Climate change agenda for Obamas 2nd term

[InRareForm]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-09/a-climate-change-agenda-for-the-second-obama-administration.html

[DarrinS]

That was misleading

[boutons_deux]

Science Stunner: Observations Support Predictions Of Extreme Warming And Worse Droughts This Century (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/09/1170701/science-stunner-observations-support-predictions-of-extreme-warming-worse-droughts-this-century/)

The most common benchmark for comparing model projections is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), or the amount of warming that eventually occurs in a model when carbon dioxide is doubled over preindustrial values. At current rates of global emission, that doubling will occur well before 2100.


For more than 30 years, ECS in the leading models has averaged around 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius). This provides the best estimate of global temperature increase expected by the late 21st century compared to late 19th century values, assuming that society continues to emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. However, the ECS within individual models is as low as 3 degrees F and as high as 8 degrees F.


“There is a striking relationship between how well climate models simulate relative humidity in key areas and how much warming they show in response to increasing carbon dioxide,” Fasullo says. “Given how fundamental these processes are to clouds and the overall global climate, our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections.”


… Estimates based on observations show that the relative humidity in the dry zones averages between about 15 and 25 percent, whereas many of the models depicted humidities of 30 percent or higher for the same period. The models that better capture the actual dryness were among those with the highest ECS, projecting a global temperature rise for doubled carbon dioxide of more than 7 degrees F. The three models with the lowest ECS were also the least accurate in depicting relative humidity in these zones.


“It’s a very clever idea,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University who studies clouds, among other things. “And it may well be right. They’re sensible people, and I have a lot of respect for them. But more work is needed to flesh out the details.”In a commentary also appearing in Science, Karen Shell of Oregon State University wrote that Trenberth and Fasullo’s approach “is an encouraging step that links observations to climate sensitivity” — that is, to the amount of heating a doubling of CO2 will cause.


But the case isn’t ironclad: relative humidity is clearly related to cloud formation, she noted, but there could be plenty of other factors that are nearly as important.
“In retrospect, this could turn out to have been a breakthrough,” Dressler said. “But we won’t know that for a while.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/09/1170701/science-stunner-observations-support-predictions-of-extreme-warming-worse-droughts-this-century/

[Wild Cobra]

That was misleading
Yes, the title to an old Aerosmith song comes to mind.

txlXcJDtDwM

[Wild Cobra]

Science Stunner: Observations Support Predictions Of Extreme Warming And Worse Droughts This Century (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/09/1170701/science-stunner-observations-support-predictions-of-extreme-warming-worse-droughts-this-century/)

The most common benchmark for comparing model projections is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), or the amount of warming that eventually occurs in a model when carbon dioxide is doubled over preindustrial values. At current rates of global emission, that doubling will occur well before 2100.


For more than 30 years, ECS in the leading models has averaged around 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius). This provides the best estimate of global temperature increase expected by the late 21st century compared to late 19th century values, assuming that society continues to emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. However, the ECS within individual models is as low as 3 degrees F and as high as 8 degrees F.


“There is a striking relationship between how well climate models simulate relative humidity in key areas and how much warming they show in response to increasing carbon dioxide,” Fasullo says. “Given how fundamental these processes are to clouds and the overall global climate, our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections.”


… Estimates based on observations show that the relative humidity in the dry zones averages between about 15 and 25 percent, whereas many of the models depicted humidities of 30 percent or higher for the same period. The models that better capture the actual dryness were among those with the highest ECS, projecting a global temperature rise for doubled carbon dioxide of more than 7 degrees F. The three models with the lowest ECS were also the least accurate in depicting relative humidity in these zones.


“It’s a very clever idea,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University who studies clouds, among other things. “And it may well be right. They’re sensible people, and I have a lot of respect for them. But more work is needed to flesh out the details.”In a commentary also appearing in Science, Karen Shell of Oregon State University wrote that Trenberth and Fasullo’s approach “is an encouraging step that links observations to climate sensitivity” — that is, to the amount of heating a doubling of CO2 will cause.


But the case isn’t ironclad: relative humidity is clearly related to cloud formation, she noted, but there could be plenty of other factors that are nearly as important.
“In retrospect, this could turn out to have been a breakthrough,” Dressler said. “But we won’t know that for a while.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/09/1170701/science-stunner-observations-support-predictions-of-extreme-warming-worse-droughts-this-century/






Just like engine tuners tune their engines for maximum output, climate scientists tune their models for maximum scare.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just like engine tuners tune their engines for maximum output, climate scientists tune their models for maximum scare.

Do you really want to steer the discussion back to model coefficients?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you really want to steer the discussion back to model coefficients?
Not in this thread. You bailed on the others when I pointed out your idiocy. Want to try again, revive one of them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not in this thread. You bailed on the others when I pointed out your idiocy. Want to try again, revive one of them.

I just find it funny that you compare a climate model to an engine while I'm thinking on how the ultimate parts changers are auto mechanics. You're flowing that lingo, gimp.