Talk:Climate sensitivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject 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.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] I reviewed the allegedly independent observational contraints on climate sensitivity

All citations, including (surprisingly) Shaviv are to some extent based on models, with Shaviv explicitly relying upon Gregory for part of his work. Gregory explicitly relied upon models for his estimate of heat flux into the ocean for the late 19th century, and based other assumptions on model insights and results. Annan relied upon models to analyze the maunder minimum, and also mistakenly assumed the maunder was long enough to achieve equilibrium, which is contradicted by climate commitment studies, which estimate closer to 1000 years.--Poodleboy 07:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AR4

According to the draft of the fourth IPCC, current models favor a climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees C, with a narrowing of the range from previous versions. See page 8-42: "As discussed in Chapter 10, the current generation of AOGCMs covers a range of equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.1 to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C, Table 8.8.1, Chapter 10, Box 10.2)". This page should be updated to reflect newer work, at least once the final draft of the IPCC is released. -- 207.71.226.132 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Better to use the SPM, which is released. I've updated the page William M. Connolley 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseline

It would be good if a little more information were given (possibly by links to other articles) about the changes which constitute a doubling of CO2. It is not clear from this article that temperature is related to CO2 logarithmically, or why it assumed to be so, and so it might (to people such as myself who would guess it was a linear relationship) raise questions of when and where the doubling is measured from (280ppm? 380ppm?). Also it could be clearer how N20, CH4 etc are included in the single CO2 parameter. Thanks if anyone can add this. --87.112.15.72 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't talk about the T-CO2 log relation, nor is it clear that it should do. Baseline: everyone thinks of 280 but I'm not sure this is necessary William M. Connolley 14:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schwartz

I removed Schwartz [1]. It too new, and almost undoubtedly wrong [2] William M. Connolley 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I protest against POV deletion of peer reviewed literature Hans Erren (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see the obvious errors then you have shown yourself to be incompetent to comment. If you can see the errors and want to include it regardless, then you are dishonest.Jdannan (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Jdannan, please reread Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Also see Climate Insensitivity and AR(1) Models . The issue doesn't appear to be as clear-cut as you suppose. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not assuming anything, merely pointing out two possible conclusions, which appear to be exhaustive to me. I don't find any support for Schwartz's analysis in the link you provided. Regardless, it is but one minor paper which is hardly representative of scientific opinion. Jdannan (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)