tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post5709576613726007818..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Predictions are overrated?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38372792086034317582020-05-08T11:49:27.491+00:002020-05-08T11:49:27.491+00:00"SH proposes instead What, then, is the scien..."SH proposes instead What, then, is the scientific answer for the climate change deniers?"<br /><br />There isn't one, there is no such thing a proof beyond unreasonable doubt and they are not listening.<br /><br />The scientific answers are for the people that are listening to the deniers, but don't understand the science well enough (yet) to know the answers to their canards.Dikran Marsupialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-85403985972036115852020-05-07T07:51:29.166+00:002020-05-07T07:51:29.166+00:00Actually, I found another on of Tom's comments...Actually, I found another on of <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/societal-tipping-points/#comment-164368" rel="nofollow">Tom's comments</a> which refers to this <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z" rel="nofollow">paper</a>. The key quote is<br /><i>As concentrations are somewhat dependent on the future climate itself (due to climate feedbacks in the carbon and other gas cycles), we emulate median response characteristics of models assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report using the reduced-complexity carbon cycle climate model MAGICC6.</i><br />which does indeed seem to be referring how you associate emissions with concentrations. ...and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-65032076183756042332020-05-07T07:46:59.575+00:002020-05-07T07:46:59.575+00:00I think I've found the comment Tom made on my ...I think I've found the <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/worst-case-scenarios-or-not/#comment-163310" rel="nofollow">comment</a> Tom made on my blog, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. It's possible he's talking about MAGICC, which is reduced complexity model and is associated with the development of the RCPs and might have an assumed ECS of 3C (although I'm not sure). As you say, though, these assumptions aren't exactly hidden and I would still argue that statement "the RCPs assumed sensitivity of 3C" doesn't make sense....and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-34295928740668347172020-05-06T21:57:30.448+00:002020-05-06T21:57:30.448+00:00Os: Tom isn't talking about the (common denial...Os: Tom isn't talking about the (common denialist meme) of CS built into the GCMs (of course). But in some connection with RCPs. With which I'm not familiar TBH, though something in the RCP process assuming some CS wouldn't be strange. I don't think there are any hidden assumptions; though there are lots of not-well-known assumptions, even in GCMs, since they are Quite Large.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-77337247514324350482020-05-06T21:43:21.683+00:002020-05-06T21:43:21.683+00:00Actually, it's the hidden assumptions that bot...<i>Actually, it's the hidden assumptions that bother some. I spent a day on a thread with ATTP trying to show him that the RCPs assumed sensitivity of 3C.</i><br /><br />IIRC, what you were referring to was that some of the models that are used to associate the RCPs with emissions assume a climate sensitivity of 3C. I may remember incorrectly, of course, but what you clearly did not show was that the RCPs assume a sensitivity of 3C, since RCPs are simply Representative Concentration Pathways. ...and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-53124065371155705892020-05-06T17:08:03.056+00:002020-05-06T17:08:03.056+00:00Tom,
You don't understand climate sensitivity....Tom,<br />You don't understand climate sensitivity. It is not input into the models but gets determined by the interactions of the different parts of how the model describes the climate system. It wsa in fact first used as a metric to compare models--double CO2 and see what the equilibrium temperature became. <br /><br />So, there is no assumed sensitivity. <br /><br />Old_salthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11660908947626378366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-6868785296076603472020-05-06T15:22:08.380+00:002020-05-06T15:22:08.380+00:00Actually, it's the hidden assumptions that bot...Actually, it's the hidden assumptions that bother some. I spent a day on a thread with ATTP trying to show him that the RCPs assumed sensitivity of 3C. I showed him the link, quoted the language--but I don't think I convinced him. He's certainly never mentioned it since.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.com