@Willard1951 @priscian @DanSull36510584 @DaleGribble_666 @B_Bolshevik100 @AdrianC47C @rob51816708 @Anvndarnamn5 @BradPKeyes @Rosie45703313 @ChrisBBacon3 @bootcanyon @TWTThisIsNow @MartinJBern @Mark_A_Lunn @Data79504085 @ammocrypta @Pow_Pop_Blam @ShroedingerBird @25_cycle @CDCollins5269 @jpgcrowley @PvtMcAuslan @EthonRaptor @Then__And__Now @tim_dunkerton @AristotleMrs @FD2you @Callan23474387 @KCTaz @0Sundance @TheDisproof @BointonGiles @DoesThisW0rk @Climatehope2 @Jaisans @S_D_Mannix @JustThi30117912 @paulp1232 @Robert76907841 @EricWil06256732 @ProfMickWilson @FillmoreWhite @TommyLambertOKC @JohnDublin10 @NoTricksZone @PeterDClack 1/8.》 As it happens, I was part of that 2021 conversation, and I remember it. Zeke effectively accused Spencer of cherry-picking. That was untrue: Spencer used all of the available data.
@Willard1951 @priscian @DanSull36510584 @DaleGribble_666 @B_Bolshevik100 @AdrianC47C @rob51816708 @Anvndarnamn5 @BradPKeyes @Rosie45703313 @ChrisBBacon3 @bootcanyon @TWTThisIsNow @MartinJBern @Mark_A_Lunn @Data79504085 @ammocrypta @Pow_Pop_Blam @ShroedingerBird @25_cycle @CDCollins5269 @jpgcrowley @PvtMcAuslan @EthonRaptor @Then__And__Now @tim_dunkerton @AristotleMrs @FD2you @Callan23474387 @KCTaz @0Sundance @TheDisproof @BointonGiles @DoesThisW0rk @Climatehope2 @Jaisans @S_D_Mannix @JustThi30117912 @paulp1232 @Robert76907841 @EricWil06256732 @ProfMickWilson @FillmoreWhite @TommyLambertOKC @JohnDublin10 @NoTricksZone @PeterDClack 5/8.》 Most of the GCMs run way too hot -- and Jim Java and Zeke don't want to admit it, because they prioritize the political narrative ahead of the scientific facts.
The bottom line is that the climate models are not fit for purpose.
@Willard1951 @priscian @DanSull36510584 @DaleGribble_666 @B_Bolshevik100 @AdrianC47C @rob51816708 @Anvndarnamn5 @BradPKeyes @Rosie45703313 @ChrisBBacon3 @bootcanyon @TWTThisIsNow @MartinJBern @Mark_A_Lunn @Data79504085 @ammocrypta @Pow_Pop_Blam @ShroedingerBird @25_cycle @CDCollins5269 @jpgcrowley @PvtMcAuslan @EthonRaptor @Then__And__Now @tim_dunkerton @AristotleMrs @FD2you @Callan23474387 @KCTaz @0Sundance @TheDisproof @BointonGiles @DoesThisW0rk @Climatehope2 @Jaisans @S_D_Mannix @JustThi30117912 @paulp1232 @Robert76907841 @EricWil06256732 @ProfMickWilson @FillmoreWhite @TommyLambertOKC @JohnDublin10 @NoTricksZone @PeterDClack 6/8.》 In fact even @hausfath Zeke's BEST data shows ECS sensitivity is much lower than most GCMs assume, though he'll never admit it.
7/8.》 The CMIP6 GCMs have widely varying baked-in assumptions for ECS sensitivity. The high-end CMIP6 model (CanESM5) uses an estimate which is 208% higher than (i.e., 3.08×) the ECS estimate used by the low-end model (INM-CM4-8). (But "the science is settled," doncha know?)
8/8.》 The best way of estimating ECS is by comparing measured temperature change to the GHG level changes we've already seen. (The climate industry doesn't like that approach, because it inevitably results in ECS estimates at or below the low end of the range of ECS values assumed in the CMIP6 models.)
Measured (already realized) warming reflects a "practical sensitivity" which is probably about halfway between TCR and ECS. If ECS = 1.5 × TCR (a common estimate), then TCR is probably 80% of the portion of realized/measured warming which is due to CO2, and ECS is about 1.5 × that (i.e., 120%).
Here's how to calculate an estimate of ECS, based on measurements starting with preindustrial CO2 at about 280 ppmv:
Step 1. Note that globally averaged temperature has risen about 1.2 ±0.2°C since the ("pre-industrial") Little Ice Age.
Step 2. Note that if we assume it was ALL caused by human activity (which I doubt), at most 80% of it was due to the rise in CO2 (280 → 421 ppmv).
Step 3. Calculate that we've had log2(421/280) = 59% of the "radiative forcing" that we'd get from a doubling of CO2.
Step 4. Calculate that "practical sensitivity" = 1.2 × 0.8 / 0.59 = about 1.63°C/doubling.
(If a portion of the warming since the "preindustrial" Little Ice Age was natural, as I suspect, then sensitivity was even less.)
Step 5. Calculate that ECS (Equilibrium Sensitivity) is about 1.2× that, which makes it about 1.95°C/doubling.
(You can also do calculations like these using a shorter time period, with similar results; be sure to use endpoints during ENSO-neutral conditions.)
Conclusion: If the CO2 rise (from 280 to 421 ppmv) accounts for 80% of warming to date, and warming to date is about 1.20°C, and CO2 forcing to date is 59% of a full doubling (log2(421/280)), that makes ECS = about 1.95°C/doubling, and TCR about 2/3 of that.
Note: Aerosol & particulate air pollution were reducing / masking warming until about 1980. Since then, air pollution abatement has been reducing the masking/cooling effects of aerosol & particulate pollution, which accounts for part of the rise in temperatures over the last 45 years. (The IMO 2020 low-sulfur shipping rules just reduced aerosol pollution again, quite significantly.)
The best scientific evidence, confirmed by thousands of robust studies, shows compellingly that anthropogenic warming is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial, just as Arrhenius predicted, over a century ago.
2/4≫ For instance, here's a paper about what rising CO2 levels do for wheat:
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric CO2 can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26929390
3/4≫ The most important impacts of CO2 and climate change are obviously on agriculture, and thousands of rigorous agronomy studies have quantified the large benefits. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@GeraldKutney 2/4. The climate debate is about whether calling warm periods "climate optimums" (as scientists & historians have done for over a century) is correct (as I contend), or incorrect (as the climate industry pretends).
@GeraldKutney 3/4. The scientific evidence is compelling that rising CO2 levels, and consequent modest climate change, are both beneficial, just as Arrhenius predicted, over a century ago. Here are some relevant, high quality, papers: sealevel.info/negative_socia…
@typocatCA @PTrebaul @beemouv @BeeAsMarine @EPennysworth @ECOWARRIORSS @OurEcoCommunity @RobRobbEdwards @LanceUSA70 @AlmuthSiegl @joncoopertweets @MarshaCollier @OccupyDemocrats @ReedTimmerUSA @GreenpeaceUK @GeraldKutney 1/4. The claim that manmade climate change threatens bees is a brazen lie, one of many from the climate industry's FUD marketing campaign.
@typocatCA @PTrebaul @beemouv @BeeAsMarine @EPennysworth @ECOWARRIORSS @OurEcoCommunity @RobRobbEdwards @LanceUSA70 @AlmuthSiegl @joncoopertweets @MarshaCollier @OccupyDemocrats @ReedTimmerUSA @GreenpeaceUK @GeraldKutney 2/4. Wild bees have withstood glaciations & deglaciations, in times when the Earth was much colder, and warmer, than our climate today. They are not threatened at all by manmade climate change.
@typocatCA @PTrebaul @beemouv @BeeAsMarine @EPennysworth @ECOWARRIORSS @OurEcoCommunity @RobRobbEdwards @LanceUSA70 @AlmuthSiegl @joncoopertweets @MarshaCollier @OccupyDemocrats @ReedTimmerUSA @GreenpeaceUK @GeraldKutney 3/4. To understand a politicized issue like climate change, you need balanced information. If you think CO2 emissions are harmful, that means you aren't getting it. But I'm here to help.
1/4. We've discussed this before, Mark. Don't you remember this thread?
E.g., do you REALLY believe that global average temperatures 3000 years ago are known with a 1σ uncertainty of just 0.2°C, and 2σ (95%) of just 0.4°C? You've GOT to know that's absurd!
The Hockey Team even completely erased Dansgaard-Oeschger event #1, which was the HUGE warming event, recorded in ice cores, that you can see in this NOAA plot:
1/4. Neonics are mainly used for treating seeds, before planting. They're not significantly present in pollen & nectar, so they do not affect pollinators.
The campaign against neonics is based on lies. It's really a campaign against food production, and hence against people.entomologytoday.org/2014/02/06/neo…
@BeeAsMarine @GreenpeaceUK @NehoNana 2/4. Also, beware of climate industry propaganda claiming that the current trend to slightly milder climates is harmful. The scientific evidence is compelling that the opposite is true.
@BeeAsMarine @GreenpeaceUK @NehoNana 3/4. Does that surprise you? Read the agronomy literature and see for yourself! There've been thousands of rigorous studies & excellent papers about it, of far higher quality than the politicized drek which dominates "climate science." Here are a few: sealevel.info/negative_socia…