TCR and Attribution

Over at Climate Etc:

Even with a low sensitivity value, increased CO2 would still have caused most of the recent global warming. You would need a very low climate sensitivity estimate [below the range supported by the evidence], in order for humans not to have caused most of the recent global warming.”

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C over the period 1880 to 2012” – AR5 (90% for the range of 0.41)

CO2 increase 45%

TCR – (1.0 to 2.5) X 45%

0.45 C to 1.13 C

Rise: About 0.85 C

0.40 natural variability on the low end.

The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C. {Box 12.2}” – AR5

The immediate above: Likely is 66% and high confidence is 80%. See if you can figure out which number they mean? The AR4 table appears first in your search.

So at the top, replace would with could once the uncertainties are taken into account.

The TCR and the GMST since 1880 are poorly constrained.

The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available.” – AR5

The two, How much did it warm, statements are banner statements with Epaulettes from AR5.

The IPCC’s statements on TCR are inconsistent with their attribution statements. Of the two kinds of statements, one has more qualities of being made up.


Climate sensitivity

“…conclusion that it is very unlikely that TCR is less than 1°C and very unlikely that TCR is greater than 3.5°C.” – AR4 90% probability


“The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C. {Box 12.2}” – AR5

Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction

Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction

From the outset, there has been an organized “disinformation” campaign that has used the complexities of AGW and the inevitable uncertainties involved in scientific research to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW. The primary strategy employed by this campaign has been to “manufacture uncertainty” over AGW (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), especially by attacking climate science and scientists (Powell, 2011). This appears an effective strategy given that confidence in climate science and trust in climate scientists are key factors influencing the public’s views of AGW.”

I occurred to me there is a general theme of, What’s wrong with you? Disinformation campaigns are assumed to be wrong as is manufacturing uncertainty. What’s wrong with you is you’re stifling our goals. People are not acting as needed and when they do, it’s in pitifully small amounts. You are supposed to be able to recognize disinformation campaigns and manufactured uncertainty if you don’t do math, and if you do, stop with the disinformation.

People in sales, who aren’t doing well, don’t do a study on what’s wrong with people? They ask, What’s wrong with me? What am I doing wrong? Some will claim they are not in sales, but everyone is. You can’t just sit in a room with a computer and expect people to see your wisdom through your papers. You have to sell it. We can cite 15 scientific organizations saying global warming is real and might be a big deal. That’s sales. In the United States that’s not working so well. This or that city will buy solar panels and proclaim something. That’s sales.

We also blame smaller groups. This group is interfering with me getting my message to Republicans. Which could be seen as an insult to Republicans for being so easily misled.

Sales asks the question, What does this person need? It does not ask the question what am I selling this month? Selling what you have is a basis for distrust and dislike of salesmen. Our average person has probably been minimally impacted by CO2 changes. They aren’t in need of CO2 reductions. I am going to guess that what they need is things to improve their lives in the short, medium and long terms. Can we sell them that and very importantly, Will they be happy? If they are not happy, they will go elsewhere. What needs and happiness have we provided to date? Cheap reliable fossil fuel energy. But you don’t need that. Trust me, you’ll be happy with this instead.

Did Patrick Moore co-found Greenpeace?

“The Amchitka voyage sparked a flurry of public interest. The media went wild about the small group of activist who had sailed off in the face of great adversity – the first “media mindbomb”, as Bob Hunter conceived of those early Greenpeace actions, had been launched.”
“…The trip was a success beyond anybody’s wildest dreams.”
So the boat attempts to confront a nuclear bomb test.
“Hunter, Moore and a dozen other activists sailed up the coast on the first voyage of The Greenpeace armed with environmental ideals and public relations savvy.”
Greenpeace had its breakthrough moment. He was on the boat. Did he file the paperwork for founding it? Who cares?
“Following the Alaska trip, some crew members decided to develop their protest movement. It was based on the use of non-violent direct action to increase public awareness and influence government policy. The Greenpeace Foundation was born and Hunter and Moore were its first co-presidents.”
“Bob Hunter (who, sadly, has since died of cancer) described himself as one of the Greenpeace mystics. He remains an icon and hero to many in the movement. Patrick Moore, one of the original Greenpeace mechanics, a rationalist to the bitter end, still considers himself an environmental thinker, a PhD ecologist.”

“After years apart we brought them together again for the filming of our Mystics

(Mechanics & Mindbombs) documentary. We engineered a reunion of the early Greenpeace campaigners aboard the fishing vessel Phyllis Cormack, a durable old seineboat that was chartered in the fall of 1971 by the “Don’t Make a Wave Committee” (predecessor to Greenpeace) to sail to Alaska to protest American nuclear weapons testing. As our camera rolled in 1996 Hunter and Moore proved they’d lost neither their spark nor their enthusiasm. Here are a few choice words:

The voyage had not been planned as a “rational” act, but rather as an act of faith. We were admittedly counting on a miracle… Could we count on the I Ching to guide us to victory long after Western rationality and industrial genius had failed? If you believed we could, you were a bona fide mystic.

Robert Hunter

I’m basically a mechanic… a pragmatist… I deal with the nuts and bolts of the situation… and try to make sure people don’t do things that are beyond the realm of possibility.

Patrick Moore

“One of the original group, Patrick Moore, even went on to deny climate change and oppose much of what Greenpeace stands for.”


The ideal gas law – Nikolov

A new paper is out:

Roy Spencer is pretty close to on point here:

The idea was discussed here:

This theory by Nikolov does not seem worth pursuing.

The climate iron triangle

For a doubling of CO2 the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is from 1.5 C to 4.5 C with 66% confidence. – AR5

For a doubling of CO2 the transient climate sensitivity (TCS) is from 1.0 C to 3.0 C with 90% confidence. – AR4

I just noticed the X to 3X in both ranges. Why is the intermediate in the same ratio as the equilibrium? Is this the climate iron ratio? No.

From here to there the bounds are kind of the same, but more tightly constrained on the way to there. So we could have a hockey stick with a blade near the end. So when we are about to get there, as things settle down, we can get a dramatic up or down turn. That’s my kind of equilibrium.

Expert assessments. That’s what we have.