Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: AstroPhool Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 57531  
Subject: Re: New Hansen Study Date: 9/20/2013 9:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
DB2: Actually, I said you can't use a linear regression. It was, I believe, Phil who was arguing from the linear relationship in post 45286.

The linear relation between log(atmospheric CH4 concentration) and temperature is found from the ice core record, so this is an empirically established relation. More fundamentally, a similar linear relation is found to exist between log(CO2) and temperature. Parrenin et al. (2013) showed this relation, for a 12kyr long period beginning 20 kyr ago (from around the LGM extending into the start of the Holocene) was a very tight linear relationship with an R^2=0.99. The issue I've tried to explain in this thread is what do these relationships mean?

My interpretation of the CO2-dT (temp change) relationship is that it represents the long-term radiative equilibrium (or energy balance) climate state of the Earth. Tweak the forcings a bit, and the climate varies in response, but always in such a way as to move along that empirical CO2-dT relation. The climate system behaves as a system with one degree of freedom: effectively one can imagine the climate being controlled by a single knob representing all the forcings. Turn the knob down and you get an ice age; turn it up and you get an interglacial. But the climate (ice core) record shows us that the climate always varied along this well-defined curve in (CO2,temp) parameter space.

Or I should say always did, because the present climate state is now far from that relation (which held for at least half a million years of Earth's climate history) and getting further away each passing year. My interpretation (and one of Kirchner's possibles) is the current anomalous climate position is a consequence of the extremely rapid change in forcings that we are now imposing by the large scale burning of fossil fuels. The implication is that there is a lot of change "in the pipeline" because eventually the climate system will return to the equilibrium relation it has followed for a million or more years. The warming to date is by no means all the warming we will see, even if all fossil fuel burning stops today.

However, figuring out this response is not just a simple matter of extending the linear regression. One has to estimate this response by considering the timescales needed for the system to return to equilibrium.

Phil
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Post of the Day:
Value Hounds

Netflix Riles Investors
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement