http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=0

‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems -atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each
of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another.
The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales. We outline here the rudiments of the way
in which dynamical systems theory provides an understanding of this vast range of variability. Such an understanding proceeds through the
study of successively more complex patterns of behavior. These spatio-temporal patterns are studied within narrower ranges of time scales,
such as intraseasonal, interannual, interdecadal and multi-millennial. The main results of dynamical systems theory that have demonstrated their importance for the study of climate variability involve bifurcation theory and the ergodic theory of dynamical systems.’ http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf

Sensitivity – excepting the subtleties of Michael Ghil and colleagues – makes very little sense against a background of extreme variability. But if anything – you would project the warming at 0.08 degrees C/decade forward for a few decades at least. No particular problem any time soon.

The topic was cashing in on the CAGW craze.

Didn’t realize that either Cheney or Romney was doing so.

Got some data?

Max

Yes, if it occurs “immediately” in a discussion that’s about climate science. No, if it occurs as part of a discussion of science policy and the poltical dynamics of the climate issue.

If you are correct, it surely means there has been a substantial warming even at a time of very little added co2 in the first half of the century (and some of the previous one).

The logical conclusion is surely that Man can’t exist on this planet without substantially changing it as our ability to emit zero co2 is limited?

tonyb

As to picturesque poverty, we can maintain a few centres of quaint destitution, like Nehru did for Gandhi and Mrs. Roosevelt. Beggary is expensive, but wealthy punters will pay to watch it – briefly.

Since we cannot measure with any accuracy how much CO2 is ending up going into the ocean and how much is ending up going into the biosphere (principally plant growth), it is foolish to ASS-U-ME one thing or another.

What we do know from observation is:

- the percentage of the CO2 emitted by humans that “remains” in the atmosphere varies from 15% to 90% on a year-to-year basis
- over a longer period it has been around half
- this percentage has decreased slightly since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1959, by around 1 percentage point per decade

IOW the “missing” CO2 has increased by around 5 percentage points from 1959 to today.

Whether this added amount has gone into a slightly warmer ocean or into increased plant growth is still an open question AFAIK.

Since studies show that plant growth is enhanced at higher CO2 concentrations and slightly warmer temperatures at the same time that net ocean absorption would theoretically diminish with a slightly warmer ocean, one might surmise that the added amount is going primarily into added plant growth.

But I do not believe we know the answer to that question.

Max

As for contested – I refer you to Palle’s new study.

http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Fascinating.

More please.

Al Gore left public office with a net worth of less than $1 million.

He is now worth around $300 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/13/michael-wolff-how-do-we-feel-about-a-rich-al-gore/1830959/

In comparison, Dr. James E. Hansen has been a small fish so far (as a NASA employee it was not easy to get into the big bucks).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

But now that he is retiring to fight the good war on global warming, his prospects should improve.

It warms the heart to see people “doing well by doing good”, doesn’t it?.

Max

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/clement_etal_2009.pdf

‘The decadal changes in NE Pacific clouds and climate are linked to well-known basinwide climate shifts (25–30). This is illustrated in Fig. 2, A and B, which shows that the regression patterns of SST, SLP, and ERA-40 surface winds on the NE Pacific SST time series resemble the now familiar pattern of Pacific Decadal Variability. The SST signal spans the
entire Pacific basin and persists throughout the year, and the SLP pattern comprises a weaker Walker circulation in the equatorial region and a deeper Aleutian low in the North Pacific (Fig. 2B). The extension of the North Pacific SLP low anomaly into the stratocumulus region constitutes a weakening of the climatological high, and trade winds around the high
are weakened (hence the anomalous southerly and westerly flow shown in Fig. 2B). The subsidence and lower tropospheric stability (LTS) in the NE Pacific are both weaker when SST is warm there (fig. S2).’

Zhu et al (2007) found that cloud formation for ENSO and for global warming have different characteristics and are the result of different physical mechanisms. The change in low cloud cover in the 1997-1998 El Niño came mainly as a decrease in optically thick stratocumulus and stratus cloud. The decrease is negatively correlated to local SST anomalies, especially in the eastern tropical Pacific, and is associated with a change in convective activity. ‘During the 1997–1998 El Niño, observations indicate that the SST increase in the eastern tropical Pacific enhances the atmospheric convection, which shifts the upward motion to further south and breaks down low stratiform clouds, leading to a decrease in low cloud amount in this region. Taking into account the obscuring effects of high cloud, it was found that thick low clouds decreased by more than 20% in the eastern tropical Pacific… In contrast, most increase in low cloud amount due to doubled CO2 simulated by the NCAR and GFDL models occurs in the subtropical subsidence regimes associated with a strong atmospheric stability.’
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD008174/abstract

The trouble with wing nuts is the lack of depth, a monomania and an unshakable certitude in their moral and intellectual superiority.

Ah but that’s still denial see. You aren’t *accepting* the fact, you are just in effect saying: “hey that number is low enough for my (political) goals so on this occasion I won’t object.”

Skeptic are loathe to accept that CO2 has a significant, let alone dominant role in global temperature even though that’s what the evidence overwhelmingly points at.

Why? Because if they admit it and the public see them admit it, the public would realize there was little relevant disagreement about AGW and the significance of CO2. And that would make it harder for skeptics to fulfill their political aims.

It’s much easier to get their political way if the skeptics lie sufficiently so that the public think not only is AGW in doubt but GW too, the temperature records are all wrong, CO2 is just a trace gas, it’s the Sun, etc etc.

Yeah. Cass Sunstein sees wing nuts as “them other folks”.

“Wing” (with a wink) refers to “right wing”, of course.

And, since “wing nuts” disagree with Sunstein, they are obviously of inferior intelligence.

A simple world.

Max