Talk:Climate sensitivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

Article probation[edit]

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen link[edit]

The Richard Lindzen page has a section called climate sensitivity and linking to this page as the main article. The page there describes Lindzen's Iris hypothesis along with an incomplete record of the pro/contra evidence (the iris hypothesis page has more recent data). Should this page add Lindzen's Iris hypothesis to the "other estimates" section or would it be better to link Lindzen's page to the Iris hypothesis page? Or perhaps both should be done. The status quo of linking Lindzen to here without talking about Lindzen (or did I gloss over that part of the article?) or his theory on this page doesn't make much sense to me. How should we resolve the inconsistency? TMLutas (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Iris hypothesis page looks about right - it is a bit too kind to the idea, but no-one really cares. The stuff on Lindzen's page is less coherent, rather like L's ideas, so should probably be tidied up (ditto). This page mentions neither, which seems about right: no-one really believed it at the time, and certainly no-one belives it now William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop baiting. Other than the tone, I've no problem with your suggestion to break the link to this page and will pick things up on Lindzen's page. TMLutas (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rm Idso: why[edit]

I took the Idso stuff [1] out. The tag was broken, but more importantly the paper is obsolete. This isn't the history-of-CS page William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your definition of "obsolete"? It cannot be the publication date [e.g. Einstein's original paper on relativity is still valid], and regarding the paper content you should refer to a scientific review about the paper to justify your decision to remove it. Many references cited in the section "Other estimates" are questionable regarding the quality of the scientific content, but I wouldn't consider any as "obsolete" because they are all directly related to the topic and not proven wrong anywhere. If you have scientific arguments that could convince me that the approach used by Idso is wrong please let me know. By-the-way I do not know what a "sock" is. Bertrand Maroon (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity is a rapidly evolving field - or at least it was from ~1990 to about-now. Early papers from that period are likely to be of only historical interest. And the Idso one was junk. But I see I was wrong, in that *is* the historical section, so I guess Idso can stay, little though I like it. But it is 1998, not 2001 William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Bertrand Maroon (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a rubbish article in need of a complete rework[edit]

I came to this article to find the sensitivity of the climate to a change in solar radiation. Instead I read an article that seems to be solely about CO2 global warming with the merest glance towards the actual subject of climate sensitivity.

OK, CO2 can be a section in the article, but to have something like 90% of the article on CO2 is absurd, particularly when it so extensively covered and repeated in almost every other climate article.

And worst of all it doesn't actually give the basic direct climate sensitivity without all the hypothetical feedbacks. All I want is a straightforward figure for how much direct radiation leads to surface heating and I really could do without all the added rubbish - or at least have the subject split into direct and indirect effects so I could get the bit I need out of it. 85.211.148.163 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To give you an example of how pathetic this article is: the first sentence says: "Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing." Therefore all measures of climate sensitivity should be in K/(W/m2) so what kind of numbskull would then talk about sensitivity in K. Either the definition is completely up the creek or the article which repeatedly talks about sensitivity in C is up the creek. Come one this isn't good enough! 85.211.148.163 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You are correct that the climatological concept of Climate Sensitivity is rather a muddle, but that's what they use, so that's what an encyclopedia article must report. Hopefully the science of this will be sorted out some day, but it's not an easy problem, and not helped by the politicization of climatology. HTH, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiative forcing due to doubled CO2[edit]

This section of the article badly misrepresents the cited sources, and probably goes into more detail than makes sense.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add the details of the simple calculation of 1 deg response mentioned---or add a reference to somewhere in Wikipedia it is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Blaine (talkcontribs) 21:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rahmstorf should have clarified his claim that "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate" in two respects: (a) given the forcing of 3.7 W/m2 one can infer 1 °C of warming (b) provided the ratio T/E of temperature T to net radiative flux E, suitably averaged over 24 hours and the globe, is about 1.08 K/(W/m2).
With that additional information the Stefan-Boltzmann formula in differential form, dE/dT = 4E/T, gives ΔT = (T/E)×(ΔE/4) = 1.08×(3.7/4) = 1 K. Reasonable values for T and E that give T/E = 1.08 would be T = 283 K and E = 262 W/m2.
This easy application of Stefan-Boltzmann naively assumes that T and E are measured and vary at a given altitude, typically either the surface or the tropopause. That the entire column from surface to top of atmosphere (TOA) radiates and varies widely in temperature over that range of altitudes shows that the Planck feedback defined in this naive way does not accurately reflect physical reality, even before consideration of other feedbacks. If there's an easy way of improving the accuracy by taking this into account I'd love to know about it. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Schmittner[edit]

There is no reason to single out Schmittner to go in to the lede. It is merely the most recent paper on the subject, no more.

It belongs in the "recent dev" section, but only in context. Out of context, as it was, it badly biases that section, so I've removed it for now William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Schmittner was not being singled out for inclusion in the lead, Knutti and Hegerl are already there and in fact that is the only place they are mentioned at all. I note that you have left them untouched. Do you think this appropriate?
Regarding whether Schmittner is lead worthy it seems logical that the latest available estimates should be included there so as not to mislead the reader. The IPCC estimates are now outdated by more recent developments. Note that the IPCC estimates were left as well to provide a full picture to the reader. Failing to note the more recent development is misleading.
You also indicate that Schmittner was being taken out of context. Please explain what context was missing so that it can be included. Thanks. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Schmittner was added, quite deliberately, because it is a lower-than-average estimate. Hence, the intent to mislead. Asserting that the IPCC estimates are outdated is rtue, but only subtly so, and needs careful handling. In particular the estimate of the most likely value is not outdated. It is not true that the most recent estimate should be automatically included in the lede. A virtue of K+H is that it is several years old William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I fear you read too much into my motives. I merely want to have the latest available data included in the article in a way that does not mislead the reader. Note that when I say outdated it is not the same as saying superceded. Clearly the IPCC estimate has more weight than a single paper but we must not present outdated information as if later developments do not exist. Can we agree on that point? K+H was added to the lead to supplement the IPCC values with more up to date findings. Arguing that they should be left there because they are several years old and I assume because they findings tend to reinforce that IPCC view is clearly biased. As follow on works both K+H and S should be treated comparably. There is no justification for treating them differently that I can see, nor is there any justification for keeping the most recent information out of the lead assuming we wish to present an up to date view of the science here.
How do you suggest that we address these issues, or are you arguing that S should be left out of the article enetirely? --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Schmittner was added, quite deliberately, because it is a lower-than-average estimate - I meant, into the text lower down, not your addition to the lede. Sorry if that was ambiguous. and I assume because they findings tend to reinforce that IPCC view - no; because they reflect the general view of subsequent research. Which is what we want from the lede. K+H should not be treated equally; we don't just stuff papers in at random, allocating them all the same weight, with no judgement. keeping the most recent information out of the lead assuming we wish to present an up to date view of the science here - you are mistaking the most recent paper for the most up to date view; this is the "each paper overturns all that has gone before" view, and is false. That paper is, as I said at the start, just one paper that happens to be the most recent. It should not get any extra weight for being the most recent. Indeed, since it is so recent that there has been no time for any comment in the literature, it should be de-weighted, quite heavily.
are you arguing that S should be left out of the article entirely? - no, as "It belongs in the "recent dev" section... so I've removed it for now" should have told you: it belongs in the article. In context. How do you suggest that we address these issues - firstly, we could wait for others to comment. Secondly, we could provide the proper context. It is on my to-do list for the festive fun period William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Very good. We seem to be agreed that S should be included and you seem to be on board with suggesting an appropriate manner of inclusion in relatively short order (I assume to be measured in days rather than weeks or months) so I am fine waiting to hear what you have to offer. Do bear in mind as you consider the matter that the lead should summarize the entire content of the article, including new developments. Cheers. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
While I modified the wording rather than remove the mention from the lead, as I've noted on my talk page one of the co-authors says in an interview, "we haven’t disproven the IPCC or high climate sensitivities. At least, not yet. This comes down to what generalizations can be made from a single, limited study. This is why the IPCC bases its conclusions on a synthesis of many studies, not relying on any particular one." So we must be careful not to give the misleading impression that it overturns the previous IPCC synthesis, or is even necessarily very significant. RC provides some useful links and pointers. . dave souza, talk 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. As I noted above this single study does not supercede the IPCC, but it is more recent information worth noting. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

The current structure is odd. The "history" section does Charney, then leaps on to 2008. I have a feeling that it has been re-organised, and "subsequent" really refers to "subsequent to IPCC AR4" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Experimental estimates of CS section outdated?[edit]

I'm pretty sure there are some recent peer-reviewed papers on this that aren't mentioned -- ones that give lower estimates than IPCC AR4, ims.

One source, with some interesting comments, is Chip Knappenberger at [2] -- this is for the peer-reviewed estimates he cites, not his commentary. I don't have time now to review this now, but will later.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WMC: could you please comment on Ira Glickstein's analysis of Scmittner 2011 here? I don't know quite what to make of his multi-modal comments. Is this your field? Maybe I should try Andy Dessler?
I'm also thinking of adding this graphic, IPCC IPCC AR4 Figure 9.20, to the article. I think we can use IPCC charts as Fair Use? Note that one could interpret this graphic as suggesting multi-modality? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Nothing at WUWT is worth a second's attention on wikipedia,*unless* you have some independent reason for thinking so William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the other recent CS estimate papers that Knappenberger mentions;

"Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming… which is towards the lower end of the observationally constrained range assessed by [the IPCC AR4]."
  • Lauren Padilla et al. 2011, “Probabilistic estimated of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability”: J. Climate, 24, 5521–5537.
"For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K, with 90% confidence the response will fall between 1.3 and 2.6K…"
  • Magne Aldrin et al., 2012, “Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content,” : Environmetrics Volume 23, Issue 3, pages 253–27. (obviously not an experimental estimate!)
"The [climate sensitivity] mean is 2.0°C… which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text. The 95% credible interval (CI) ranges from 1.1°C to 4.3°C, whereas the 90% CI ranges from 1.2°C to 3.5°C."
"Current climate model projections are uncertain. This uncertainty is partly driven by the uncertainty in key model parameters such as climate sensitivity (CS)…The mode of [our] climate sensitivity estimate is 2.8°C, with the corresponding 95% credible interval ranging from 1.8 to 4.9°C."

I'm also looking for more graphics, to make this article more comprehensible to an average, non-tech reader! -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When you posted the first one, i did a google scholar check on climate sensitivity papers - and there are 100+ gscholarhits[3]. Are you attempting to do original research to figure out what the average is, or where the papers are leading? (just as Knappenberg did)? If so - then please open a blog somewhere.... Wikipedia doesn't do original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No OR, these are all new(ish) peer-reviewed estimates of CS, which is (as you may recall) a long-standing interest of mine. Posted here so we can discuss which to include. WIP. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually the 100+ papers that i linked to, are all new(ish) papers... What is your selection criteria? And "long-standing interest" is WP:OR, posting it here doesn't change that. Without a proposal for some non-original selection criteria, that in some way reflects the weight in the literature - it is - simply original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD[edit]

Judith Curry has an interesting and thought-provoking post on this at Climate etc.. Premature for this article, and tangled up in IPCC (etc) politics: but it does appear to me that the better recent empirical estimates of ECS are coming in substantially below previous IPCC estimates -- and below the current draft of the upcoming AR5. She is apparently planning a publication on "what I think is wrong with climate model simulations of water vapor feedback." Worthwhile reading this material, and Nic Lewis's careful (but informal) work. To my eye, the best current empirical estimate of ECS is around 1.5 deg. C/doubling. Note that this is a "heads-up" post, just FYI, not for current addition to the article. But I'm unhappy with the lead (and only!) graphic being a modelling study. Will return to this, --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis & Curry (Climate Dynamics, September 2014) have authored a peer-reviewed paper based upon AR5 data which shows that median estimate of climate sensitivity (ECS) is a paltry 1.64 degree for a doubling of CO2.

Now we see why AR5 declined to state a median best estimate, like they did in AR4, while lowering the bottom range to 1.0.

Expect this study to be banned from this article by the Hockey Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.162.50 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Slowdown in temperature rise[edit]

FB added, and I removed,

Some observers have noticed an unexplained reduction or even a flattening in temperature rise in the 21st century causing temperature rise at the lowest range of predictive models. This has occurred despite rapid increase in carbon dioxide. The uncertain role of clouds is suspected as a cause. If the observed pattern continues climate sensitivity would be projected to be 2° C or less.<ref name="A sensitive matter">{{cite news|title=A sensitive matter|url=http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions|accessdate=March 30, 2013|newspaper=The Economist|date=March 30, 2013}}</ref>

I don't like adding stuff that is so new. "Some observers" is weaselly. And I really don't like using the Economist as sole source for science. "The uncertain role of clouds is suspected as a cause" isn't really right, that's a paraphrase of a paraphrase and too much has been removed. "If the observed pattern continues..." fails WP:CRYSTAL. Having said that, I quite like the Economist article [4]. We should probably include something about a possible lowering of CS, but using better sources more accurately William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I expected trouble from you... Good that you see the article has value though. The first time I heard about this I thought it was a hoax. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think "The upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming" covers some of this material. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As to WP:CRYSTAL "the uncertainties in future warming rates are expected to decrease, an expectation borne out by subsequent projections that also include 21st century observations." User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Observed 21st century temperatures further constrain likely rates of future warming" User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Observed climate change constrains the likelihood of extreme future global warming" User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Your second link is broken. What did you intend? The third is from 2008, so unsurprisingly doesn't say anything about recent results. I think you've completely misread it, and misunderstood what it means by "constrains": as it says, The many uncertainties in aerosol physics and chemistry mean that a large range of present-day aerosol cooling is possible which could imply a large climate sensitivity, extremely large future warming and the increased risk of catastrophic consequences which is hardly supportive of the text I removed. Your first link is potentially more interesting, but doesn't directly speak to climate sensitivity William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the link. Aerosols seem to cool now, reduction, anticipated as pollution is reduced, would lesson that cooling. Good thing you and I will never have to live through this... User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I can only read the anstract, and the relevant bit appears to be "The highest rates of warming previously consistent with past warming now appear to be unlikely." Its not possible to translate that into any kind of numerical constraint on CS. Is the full text more helpful? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
All I can read too, keep looking at the references at the bottom of http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014024.pdf User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"After the middle part of the 21st century aerosol pollution is reduced rapidly under these scenarios and the warming therefore accelerates as the masking effect of aerosols is removed, revealing the consequences of a high transient climate response to increased greenhouse gas forcing." User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(od) What about these?

108.195.137.95 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That IP is a known blocked editor. His contributions might be legitimate, but they should be ignored unless a real editor wants to take credit for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
R.K. Kaufmann et al. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108 http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5976/316.full http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5976/316/F1.expansion.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Errm, hold on. We started off (or at least the Economist did) with the idea that recent obs tend to suggest a lower value for CS. That's a rather different thing to sulphates-have-caused-less-warming-recently which (if you believed it) would leave the value of CS untouched. Are we talking about the original stuff, or moving on to a more general discussion? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We're just following out what the literature says. The literature seems to say that all the coal burning in China results in aerosols that mask the effect of the constantly increasing carbon dioxide resulting in little or no global warming during the last decade. This information, however, may not belong in this article as climate sensitivity itself should be a constant, not something based on empirical data heavily influenced by emissions resulting from pollution. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so what about the figure we use at the top of this article? Its sourced to [5] but the text there doesn't really clarify what's plotted. Comparing to [6] I think what we have is from Stainforth, D. A., Aina, T., Christensen, C., Collins, M., Faull, N., Frame, D. J., Kettleborough, J. A., et al. (2005). Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. That's rather old now (8 years) and perhaps should be updated William M. Connolley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing" Radiative forcing includes both greenhouse gases and aerosols. The effect of the gasses considered by themselves is known, but that of various aerosols and their amount is not. It seems additional unknown factors such as the role of methane clathrate are also included. Given the role political and economic choices play reliable values seem difficult to come by, particularly as the situation develops. To return to the initial Economist article, 10, or 15, years of flat data seems to be rather short. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Baseline?[edit]

Apologies if this is an absurd question, but when we say "the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere", what do we mean? Is the sensitivity thought to be constant, so that, whatever concentration of carbon dioxide you start with, you can say doubling this will give this much warming? Or is there some baseline that these discussions are measuring (e.g. carbon dioxide concentration in 1990)? N p holmes (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not an absurd question,but there are some implicit (and reasonable ) assumptions in there. For a start, there are reasons to believe that the change in radiative forcing grows with the log of the level of CO2, so it makes sense to talk about growth of CO2 as a ratio (e.g. doubling) rather than some other measure. This assumption can be developed from physical principles, but it has also been verified experimentally. While there are limits to how many doublings can occur and still hold true, within the range of plausible CO2 levels, it holds close enough for government work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Rahmstorf (footnote 8) on page 37 argues that technically speaking, the doubling refers specifically to a doubling from 280 to 560. The results will be similar for other doubling (200 to 400 or 300 to 600), but not necessarily far outside that range. I think, but I am not certain, that as one goes up, the absorption bands will reach saturation and thus the forcing should grow slower, but that is not relevant to any ranges we are likely to see in our lifetimes.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Uninformed readers like me will possibly be thinking of the range 400 to 800 (i. e. starting at present concentrations) when they start reading. At one point in the article, I now see, there is a mention of sorts. That's in the little paragraph in the middle of the section on IPCC4, which switches to a summary of the same from the EPA, in which a concentration of 540ppm (double preindustrial with a different value to the one Rahmstorf uses) is specified. But that's too late, buried in the article (and in a paragraph, which really should be put in the format of the rest of the article, so that a reader can rely on the IPCC alone and not a paraphrase of it). If someone were to put a brief summary of the Rahmstorf explanation, referenced to him, that would cover it. Something like "Calculations of sensitivity are generally made against pre-industrial levels (280ppm), but the same calculations can be expected to give the same sensitivity for other starting points." I didn't quite follow what Rahmsdorf was talking about with "initial states", if things like "how much heat the ocean can take up" are excluded. N p holmes (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit needed[edit]

The following sentence appears to be nonsense, but it isn't immediately obvious how to fix it.

An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the effective climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the effective climate sensitivity.

With added emphasis:

An estimate of the (X) equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the (Y) effective climate sensitivity with the (Z) known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the (Y) effective climate sensitivity.

Effectively, it says X is the combination of Y and Z; this is Y.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the related definitions from IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm Though basically today climatologist use the Earth system sensitivity which accounts for all known feedbacks.

The Earth system sensitivity including fast feedbacks from changes in water vapour, natural aerosols, clouds and sea ice, slower surface albedo feedbacks from changes in continental ice sheets and vegetation, and climate–GHG feedbacks from changes in natural (land and ocean) carbon sinks. Traditionally, only fast feedbacks have been considered (with the other feedbacks either ignored or treated as forcing), which has led to estimates of the climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 concentrations of about 3◦ C. The 2×CO2 Earth system sensitivity is higher than this, being ∼4–6◦ C if the ice sheet/vegetation albedo feedback is included in addition to the fast feedbacks, and higher still if climate–GHG feedbacks are also included. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2165/pdf

Prokaryotes (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

re: Sphilbrick: I agree that the sentence does not appear to make much sense. The sentence appears to be based on two sources - [7] [8]. These sources are cited in the sentence immediately following the one you have commented on. I suggest that the sentence is revised to more closely reflect these sources. In the meantime, a "clarification needed" tag could be added to the sentence. Enescot (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Earth system sensitivity[edit]

You (P) appear to be confusing ESS with ECS. Its certainly not true to say that "basically today climatologist use the Earth system sensitivity". Its truer to say this is something that Hansen is pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The ESS is based on NAS funding and work by AGU and used by the leading scientist on the field and in the relevant literature. Hansen is one of many authors. Can you point out where i confuse ESS with ECS? Prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Example of leading Scientist using ESS today http://people.earth.yale.edu/earth-system-climate-sensitivity or http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo706.html Prokaryotes (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You've confused ECS with ESS up above. Your assertion "basically today climatologist use the Earth system sensitivity" is false. If yuo're trying to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about, you're doing well William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We could make a distinction between IPCC estimates and prevailing ESS models, but could you refer to the content not the talk page when we discuss the content? You previously removed the part on ESS and you removed my updated version of the Sensitivity to solar forcing which does not state the study conclusion, includes parts which are not referenced and is weasel worded, and beside that it is discussed earlier in the article. So i'm not sure how you plan to improve the article. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I plan to improve the article by resisting changes that make it worse. There will also be a number of upgrades to put in once the IPCC AR5 comes out. As to what to discuss: if you confuse ESS and ECS on the talk page, then I need to discuss the talk page. That's not your only error, of course. As I said before, "basically today climatologist use the Earth system sensitivity" is false. Any arguments you've made that depend on it fail. If you've said nothing that depends on it, why say it? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all you made 3 reverts on this without addressing your reason for it at all. Secondly, current part on ESS is misleading.

A less commonly used concept, the Earth system sensitivity (ESS), can be defined which includes the effects of slower feedbacks, such as the albedo change from melting the large ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere during the last glacial maximum. These extra feedbacks make the ESS larger than the ECS — possibly twice as large — but also mean that it may well not apply to current conditions.

It is misleading to just focus on slow feedbacks or the conclusion that doubled sensitivity does not apply to current conditions! The resource does not say this! It is wrong to state "A less commonly used concept". I've provided above links to studies from today's leading climatologist which prefer to use ESS. Your reverts are to a version of ESS based on a blog from 2008. However, even the blog stated at the time:

The reason why the Earth System sensitivity might be more appropriate is because that determines the eventual consequences of any particular CO2 stabilization scenario

Your edits are disruptive, address your changes on the talk page before you revert.
The updated version:

The Earth system sensitivity (ESS), includes most known climate feedbacks. Included fast feedbacks are water vapour, natural aerosols, clouds and sea ice, slow feedbacks are ice sheets and vegetation, and GHG feedbacks from changes in natural (land and ocean) carbon sinks. In the past climate sensitivity was only considered based on the fast feedbacks (with other feedbacks either ignored or treated as forcing). The 2×CO2 Earth system sensitivity is ∼4–6◦ C when accounted for the ice sheet and vegetation albedofeedback, and higher still if climate–GHG feedbacks are included.[1]

Sensitivity to solar forcing[edit]

OK, so that was all confusion. If we just skip all that, can you make it clear what problems you now have? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

1. reply above, address the points i made.
2. As i wrote before, the section is not mentioning the solar cycle, the section has probs in regards to WP:JARGON, the last part needs to be updated. The part is about modelling and is not mentioning the study conclusion - that they found a 95% confidence about the solar forcing (solar max and min). What is now briefly called "lag" is known as ocean heat content uptake. Are you going to rewrite this? Do you want me to rewrite this? Prokaryotes (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
A 2013 study on this subject http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract Prokaryotes (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Jargon, eh? Well, perhaps we can try to fix that. Which bits do you think are a problem. Direct quotation is probably best William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The earlier edit, the initial part (maybe use that or edit it)

Sunspots and faculae variations on the sun’s surface periodical change solar irradiance, also called the solar constant, on a roughly 11-year cycle by about 0.07%. Solar luminosity is about 0.9 W/m2 brighter during solar maximum than during solar minimum.[2]

Now, i have the most issue with this part and i don't know if this is even relevant any longer, this was based on models from 2008, which overestimated OHC uptake. Pretty sure this has been accounted for. Hence why i linked Abraham 2013 above, which might give some clues, but still do we have to include this here when explaining the solar forcing??

From this data (incorporating the Earth's albedo and the fact that the solar absorption cross-section is 1/4 of the surface area of the Earth), Tung, Zhou and Camp (2008) derive a transient sensitivity value of 0.69 to 0.97 °C/(W/m2).[41] This would correspond to a transient climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide doubling of 2.5 to 3.6 K, similar to the range of the current scientific consensus. However, they note that this is the transient response to a forcing with an 11 year cycle; due to lag effects, they estimate the equilibrium response to forcing would be about 1.5 times higher.

Prokaryotes (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not sure which are the jargon terms you don't like, in either of your two quotes above. Perhaps you could bold the "jargon" ones you think are difficult? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The first quote is from the edit i made, and you removed. Are you following? The second quote is to vague and to technical - (as i've pointed out above and as i've wrote in that edit note is weasel worded) This part has become irrelevant, because it refers to specific model simulations from 2008 and as pointed out to you now several times is not related to the section of solar forcing. So you either make that more clear, or you re-add my addition. Further, you continue to ignore every single question and argument i made in this entire discussion. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The point here in relation to CS (Climate sensitivity) is TSI (Total solar irradiance). Here are more recent papers by Tung http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/ Prokaryotes (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop shouting, or otherwise find someone else to talk to. Your complaints that I'm not listening are unfounded. On the contrary, I'm listening to you, and trying to understand your problems, but every time I do that you wriggle away to something different.
I asked ("Jargon, eh? Well, perhaps we can try to fix that. Which bits do you think are a problem") in response to which I expected you to provide examples. Confusingly, the first "example" you provided was totally irrelevant, which hasn't helped. OK, we'll forget that. The second example doesn't obviously contain jargon, and I asked to to indicate which bits of it do ("Perhaps you could bold the "jargon" ones you think are difficult"). You haven't done that, instead you just say its "to [sic] vague and to [sic] technical". I don't quite understand that - are you withdrawing your complaint of jargon and substituting something different, or what? Or do you want to drop the complaint about "jargon" entirely, and talk about relevance instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:JARGON includes WP:TECHNICAL, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable So could you please, separate model related stuff from solar cycle forcing, which is the topic here. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you're not very interested in the "jargon" problem after all. I'll try to understand your other complaint, instead. You think that the para in your second quote "is not related to the section of solar forcing". I'm afraid I don't understand you, since C+T is clearly about solar forcing. Can you expand your complaint? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The part is not mentioning the main conclusion of the cited study, which is the 95% confidence level about the solar forcing cycle, why is this not mentioned? Instead the above quoted part refers to model underestimation of the ocean heat uptake. However, since 2007/2008 a lot new science has been released with updated model simulations. The stuff on transient climate sensitivity TSI and transient climate response TCR should go with an updated source and content into the TCS section. OHC relates to changes in wind circulation, patterns which were recently tied to La Nina. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)