Temperature vs Concentration in AR5

ar5-spm-fig10 As I was saying, somewhere, to someone the other day, - oh, I reemember, it was to Timmy - you can get rid of some of the problems with future projections by drawing temperature against CO2 emissions, instead of against time. If you do that, you (the person drawing the figure) doesn't have to prejudge the separate issue of future CO2 emissions - you can just let your reader decide that for themselves, and then read temperature changes corresponding to CO2 off the chart.

I'm glad to see that the IPCC have been paying attention to my private conversations, and have included figure 10. David Hone is very keen on it too. The RCPs closely overlay each other. Note that the 1% CO2 line and its grey-blue shading is rather misleading: its lower than the rest because, as the IPCC sayeth, "the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 drivers". I'd have omitted it if I was drawing the pic.

More like this

But you can't avoid time, given the "pipeline". You have to make some decision about whether you're including short-term dynamics or long-term dynamics there. Don't you?

[I'm not quite sure what your question is. It turns out that, for plausible emission scenarios, what matters is the total CO2 emission, not the pathway or time to that level. Its just another way of looking at things; a way to rescale the x-axis into CO2 instead of time -W]

By carrot eater (not verified) on 05 Oct 2013 #permalink

> not the pathway or time to that level
Are the plankton scientists in agreement on this? I'd imagine that rate of change would favor one or another species.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 05 Oct 2013 #permalink

I'm asking if this is an equilibrium response of some sort or another. Meaning, if I looked up the cumulative emissions to today, would I get today's temperature anomaly, or the committed anomaly once some transients have decayed and you've reached some sort of equilibrium?

[Ah, no, its the transient response. The response isn't quite linear in concentration. As we know, there is committed warming, the system isn't in equilibrium as you ramp up the forcing, unless you do so veeery slowly -W]

By carrot eater (not verified) on 05 Oct 2013 #permalink

Oh dear, is that suposed to be science? Temperature anomaly also tracks the growth of the old Elm tree over the fence of my back yard.

nevermind, I see I missed it:
Royal Society Live @RSocLive 3 Oct
Prof Le Quéré now speaking @royalsociety on carbon + other biogeochemical cycles - their forcing and feedbacks in climate system #RSclimate
Retweeted by Gavin Schmidt

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 06 Oct 2013 #permalink

Re your assertion on Mike's site that

(A) the IPCC's assertion that the Himalayan glaciers were going to be entirely melted by 2035 was "trivia" - clearly this is some new definition of the word not used by speakers of the English language

[Melting, or not, by 2035, considered as an effect in the eral world, would not be trivia. But "the IPCC got 2035 wrong" as a septic complaint is trivia. Indeed, one so trivial that they're usually obliged to lie about the details. Which brings us on to: -W]

(B) that it did not appear in the IPCC report

[You're not very good at reading. Try again: "It wasn’t even in the WG I report" -W]

(D) that they retracted it as quickly as possible rather than saying those who doubted the nonsense were engaged in "voodoo science"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667… Clearly, on all counts you have achieved the standard of accuracy common to the alarmist movement.

[Sigh. If you've lived to be as old as you are now without learning that you cannot trust what you read in the Meeja, you're a fool -W]

As to your claim that you do not censor - that also is an unambiguous falsehood, though I will admit you do not personally go for obscenity and you do not censor as enthusiastically as most of the anti-scientific quacks on "scienceblogs". A number of your "non-existent" censorings are here http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/scienceblogs-eco-fascist…

[Again, you need to try to read what people write, not what you make up. I wrote: "No-one is banned there". That is unambiguously true. Censorship - ah, that's in the eye of the beholder. I notice, however, like most of the septic folk who complain about my censorship, that you're entirely happy with the censorship at WUWT. As to your pet guy, its pretty hard to disentangle what he is saying. This is Neil Craig, yes? Oh, that's you. Then you should be able to explain more clearly. Exactly which piece of text do you claim wasn't published here? Note that I have definitely snipped some of your repetetive off-topic stuff: this isn't a free-fire zone -W]

By Neil craig (not verified) on 07 Oct 2013 #permalink

What did this mean ?

Ah, no, its the transient response. The response isn't quite linear in concentration...

The first sentence was clear on its own, but not when the second one is added.

If it had been the equilibrium response that would have been non-linear too, because of the log relationship between
forcing and concentration.

[Pah. I know what I meant to say. "The response isn't quite linear in log concentration" -W]

By Geoff Wexler (not verified) on 07 Oct 2013 #permalink

Willy, it does if you can demonstrate a physical link between your tree's height and atmospheric temperature.

By Garhighway (not verified) on 07 Oct 2013 #permalink