As we said in the paper there is a huge gulf between the original
simple energy balance model from Budyko and the one we use.
Not exact matches
Studies that point towards the lower end also rely on
simple energy -
balance models with constant feedbacks for all forcings — and forcing quantifications that are derived
from various
modeling exercises.
Climate
models vary in complexity
from simple 1 - dimensional
energy balance models to full - fledged general circulation
models.
I think you may be referring to ECS estimate
from different approaches — complex
models and
simple energy balance models /
energy balance calculations.
«Willis builds a strawman Willis makes a logical fallacy known as the strawman fallacy here, when he says: The current climate paradigm says that the surface air temperature is a linear function of the «forcing»... Change in Temperature (∆ T) = Change in Forcing (∆ F) times Climate Sensitivity What he seems to have done is taking an equation relating to a
simple energy balance model (probably
from this Wikipedia entry) and applied it to the much more complex climate system.
As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks
from Variations in Earth's Radiant
Energy Balance), for one
simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate
models generated
from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).
Robock used a
simple energy balance model to investigate how various forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, may have influenced global temperatures
from about the 1880s to the 1960s.
Fred, I completely disagree about the relative strength of evidence as to climate sensitivity
from simulations by AOCGMs (Chapter 8 of WG1 «Climate
Models and Their Evaluation») and
from observational evidence that is either direct or intermediated through
simple Energy Balance Models.
Judith, is the distinction Nic makes above between evidence for climate sensitivity «
from simulations by AOCGMs... and
from observational evidence that is either direct or intermediated through
simple Energy Balance Models» relevant to this «structural uncertainty»?
They then estimated the heat flux into the thermocline using a standard (accepted)
model, with a thermocline eddy diffusion coefficient of 1.2E - 5 m ^ 2 / s
from Ledwell: We estimate s by using this slope along with k = 1.2x10 - 5 m2 / s (the eddy diffusion coefficient in the thermocline [Ledwell et al., 1998]-RRB- So if they are wrong, either their basic
model is wrong (which seems unlikely - it is just a
simple energy balance model after all), or their choice of eddy diffusion coefficient is wrong.
From my reading his is a
simple, physical
energy balance model that fits the data very well.