimates.”
Long time reader of your comments at ASIB.
Says it all really does it not?
Unreliable observational estimates are no match for real time paleological proxies and centennial-based feedbacks in models
The lower end range is not applicable as it only exists in an observational world.
Admire the effort and work that you have always put in to your comments and thanks for sharing those referrals above.
ECS range is around 3.0 at this site as befits IPCC, you can try to push it higher, I have failed to push it lower.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 6, 2017 at 10:21 am
Everett F Sargent says:
“Well RealClimate has another post on the Millar paper 2017/10/1-5oc-geophysically-impossible-or-not/”
Thanks Everett, I do not go to RealClimate as much as I should, partly as this site keeps well abreast of it which means there is no need generally. I do read a cross section of all of the others though Stoat is quiet for long periods and Tamino is dormant at the moment.
The choice of temperature data
“the conclusion that present day temperatures lie outside of the model distribution.”
remains a problem even if resorting to
” The anomaly between observations and the CMIP5 mean temperature response to cumulative emissions is halved by repeating the Millar analysis with the GISTEMP product instead of HadCRUT.”
The role of internal variability
“Both HadCRUT and GISTEMP suggest strongly negative index values for the period 2005-2014, suggesting a potential cold bias in the warming estimate due to natural variability of 0.1?C (with 5-95% values of 0.05-0.15?C).”
Which means it is 0.2 C potential natural variability shown in just a 10 year period. Interesting to contemplate what the actual range would be in a series of a 100 decades.
The low CMIP5 compatible emissions comment suggests fallibility.
” the combined evidence of the influence of natural variability on the unforced temperature estimate, the disagreement between different observational datasets on warming level, and the uncertainty introduced by an uncertain pre-industrial temperature baseline means that we can’t be confident as the Millar paper suggests on what the current level of warming is.”
and this gem on trust in models v observations ” Alternatively, we trust the cumulative emissions number and treat the models as full proxies for reality, as was done in AR5,”
“I really don’t follow why people think the butterfly effect is not real. On what scale does it not work? Do you accept browning motion creates random movement of a grain of pollen? Does this work in the atmosphere? Does a grain of pollen sometimes cause an animal to sneeze? Does an animal sneezing sometime reveal that animal to another animal. Once you have altered animal behaviour, won’t there be follow on effects that will lead to stampedes of animals at different times or in different directions? Is this big enough yet to talk about unstable convection in the tropics?
On what scale does the butterfly effect break down?
Any one particular path is remarkably unlikely.”
Love your argument, very well put. Sort of how I thought about it but could not articulate.
However there are other considerations in blame games. One of which comes to mind is that the butterfly is not unique or individual but it itself is only part of the mosaic of events that are all intertwined.
Saying that a pathway attributable to the butterfly and the butterfly only ignores all those other exiguous causes [did I make this word up] which also impacted on the hurricane.
For instance every other butterfly , person etc in the world also happened and the same contiguous line must be drawn for all those other effects.
I think the butterfly effect is a real correspondence but a fake cause.
“The black line is the case in which we assume feedbacks remain constant; this produces what is typically referred to as the Effective Climate Sensitivity.”
The ECS is not the ECS with constant feedbacks. It is the ECS for a doubling of CO2 whatever the CO2 level is and in the particular group of cases we are talking about it is for the current earth atmosphere in the 21st century. Hence such a figure includes all known feedbacks some of which vary depending on the starting CO2 point.
This in effect removes the wriggle room for forcing definitions such as changing warming patterns, earth system feedbacks and temperature dependent feedbacks. They are for the most part already included in an ECS or it would not be the ECS. Some of these are part of natural variation anyway. Natural variation after all is only the envelope of uncertainty.
The comment “The consensus on the ‘likely’ range for climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C today is the same as given by Jule Charney in 1979” gives it away.38 years of satellites and better world wide monitoring and mapping for what? Certainly not an improvement in diagnostics.
As I said before graphs with results only on one side of a 50% projection are suspect either in maths or motivation.
Your graph should include another line to the left giving a lower surface anomaly for the fact that temperature dependent feedbacks and the pattern of warming can also, one expects lead to less warming in future.
“We expect, however, that temperature dependent feedbacks and the pattern of the warming could lead to more warming in future than we would expect based on an assumption of constant feedbacks”. Expectation is not science.
angech | August 30, 2017 at 2:33 am |
“There is a difference between MOVING PEOPLE
and SUBSIDIZING them to continue stupid behavior.”
“I will explain this slowly. I have no issue with people living in flood plains AS LONG AS they,not me, pay the FULL unsubsidized price of living there and fixing the problems associated with living there.
That means insurance reform which every right thinking libertarian understands. Dont make people in kansas subsidize the kooks to choose
to live on fault lines. You wanna live on a fault line? fine. pay a true unsubsidized insurance cost to do so. No federal bailouts.”
Blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
People are not kooks because their great grandparents traveled to Kansas and settled there.
The choice they have, giving up family and friends and property and family ties to move some where else “Safe” is easy to spout when you do not live there.
If they have an earthquake, or people in Houston have a flood you can choose not to help and absolve yourself by saying it is all their own fault.
Impeccable line of heartless logic.
I will explain re smokers so you get it.
People did not choose to smoke.
Tobacco is addictive.
People made cigarettes and sold them society promoted it.
Now I know doctors who refuse to treat people who smoke and people who are overweight.
A blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
Smokers are in my family and in your family.
Smokers are my friends [and enemies].
Smokers are part of the fabric [for richer or poorer] of our society.
Smokers and overweight people share a higher burden of disease.
A civilized doctor, a civilized society, picks up the pieces. We help them because they need help whether they caused their problems or not.
I do not expect you to change your attitude.
I have lots of friends who are vehemently anti-smoking and believe as you do. They are wrong as well.
Looking in the mirror.
” best to get ahead of the game than to be stuck losing an eyeballs game to intellectually inferiors– ie wuwt”
Games theory is an integral part of science. At least one, probably a lot more Nobel prizes, real ones, [not sorry for the snark].
Games have rules, even ones without rules, Climateball.
I was most interested in the part.
“A consensus is not manufactured, it emerges if all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture. It is true that overturning a consensus can be very difficult, but this is often because doing so requires not only illustrating the strength of the evidence supporting the new position, but also why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted. Overturning a consensus is not meant to be easy. ”
Turns out that consensus can be wrong?
Who could have guessed.
Perhaps the little line escapes the oversight.
“all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture.”
Herein the problem for people like Steven, and others here, who see one bit of excellent proof, CO2 increase in atmosphere gives a warming atmosphere, while ignoring at least two other facts.
The earth is not a straight test tube with only air and CO2, there are confounding features.
Life is resilient and adaptable.
Ignoring the fact that not all the various lines of evidence support warming to the degree that the textbooks properly say should occur.
Strangely, from this side of the mirror, every argument used suffers from the same flaws in reverse.
“why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted”
This is wrong. A lot of evidence there, most pointing in one direction.
Only hope for Skeptics is that it has been misinterpreted. History does give a couple of well known examples.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 15, 2017 at 4:11 am
The answer to the first part of the problem seems to be that a natural cloud of space dust cannot and must not, by the laws of physics aggregate into a disc.
Natural would be a cloud of dust existing as it always has just drifting along in space stationary as Ragnar says.
Of course this is itself physically difficult [impossible to conceive].
The answer lies in two aspects.
One billions of years ago when the very large original and their second and third, tenth offspring exploded scattering the dust outwards not to return. Escape velocity.
Combined with an expanding universe? theoretically each particle would be most unlikely to congeal with other particles.
Gravity would however tend to draw some adjacent particles into files and rows of outward extending streaks so one can imagine over time streaks/streams of related matter traveling semi adjacent to each other.
Time is the factor here.
The universe was a lot smaller and these particles were impeded by the other stars and exploded star materials ending up in swirls around the other stars til they too exploded and clumping together with the other debris and interacting with the debris from the newer exploding stars.
These of course included heavy metal particles with more gravitational attraction.
It is not the gravitational attraction that causes the formation of discs and protostars. It is the left over differential movements of the particles that have come from different stars in different directions being forced into a mass that is assumed to all have the same angular momentum but doesn’t.
The bits that travel in opposite directions collide lose velocity and become subject to the effect of their gravity and start pulling everything in that was previously happily moving in unison with its own debris pattern [and not coming together]
The problem is somewhat similar to the discussions on Carbonate build up in the crust of the earth. On massive time scales we have a crust impregnated with billions of tons of inorganic matter that was once organic, now unrecognizable.
The universe is at least 4 1/2 times older than the earth with all that extra time to fashion the stars we see today.
Thanks for the interesting post. I hope my contribution is not perceived as token.