Climate-gate

[Billy T]

You continually claim that the IPCC ignores climactic feedback. That is a lie, and you should know better. Shame on you for lying to advance your agenda.

Please explain where even one feed back pair is included in the IPCC's linear analysis. I have more than once admitted the IPCC is aware of some feeds backs - They just ignore them in their analyse is all I claim. I'll return by edit to quote at least one prior posts admitting IPCC knows about the stronger feed backs. In my book, that makes them more guilty of politically motivated fraud than if they were ignorant of them.

{post 988, replying to Billvon's post} I did not say IPCC was unaware of theses feed backs. They just ignore them in the LINEARIZED model of a NON-linear problem. I.e. they put forth a great deal of effort in a complex areas, say like net effect of aerosols, and then assign each of the effects investigated a radiative forcing function Fn where "n" is integer that might be 6 for aerosols. Then add these forcing function up to get an overall forcing function F.

F = F1 +F2 + F3 +.... +Fn where currently n should be about 31, at least (because 31 different positive feed backs are known), but I think the IPCC only includes less than 10 effects in its linearized model.

I.e. The IPCC's F is an incomplete, linear sum which totally neglects, for example, F(F3,F6) where this F(3,6) is a function that reflects the increase of F3 by positive feed back from F6 PLUS increase of effect F6's contribution to Global Warming by positive feed back from F3. Many of these omitted contribution are very small admittedly but there are 31 factorial (31 !). I.e. #1 interacts with 30 others; #2 interacts with 29 others (interaction with #1 is already counted); #3 with 28 others etc.). 31 ! = 8.2228387E33 So if the magnitude of the average positive feed back contribution to Global Warming is only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 = 1E(-23) as important as factors IPCC does include in their linearized calculation of the overall forcing F then the amount the IPCC underestimates the Global Warming effect is by a factor of ~8E10 = 80,000,000,000.

Such a gross error would be obvious (near term extinction tomorrow) EXCEPT for fact Earth is an "oceanic planet" with a 30 to 40 year (or greater for some effects) thermal time constant. I.e. the obvious indicators (more flooding, air temperature rise, ice melting, more frequent and stronger storms, sea level rising, jet stream wander, droughts, more fires, etc.) are only beginning to show, but NTE is very likely impossible to avoid in cultures that value current profits more than the conditions they leave to their grandchildren. ...

And Billvon should stop intentionally twisting my "IPCC ignores" especially as more than half the many times I have said that I am careful to add "in their analysis" or "in their linerarized computation" model, etc.

 

[sculptor]

extraordinarily rapid sea level rise to infer a matching natural, extraordinarily rapid atmospheric temperature boost

trying to warn you guys that you are setting up a strong likelihood of disaster:

Not to be presumptuous, but I have a question for the APC: why did they pick the freak year of 1998 to base their entire analysis on? Because if they had picked any other year, most of their questions would have to be modified considerably.

And another: is the APC familiar with the book "How To Lie With Statistics" ? Just asking.

Jeez dadio, you need to back off a tad.

What do you mean "you guys" white boy?(It was you and your elitists war mongering industrialists who f--ked up our world------and don't think that we are likely to forgive you anytime soon) Are you still a shill for Monsanto?

"Catastrophic ice sheet collapse"--"17 ft sea level rise in less than 1000 years"------if not by rapid warming, then you have a better explanation? Mighty mouse? The hand of god? Pixies doing a jig on the ice? Penguins all stamping their little flippers in unison?
Or, are you just being pugnacious?

Perhaps, it is you who is behaving like a climate science denier here?

I have no idea who the APC you are referencing here is. Armenian Pugilists' Collective? Anti-articulate Punks from Cleveland? (previously known as the south Erie mumblers society)

if you want to read the minutes from the APS meeting, here's the link:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

In a previous life, The APS were in the alarmists' camp. (which led many of their distinguished members to resign)
Nice to see that their leadership has finally removed their collective heads from that part of their collective anatomies where the sun don't shine. You would be wise to do likewise.

 

[billvon]

And Billvon should stop intentionally twisting my "IPCC ignores" especially as more than half the many times I have said that I am careful to add "in their analysis" or "in their linerarized computation" model, etc.

They do not ignore climate feedbacks in their analysis. They do not ignore feedbacks in their linearized computation model. They do indeed include them.

Shall I adopt your tactics when discussing things with you? For example, the next time you post on methane feedback from clathrates, I could post "BillyT IGNORES warming from CO2! He thinks methane is the ONLY important greenhouse gas! Can you trust someone who does not know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?" I suspect that would annoy you since it would misrepresent your position.

 

[sculptor]

Here, I present the longer version Of the APS questions from the above quoted.
There is much much more, available here:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

• This IPCC text lists internal variability, forcing inadequacies, and model over-responsiveness as
all possibly contributing to the stasis, but without a quantitative resolution. To what would you
attribute the stasis?
• If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of
increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and
in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
• What are the implications of this stasis for confidence in the models and their projections?
• Some analyses attempt to fit the GMST over almost a century by a linear combination of
aerosol, ENSO, CO2, and TSI7
. As the natural aerosol and ENSO forcings are coherent only over a
few years, only anthropogenic aerosols, CO2, and perhaps TSI are responsible for interdecadal
climate change. As the anthropogenic aerosols and CO2 were present only after about 1850,
this picture implies that only variations in TSI are responsible for centennial-scale climate change
prior to the 20th Century. [See AR5 WG1 Figure 5.7 below.]
o Are there any other possible multidecadal modes of variability? If so, how is that
variability accounted for?
o What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI? Is it coincidence that
the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle in about a century?
• Some have suggested (e.g., Meehl et al., Nature Climate Change 1, 360 (2011)] that the “missing
heat”8 is going into the deep ocean, causing mK temperature rises. [IPCC quoted above notes
“…a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean.”]
o Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this
hypothesis quantitatively?
o Why would the heat sequestration have “turned on” at the turn of this century?
o What could make it “turn off” and when might that occur?
o Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear
in the atmosphere?
• IPCC suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to “internal variability.” Yet climate
models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare (von Storch et al., 2013, available at
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_g
lobal_warming ) and models cannot reproduce the observed GMST even with the observed
radiative forcing [See figure immediately below from the AR5 WG1 report].
o What is the definition of “internal variability”? Is it poorly defined initial conditions in
the models or an intrinsically chaotic nature of the climate system? If the latter, what
features of the climate system are predictable?
o How would the models’ underestimate of internal variability impact detection and
attribution?
o How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem
with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters?
A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?

Again:
All good questions.
Science may be said to be a series of ever improving questions.

 

[Billy T]

They do not ignore climate feedbacks in their analysis. They do not ignore feedbacks in their linearized computation model. They do indeed include them.

If they do then you should be able to show how - where, for example, is the fact that ozone (and especially the OH radical) and CH4 interact to amplify the life time and effect of CH4 - it was 9.6 years in 2003 and 12.6 years in 2013* - I. e. every molecule of CH4 released now does more damage before it is oxidized to H2O and CO2. Here is how ozone ( the more important OH- is not even considered linearly! As it only indirectly increases the radiative forcing of CH4.) Here are the nine things the IPCC use in the analysis:

Where for example is the accelerated ice melting, due to jet stream wander increase, bring up warm air for near the Gulf of Mexico as it sends arctic air down thru the deep South? Where is the increase rate of ice melting due to fact that the humidity is increasing and each gram of water vapor not only cools, giving up heat to the ice, but also gives 540 calories to the ice as it makes the phase change from vapor to liquid? Where is the fact more open water gives time for waves to grow in amplitude before the slam into a floating ice sheet and break it up, sending the ice chunks into the lower albedo of warmer water (not soot on ice effect) the sun has warmed to melt the ice faster from the bottom up now?

Yes the IPCC does include, as you can see in table above, the simple direct effect of soot on ice albedo dropping on rate of ice melting, but not even one of these just discussed strong, NON-LINEAR, positive feed backs is included. And (at least one more, which I briefly forgot) they ignore in their analysis: The more frequent forest fires with hotter and drier air in some forests, is putting more soot on the ice each year plus as ice melts, the soot deposited years ago is being exposed too. - ALL these and many more are amplifying the rate of ices melting BY A NON-LINEAR MUTUAL INTERCTION PROCESSE THE IPCC IGNORES.

* Currently the half life of CH4 is increasing by 0.3 years every year, and even that rate of increase is accelerating as the OH- concentration drops.

... I could post "BillyT IGNORES warming from CO2! He thinks methane is the ONLY important greenhouse gas! ...

Yes you could, but you would be lying as I have never said that. However, you repeatedly and still say IPPC does include the pair wise (and thus inherently non-linear) mutual interaction feed backs but still have not given even one example of where they do so, despite prior request - they can't do that in a linearized model. The ignored terms are of the form F(j , k )where this function reflects the increase in effect "j" due to positive feed back from effect k and conversely the increase in effect "k" due to positive feed back from effect "j". The vast majority of these non-linear mutual pair-wise amplifications are very tiny, but some like I discussed above causing ice to melt more rapidly than the simple linear model suggests are very important. There are so many their total effect may dominate the nine terms that IPCC does consider linearly. How many? See data in my post 988, but here is the answer in brief quote from there:

" The number is more that 31 factorial (31 !). I.e. #1 interacts with 30 others; #2 interacts with 29 others (interaction with #1 is already counted); #3 with 28 others etc.) 31 ! = 8.2228387E33 So if the magnitude of the average positive feed back contribution to Global Warming is only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 = 1E(-23) as important as factors IPCC does include in their linearized calculation of the overall forcing F then the amount the IPCC underestimates the Global Warming effect is by a factor of ~8E10 = 80,000,000,000." Read more in post 988 to understand why this is not yet showing up much. (Hint: ocean's huge heat capacity and decades long time constants.)

In non-scientific notation IPCC omits more than:
8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 terms of the form F(j , k ) so big a number I doubt it even has a name!

 

[billvon]

If they do then you should be able to show how

Sure.

IPCC: "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."

Wikipedia: "The global warming projections contained in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) include carbon cycle feedbacks."

=======================================
IPCC synthesis report 4:
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks

Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing. Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR.

Cloud feedbacksremain the largest source of uncertainty. Spatial patterns of climate response are largely controlled by climate processes and feedbacks. For example, sea-ice albedo feedbacks tend to enhance the high latitude response.

Warming reduces terrestrial and ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions remaining in the atmosphere. This positive carbon cycle feedback leads to larger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for a given emissions scenario
==================
IPCC FAQ:

There are many feedback mechanisms in the climate system that can either amplify (‘positive feedback’) or diminish (‘negative feedback’) the effects of a change in climate forcing. For example, as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases warm Earth’s climate, snow and ice begin to melt. This melting reveals darker land and water surfaces that were beneath the snow and ice, and these darker surfaces absorb more of the Sun’s heat, causing more warming, which causes more melting, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This feedback loop, known as the ‘ice-albedo feedback’, amplifies the initial warming caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases.

The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.
=================

There are two possibilities here. One is that you are unaware of the IPCC's continual inclusion of feedback in their climate models. However I have pointed the text above (and from other IPCC sources) several times. Two is that you are intentionally lying even after being shown the proof that the IPCC does consider feedback in their models.

So if you want to be seen as someone who lies deliberately to bolster their political position - keep it up.

Yes you could, but you would be lying as I have never said that.

Then don't do it to other people.

 

[iceaura]

"Catastrophic ice sheet collapse"--"17 ft sea level rise in less than 1000 years"------if not by rapid warming, then you have a better explanation?

Not only me, but every reputable scientist in the field including the one you were quoting, has a better explanation than yours.

 

[Photizo]

"This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration."

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html


http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/02/18/owning-up-to-mistakes/

P.S.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/17326/why_do_people_find_it_so_hard.html

notice the three main reasons people think others are wrong listed in the TED article (yes, the author makes spelling errors)...compare them to the comments leveled at "deniers" by posters such as Aqueous ID et. al ... I don't believe any of those labeled as deniersin this thread ever employ the same accusations toward those with whom they disagree.

Key word/virtue: humility

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/02/19/how-to-own-up-to-mistakes/

 

[iceaura]

What do you mean "you guys" white boy?

AGW deniers. Like you.

"Catastrophic ice sheet collapse"--"17 ft sea level rise in less than 1000 years"------if not by rapid warming, then you have a better explanation?

Of course - I could, for example, adopt one or more of the standard explanations offered by researchers like Raymo or the other reputable scientists you quoted.

Or I could throw up my hands and say there wasn't one yet.

Nobody but you and the corrupt political sources you rely on thinks that the sudden collapse of major ice sheets, or any other event that raises sea level that rapidly, is ever caused by a matching, equally sudden rise in global atmospheric temperatures. That's not a plausible cause, and there is no evidence of it happening anyway.

Perhaps, it is you who is behaving like a climate science denier here?

You are denying even the findings of researchers you quote as exemplary.

And you do this:

Perhaps, it is you who is behaving like a climate science denier here?

I have no idea who the APC you are referencing here is.

to illustrate the answer.

Again:
All good questions.
Science may be said to be a series of ever improving questions.

I still like mine best: why did the APS select the freak year, the obvious statistical outlier - 1998 - to base their entire body of questions and descriptions on?

One would assume somebody at the APS is a capable statistician, and that is an obvious issue with their entire approach. Since everything they base their questions on depends on the selection of that year as the crucial one, how they chose it is fundamental to how these questions are to be answered.

 

[Trippy]

Yes, but:
More information about our star is coming much more rapidly with improved instrumentation, and processing power.
Which begs the question:
How many climate models were reworked after livingston and Penn's recent work?

I presume here that you're referring to their predictions regarding solar cycle 25?

Presumably none - variations in insolation are an input, they're not a part of the model that needs to be 'changed' like, for example, cloud feedback, and the interactions between cloud and haze.

How can models take long term insolation into account when we know so little about it's source?

I keep seeing comments such as this, but here's the thing, are you proposing some kind of new physics? This goes back to the conversation I was having with someone - might even have been you, as to whether or not we've seen the full range of solar variability.

...............
as/re Svensmark
One thing I've never seen addressed well is:
If a quiet sun means a weakened heliosphere and more cosmic rays
and If that equates to much more cloud cover
and assuming that clouds reflect much heat back to the earth
then
Will increased cloud cover moderate or exacerbate the cooling of the earth during a grand minimum?
if one or the other, then by what amount?

My understanding is that whether cloud cover has a net warming or cooling effect depends on its altitude (to a certain point anyway). My recollection of Svensmarks proposal is that the increased GCR flux leads to increased cloud cover during minima, resulting in a higher albedo and lower temperature. The problem, as I recall, is that on the one hand, there isn't much evidence for a correlation, at least to the extent proposed by Svensmark, and on the other hand there are certain intermediates predicted by his hypothesis that have yet to be observed.

Much more information from many different researchers who have been looking into things like the varying uv strengths of the changing sun, and it's effect on the upper levels of the atmosphere.

These things reflect atmospheric dynamics and represent things in the current climate models that may actually need to be changed.

Is it likely that we are near the middle of a superinterglacial much like mis11?

All of the available evidence (eg the current phase of the milankovich cycles) suggests we should be entering a cool phase of the climate, and yet it's warming.

 

[Billy T]

... IPCC synthesis report 4:
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks

Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing. Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR.

Cloud feedbacksremain the largest source of uncertainty. Spatial patterns of climate response are largely controlled by climate processes and feedbacks. For example, sea-ice albedo feedbacks tend to enhance the high latitude response.

Warming reduces terrestrial and ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions remaining in the atmosphere. This positive carbon cycle feedback leads to larger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for a given emissions scenario
==================
IPCC FAQ:

There are many feedback mechanisms in the climate system that can either amplify (‘positive feedback’) or diminish (‘negative feedback’) the effects of a change in climate forcing. For example, as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases warm Earth’s climate, snow and ice begin to melt. This melting reveals darker land and water surfaces that were beneath the snow and ice, and these darker surfaces absorb more of the Sun’s heat, causing more warming, which causes more melting, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This feedback loop, known as the ‘ice-albedo feedback’, amplifies the initial warming caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases.

The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.
=================

There are two possibilities here. One is that you are unaware of the IPCC's continual inclusion of feedback in their climate models. However I have pointed the text above (and from other IPCC sources) several times. Two is that you are intentionally lying even after being shown the proof that the IPCC does consider feedback in their models. ...

Yes I agree, and did so more than 10 page back, that IPCC is aware of feed backs. As your post show - they do DISSCUSS them, but I'm still waiting for even one example of how they do the impossible - include any MUTUAL INTERACTION, like F(k, j) in their linearized calculations.

I. e. where is it in F = F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5 + F6 + F7 + F8 + F8 + F9 = 1.6 W/m^2 with upper bound of 2.4 w/m^2

I'm not lying - Just wanting at least one example of the many binary feed backs interaction in their math analysis. You can choose any one of the more than
8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 terms of the form F(j , k ) that are already known to exist that I think are not included in the calculations and show me what radiative forcing was assigned to it.
If I get to choose one interacting pair, I take jet stream's increasing wander delivering more heat to the arctic each year than last year, (as effect "j") and ice melting from the bottom up now as floating on water with more artic heat delivered by the wandering jet stream, as (as effect "k") for two interaction, binary non- linear effects not included in the IPCC's calculations, perhaps not even mentioned in their discussions as not well recognized more than a year ago when report 5 was first sent out for all the government to review / modify the text.

 

[billvon]

Yes I agree, and did so more than 10 page back, that IPCC is aware of feed backs. As your post show - they do DISSCUSS them, but I'm still waiting for even one example of how they do the impossible - include any MUTUAL INTERACTION, like F(k, j) in their linearized calculations.

You are changing the goal posts.

You have said several times that the IPCC does not account for positive feedbacks. "I had noted that The IPCC totally ignores feed backs with a linearized analysis model." "I did not say IPCC was unaware of theses feed backs. They just ignore them in the LINEARIZED model of a NON-linear problem." "they only add up the current estimates of "forcing factors" and ignore these feed backs "

Those statements are lies. The IPCC does, in fact, take into account positive feedbacks in their models. You can certainly disagree with their methodology. If you were honest you could say "I disagree with the method by which the IPCC takes into account positive feedbacks." I imagine that would not have the shock-and-awe emotional impact, though, of saying "the IPCC totally ignores feedbacks in their models."

Like I said, if you don't want people to misrepresent your work, don't misrepresent others.

 

[Trippy]

Just wanting at least one example of the many binary feed backs interaction in their math analysis. You can choose any one of the more than
8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 terms of the form F(j , k ) that are already known to exist that I think are not included in the calculations and show me what radiative forcing was assigned to it.

Just one example?

IPCC AR4 uses HadCM3.
HadCM3 includes a secondary carbon cycle feedback due to the loss of the amazon rainforest in response to reduced percipitation over South America which forms part of IPCC AR4's predictions of temperature in 2100...

 

[Billy T]

You are changing the goal posts.

No I am not. Recently I re-quoted part of old post 988 to show even back then I acknowledged the IPCC was aware of and discussed positive feed backs, but ignored them in their calculations. - Same story consistently.

I admit that after clearly stating that I was complaining about their lack of including any terms of the form F(j, k) in their linear analysis at least a dozen times in many posts, I occasionally (less than half the time) did not retype the entire phase but just said IPCC ignores the inter active binary terms, of the form F(j, k).

Post 988 is a specific reply to you telling I admit they discuss positive feed back but don't include them in any linearized radiative forcing model as that is impossible as I also proved mathematically and illustrated with trig functions. How many times must I specifically tell you this same consistent complaint?

 

[Trippy]

Just one example?

IPCC AR4 uses HadCM3.
HadCM3 includes a secondary carbon cycle feedback due to the loss of the amazon rainforest in response to reduced percipitation over South America which forms part of IPCC AR4's predictions of temperature in 2100...

Actually, on second reading, I think that this is a prediction of HadCM3 rather than a feedback loop that's explicitly written into HadCM3 - which only serves to illustrate the point that feedback loops don't neccessarily have to be explicitly written into the code for their effects to arise naturally within the code.

For example, the arctic albedo feedback loop doesn't have to be explicitly written into the code. As long as there is an accounting of sea ice written into the code that is depedent on regional temperature, and the regional temperature is dependent on regional abedo, then the feedback loop will arise naturally, as it does in the real world.

Like wise, if arctic methane emissions are tied to regional temperature, then that feedback loop will also arise naturally.

Let us never forget daisy world.

 

[Billy T]

Just one example?

IPCC AR4 uses HadCM3.
HadCM3 includes a secondary carbon cycle feedback due to the loss of the amazon rainforest in response to reduced percipitation over South America which forms part of IPCC AR4's predictions of temperature in 2100...

Thanks, assuming they gave a numeric increase in the soot (or black carbon) radiative forcing then that is one example. In their nine item bar chart "Black soot on snow," the fifth item listed, is assigned a radiative forcing of 0.1Watt / m^2 but that can't be Amazon soot on snow, so I assume they were speaking of the fact that in 2005 at last, the Amazon was a net source of CO2.

CO2 is the first item of nine listed in their chart with a total radiative forcing of 1.66 Watt/m^2. Are you sure part of that 1.66, even 0.01, was contributed by dry Amazon releasing more than CO2 it absorbed? Do you have the page number in report 4 where they evaluate NUMERICALY the Amazon's CO2 release or did they just give recognition to it in their discussion but not give any numerical estimate in terms of W/m^2 ?

Their extremely long reports almost seem to be designed to insure very few actually read them for any numerical data - just a flood of discussion.

 

[billvon]

I acknowledged the IPCC was aware of and discussed positive feed backs, but ignored them in their calculations.

And that is the lie. They do NOT ignore positive feedbacks, as I have pointed out in half a dozen places above. They neither ignore them in their discussions nor their calculations.

From the IPCC:
=============
For the A2 emission scenario, this positive feedback leads to a greater atmospheric CO2 concentration (Friedlingstein et al., 2006) as noted above, which is in addition to the concentrations in the standard coupled models assessed in the AR4 (e.g., Meehl et al., 2005b).
=============
So tell me. How do they ignore positive feedback in their calculations if their A2 emission scenario explicitly takes them into account?

 

[Billy T]

And that is the lie. They do NOT ignore positive feedbacks, as I have pointed out in half a dozen places above. They neither ignore them in their discussions nor their calculations.

From the IPCC:
=============
For the A2 emission scenario, this positive feedback leads to a greater atmospheric CO2 concentration (Friedlingstein et al., 2006) as noted above, which is in addition to the concentrations in the standard coupled models assessed in the AR4 (e.g., Meehl et al., 2005b).
=============
So tell me. How do they ignore positive feedback in their calculations if their A2 emission scenario explicitly takes them into account?

As I just replied to Trippy, "calculation" means using numbers not words. What was then w /m^2 the positive feed back added? Do you have the page number where I can check?

 

[billvon]

As I just replied to Trippy, "calculation" means using numbers not words. What was then w /m^2 the positive feed back added? Do you have the page number where I can check?

Nope, nor will I look for it. If you decide that you do not agree with the IPCC's method of handling positive feedback, then you can do the work yourself and explain why you don't; I won't do that for you. My only goal was to get you to acknowledge that they do, in fact, take it into account.

You have done that - so my work here is done. You can either continue lying, or you can be more accurate in the future and state that you disagree with how they account for positive feedback. The choice is yours.

 

[Billy T]

Nope, nor will I look for it. If you decide that you do not agree with the IPCC's method of handling positive feedback, then you can do the work yourself and explain why you don't; I won't do that for you. My only goal was to get you to acknowledge that they do, in fact, take it into account.

You have done that - so my work here is done. You can either continue lying, or you can be more accurate in the future and state that you disagree with how they account for positive feedback. The choice is yours.

No, I have not agree they include feed back in the calculation math - only in their discussions, not their calculations.

I'm not going to waste time looking for what is impossible, as I proved and illustrated, in any linearized model of anything. The model MUST at least have some quadratic terms to include functions of the form F(j, k).