DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:


What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:



Oh good. You are starting to ask questions.

"For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper).

Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

It is any period you want, basically.

And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

so what r the 2 methods they used to figure their one was 15% less than the other, and are they saying the formula is wrong or that in different area's it is variable.

Quote:


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076649

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 2:10pm:

that 15% u know from the original post Lee 

do your own work.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 3:22pm:


What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:



Oh good. You are starting to ask questions.

"For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper).

Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

It is any period you want, basically.

And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

Ok so having read this I was wondering