2011-01-14 10:29:49Monckton Myth #3: linear warming
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
I drafted up the post for Monckton Myth #5.  Have a look.
2011-01-14 16:09:31
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.99.160

Looks quite good to me. One point, though: isn't it expected that for this rapid rise in CO2 the temprature rise will start slow and then starts to accelerate when the feedbacks kick in? If that is the case, then the temperature increase wouldn't be expected to be linear even for steady CO2 increase. Should this post contain a figure showing the expected temperature increase too?

2011-01-14 21:03:39
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.198.46
Looks good to me too.
2011-01-14 21:33:53Should this be #3?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
Given that Robert has combined points 2,3,4 into Myth #2, should yours be Myth #3?

is it worth mentioning the cooling effect of aerosols or will that complicate things unnecessarily? Monckton says we should see X amount of warming from Y amount of CO2 but that doesn't take into account that the CO2 warming is blunted by aerosol cooling,

2011-01-14 22:39:00
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

A plug for an old piece I did that I think is quite illuminating...

 

for your 'short term variance' thing, how about the 1998 DIY statistics post as a link?

2011-01-14 23:09:27
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209
Forcing is directly proportional to the change in surface temperature at equilibrium (or steady state). In reality, we have a forcing changing with time and there's no reason to think that the proportionality holds at each time. For example, if you have a forcing linear in time, warming starts slowly and becomes linear after about 3 times the response time of the system. Actually it's higher than linear.

2011-01-15 03:34:19responses
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Ari - I think that's complicated by the fact that we're not sure exactly when the various feedbacks will kick in.  The IPCC shows the projected warming in Scenario A2 as a pretty smooth exponential.  But I can add that figure.

John - I was keeping the numbering consistent with Monckton's, but I can change the title to #3 if mine is the third Monckton post.  I was thinking about whether I should add a discussion of complicating factors (like thermal inertia of oceans and aerosols).  The nice thing about aerosols is that they're offset by non-CO2 greenhouse gases, so you can get away with not discussing them.

Mark - good idea, I'll put a reference to the DIY post.

Riccardo - good point.  Would it be sufficient to just add the words "at equilibrium"?  I don't want to get too bogged down in the details and lose the main message.

2011-01-15 05:06:36
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.111
You should also add that it sure is underestimate because the system did not have time to catch up with the forcing, definitely a biased estimate. And this even without other forcing agents or feedbacks.
2011-01-15 07:14:19roger that
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Thanks Riccardo, change made.
2011-01-16 14:40:10Preindustrial versus 1990
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.154.212

“2.0-6.4°C above preindustrial” is incorrect. It’s actually 2.0-6.4°C above 1990, or roughly 2.6-7.0°C above preindustrial.

Otherwise a great rebuttal.

2011-01-17 07:02:21thanks, nice catch
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210
Dang you're right, that's an excellent catch James.  Glad you noticed that - it also makes the point stronger.  By the way I changed the title and filename to Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming.
2011-01-18 16:05:56worst comment
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

This has to be a candidate for the worst comment in SkS history.  NETDR insisting that this is linear growth.  Not to mention failing to understand the term "exponent", while simultaneously claiming his analysis was better than tamino's.