by Judith Curry
It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- cerescokid on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Javier Vinós on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Javier Vinós on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Javier Vinós on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Javier Vinós on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Thomas W Fuller on There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- clydehspencer on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- DanB on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- BA Bushaw (ganon1950) on There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- joethenonclimatescientist on There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
-
Recent Posts
- How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Mann v. Steyn: Round 2
- IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II
- JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
- JC’s expert report
- Time to retire the term ‘renewable energy’ from serious discussion and energy policy directives
- Two model-observation comparisons confirm: CMIP6 models run too hot
- Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread
- 2023 –> 2024
- “Realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
- Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,332 other subscribersMeta
Wildfire pot boiler?
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/22/4865460/climate-change-linked-to-wildfires-heat-waves-united-nations-christiana-figueres
Climate change is ‘absolutely’ linked to rise of humans, says UN chief: Impassioned plea for action comes as humans range across globe.
“Yes there is, absolutely,” Figueres said when asked whether there is a link between climate change and more humans. “The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this rise of humanity and climate change – yet. But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that without global warming humans would be shivering in caves and not spreading in waves across Asia, Europe, and hell… even Australia…”
“Climate change absolutely linked to wild fires’
The human propaganda volcano continues to spew.
Strange air pattern could help predict heat waves
Recently I became interested in solar cycles. In particular I was trying to find out about the Gleissberg cycles. I found his (Gleissberg) papers from the forties that have tables. I discovered how complex the cycles are. Rather than to try and figure this out on my own, I wanted to see if there was more literature that would help me out. So I googled Gleissberg. I found a research paper that was published recently:
Forecasting the parameters of sunspot cycle 24 and beyond
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682608003787
After reading the abstract, I decided to buy the article. It was worth every penny!!
Gleissberg Heaven!
There are more articles with that Prof. with this being of great interest to me:
On possible drivers of Sun-induced climate changes
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682606001520
Here is a profile:
https://www.knaw.nl/en/leden/leden/4303
His website:
http://www.cdejager.com/
There is a lot of information there under the headings.
I looked at the category solar for climate etc and was glad (less reading) to find only 7 posts to go over to see if he or similar work is there. Those 7 posts are excellent with a treasure trove of info and shows very similar work but did not mention or reference this guy or to Gleissberg cycles. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t repeating something that’s already been here. Her post on 21st century cooling is well worth looking at again.
Prof Jager has different designations for the length of cycles. He said starting in 2000 we were in a transitional stage that lasts, I think, a single schwabe cycle. Next will be an R-type cycle (regular Gleissberg) that would last three or four cycles and be similar to Dalton. That would be followed by a Grand Minimum. He accepts AGW as well (just to clarify).
I also noticed that the RealClimate had a guest who cited the Solar Physics Division and the American Astronomical Society as looking to some minimums but that guest author think it’s a puny consideration and the GHG will still rule the day.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/
Also as everyone knows Maunder has been explained. It’s the volcanoes stupid.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=volcanoes-may-have-sparked
“It’s unlikely decreased solar radiation, a separate theory to explain the Little Ice Age, played a role, according to the researchers.”
[I guess you can say that without any footnotes if your writing in Scientific America.]
So it is apparently fairly mainstream accepted that we may have a minimum.
I accidentally misrepresented his cycle forecast. He said in another abstract that the Grand Minimum will start in one or two decades from the present and last one Gleissberg. I take this from his paper 2010 Variable Solar Dynamo that is located on his homepage under the heading Sun-Earth publications that is the sixth publication from the top a 32 page document from Nova Science Publishers.
ordvic | October 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Reply
“Recently I became interested in solar cycles. In particular I was trying to find out about the Gleissberg cycles.”
If you’re not already completely confused, I’m here to help. :-)
Warning: This subject is still “out-of-the-box” thinking as re mainstream science.
The first even harmonic of the 180 year Jose cycle (which is related to the periodic “Grand Minima”) would be 90 years, which is approximately the Gleissberg cycle. However, the regular portion of the Jose cycles occurs during only 50 years of the 180 years. In between, chaos reigns, so that the Gleissberg cycle is irregular. It comes and goes at irregular intervals with irregular amplitudes. The same can be said for the 60 year cycle identified by Scafetta and others which is the first odd harmonic of the Jose cycle. For the past century this cycle has been regular and predictable. Cycles with shorter periods may have other causes.
pochas,
That’s interesting, I hadn’t heard of of the Jose cycle. The longer cycles Jager (and others) point to is De Vries (or: Suess) 205-208 years and Hallstadt 2300 years (that sound like Milankovitch territory to me) You probably know that. He also does reference Scarfetti.
“Warning: This subject is still “out-of-the-box” thinking as re mainstream science.”
Yes, I could see where trying to find historical cycles to make projections would lower the
glasses on the noses a little bit, but on the other hand it didn’t stop the IPCC from making
projections with their computer models. Jager is doing what I think is relevant (and what I’m trying to
find out to the degree possible) in looking for the variation in this driver. He discusses how sunspot counting is not the discovery of underlying energy occurrence. Steven Mosher points to problems with that in a post below. However, I think it is still relevant and since there is only satellite TSI for 30 years you have to start somewhere. He goes into and gives figures for the driver in his paper “Quantifying and specifying the solar influence on
terrestrial surface temperature”
I wonder whether the Jose and DeVries cycles can really be distinguished on the basis of existing proxies. Also, the Hallstadt cycle lies right on top of the 2400 year cycle described in Charvatova(2000), which incorporates the Jose cycle.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
The “Warm Period” intervals (Minoan, Roman, Medieval) come at intervals of about 1200 years, a harmonic of the Hallstadt cycle. Now, the physics behind any connection with climate is speculative. Of course, this applies to the rest of climate science as well. I do prefer tidal and magnetic interactions to ghostly aerosols that appear and disappear as needed.
Well that puts a different spin on the cycles (pun intended). It’s interesting that he puts the minimum at 2035 approximately the same as Jager but coming from the opposite directing. Good read, thanks!
And the good news is that Prof. Cees de Jager is a climate sceptic.
He would have to be!
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-deJager-solar-forcing2.pdf
How can this simple a model work so well?
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Is it because energy balance is the main driver? Yes.
Which Solar and Volcanic data did ya use again?
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/for-all-best-fans.html
The sun’s and the earth’s, respectively.
interesting captain.
You sure Webster? BEST volcanic forcing is “fit” to BEST data not “Global” data. That NH land amplification tends to act like whole ‘nother world :)
The volcanic aerosols color in the details. I provide two profiles, one is the GISS profile maintained by Makiko Sato. Not much difference between the two.
Webster, the biggest difference is 1918, that puzzling start to Vpratt’s SAW and the strong volcanic forcing prior to 1918. That gives you a lower starting point due to volcanic. You have a near perfect fit to erroneous data, good job :)
Tisdale over at WUWT is in awe with the CSALT model
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/26/tamino-resorts-to-childish-attempts-at-humor-but-offers-nothing-of-value/
The model has a TCR of 2C for global and 3C for land.
It agree well with that of consensus climate science.
Look at how well it matches the original Figure 1.4
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1483/7nn.gif
And it still has a TCR of 2C !
All the fluctuations of SOI, TSI, etc are not something to hitch your wagon to.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | October 26, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Reply
“How can this simple a model work so well?”
Because you’re feeding it with a reliable proxy for SST. Duh. Everyone and their brother has noticed that the global average temperature record is easily decomposed into a few simple components two of which are 20 and 60 year harmonic sine waves of .1C and .2C peak-to-peak amplitude which manifest quite nicely in sea surface temperature and also in SOI. The other two components are linear ramps of +0.1C per century running through the record from 1850 and another linear ramp of 0.1C per decade that began in 1940 coinciding with the modern solar maximum (number of sunspots). You can blame a number of things that began in 1940 as the culprit – number of parts per million CO2 in the air, number of UFO sightings, and number of square inches of fabric in women’s swimsuits come to mind.
Are we having fun yet?
That’s artificial and not based on an energy balance variational approach.
“decade that began in 1940 coinciding with the modern solar maximum (number of sunspots). ”
there is no modern solar max
http://www.leif.org/research/NS-Sept-2013-Sunspots.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciling-Group-and-Wolf-Sunspot-Numbers.pdf
The modern solar max. has lasted 60 years. Use some real data for God’s sake.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots
The planet equilibiates to CO2 over hundreds of years – but equilibriates to changes in TSI instantaneously?
It is of course just part and parcel of the most pervasive delusion in human history.
Steven Mosher | October 26, 2013 at 8:09 pm |
ds:decade that began in 1940 coinciding with the modern solar maximum (number of sunspots). ”
sm: there is no modern solar max
Your response is absurd on the face of it. Sunspot count since 1940 has been corroborated by radio noise. We know there’s a recent lull which began just a decade ago. In order for there to be a lull there has to be a higher level to fall from. Duh. Does your butt buddy Lief think there was a drastic change in the way sunspots are counted beginning with just the most recent solar cycle? LOL
The longer term record has been confirmed by carbon 14 proxy. It’s a perfect sanity check since C14 production is throttled by high energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) striking nitrogen atoms hard enough to induce a beta decay into a rare carbon isotope. Sunspots are a proxy for solar magnetic activity and solar magnetic field strength throttles GCRs through more or less magnetic deflection of the charged particles away from the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Carbon-14_production
Write that down.
And Mosher, get a clue about Stanford. Never ever trust anything coming from that institute’s faculty if there’s any political controversy surrounding the subject in question. Fercrisakes you probably think Berkeley is reliably free of political bias too. Did you fall off the turnip truck just yesterday or what?
Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15±0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03±0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/le02300a.html
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/lean_2010.gif.html?sort=3&o=129
Lean and Rind (2009) go through through the multiple linear regression analysis – get a high correlation because that’s what you get when you fit a curve and still fail to predict climate.
It all fits well until it all falls in a heap.
The problem is that the variability is so great and the AGW so slight.
Webster, btw, you could probably find that your model doesn’t fit HadSST2 or 3 all that well because the dLOD is related to orbital forcing, tides, that impact sea ice stability. Arctic tides can be huge and tend to break up sea ice and dislodge loosely fix sea ice. The open water impacts land surface temperatures much more that ocean temperatures.
Then you could ignore that :)
Capt, when you are not cocooned by an alien with acid for blood work out the degrees of freedom in a fit based on five components, each with a chosen ‘lag’, from 6 to 90 months.
Doc, are you watching the “Alien” marathon too? Sigourney Weaver still makes my acidic blood boil :)
BTW if the Earth had enough degrees of freedom to produce the elephant, why should anyone think 5 degrees of freedom are enough to figure out climate?
Doc, Most of the lags don’t matter much at all — 4 out of the 5 lags are 6 months or less which is a small amount needed to propagate a stimulus over the globe in one year, and which is essentially the resolution of the time series. The long lag is due to LOD which is a long-term ocean propagating factor. Dickey of JPL among others noticed that it had an 8 year delay ~ 96 months if it is used to match the gradual SST variations.
As far as scale terms, each of the 5 are determined by regression. One of them, that due to TSI, agrees remarkably well with the theory for a temperature increase. The ln(CO2) agrees with the consensus value of TCR=2C. The 2 parametric values for volcanic Aerosols and SOI are there to fit the complicated subdecadal fluctuations and do a remarkable job. The last parameter for LOD is there to match the multi-decadal scale variations and is the most unconstrained of the parameters.
So the CSALT model really doesn’t has as many free parameters as you think. I can fit it by hand in fact, which is not something easily done with 2*5=10 degrees of freedom, unless you know what most of them are beforehand.
All the parameters are detailed here in today’s blog post:
http://ContextEarth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/
Web, I can estimate the temperature of a person using heir birthdate, the phase of the moon, the inside-leg measurement and by measuring the expansion of a fluid moving from a reservoir and into a capillary tube.
Doc Martyn,
You can’t trick WHT. He knows the inside leg measurement is irrelevant. The real secret is the neck size. Sorry to give the game away.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Clever, like Doogie Howser clever.
Webster, Yada yada, Did you even check the Tahiti and Darwin temperature records before declaring they would “zero” out in a reasonable time scale?
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-UDDrDQY3ElA/Um2qzWox5OI/AAAAAAAAKOo/uUaRNigd0NI/s578/yada%2520my%2520ass.png
There is 5 degrees difference in latitude between the two. The “zero” is artificially created for the limited record length. There are hundred year long Pacific pseudo-oscillations and you have no clue what part of the curve you are on.
DC (offset) values are factored out of the multiple linear regression. I added the two terms of SOI, the difference (signal) and the addition (noise) to the regression.
The following two constructions are equivalent:
A*Tahiti + B*Darwin
or
C*(Tahiti-Darwin) + D*(Tahiti+Darwin).
Try the CSALT simulation, note that the addition=soi(noise) factor is weak:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Webster, if there is a longer term volcanic influence on SOI (looks like it) and the DC offset is set to below “normal” conditions, how will that impact your projections?
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nQfw7AuW1-4/Um3BuBma__I/AAAAAAAAKPE/YDfyC1qEI9I/s825/Vol%2520and%2520SOI.png
Cappy, your crayons aren’t very sharp.
Interesting to see you tie in global temperature via pole to equator temperature difference via wind speed via LOD.
Webster I am not hanging my hat on SOI. I am looking at that long term secular trend that causes SOI.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vgbFByFl7as/UmyPuUPdm8I/AAAAAAAAKMs/1pH73wWgidY/s563/damped%2520oppo.png
If it wasn’t for volcanoes constantly resetting the weakly damped decay response and silly land temperatures amplifying “Global” temperatures it would be easy to see what is important. I guess that is why they call it chaotic.
Webbie’s program has an acronym that is a word – not only that, a very common word used for thousands of years. Therefore his model wins unless you can produce a model with a better acronym. Like Pepper, or Salsa.
With just solar and three scaled lags I can match the ocean SST. Let’s call it Sol y Mar?
No you can’t Cappy.
Serve it up and we can go at it with a BIC or AIC analysis to see which one our models better measures up. Go from 1880 until now and use all available data sets for the temperature anomaly comparison.
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Or are you scared?
Webster, You are really loosing it. You can get just about any fit you want with solar and lags. use a 60 year moving average with 31 year lag plus a124 year moving average with 60 year lag. That is the base signal. then shift solar until you hit the peaks you want. Two sine waves and a noise generator will do the same thing. I have already done that. Getting a fit is not a problem. Proving your fit is the bitch :)
Yadda, yadda, Cappy, I don’t think you have anything. It’s all talk.
.
Webster, missed the nesting.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/26/open-thread-weekend-38/#comment-405171
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/teleconnections-indo-pacific-warm-pool.html
look at the last graph
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT): “Tisdale over at WUWT is in awe with the CSALT model…”
That’s quite creative, WebHubTelescope, considering I do not mention your “CSALT model” nor link to it in my post. Most people will read the post you linked…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/26/tamino-resorts-to-childish-attempts-at-humor-but-offers-nothing-of-value/
…and understand I was using you as an example in a discussion of a flawed argument.
You continue to broadcast here for all to see that your comments have no foundation in truth. It’s apparently a constant problem for you, similar to the problem with one of your comments on a prior thread:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/i-dont-like-being-called-a-liar-fabricator-or-data-manipulator/
Curiously, for some reason you think that visitors here will find your CSALT model credible, when your comments here indicate you, WebHubTelescope, lack credibility.
Adios.
Tisdale,
Are you that frightened of a model that works as well as it does in showing how sensitive the climate is to increased levels of CO2?
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
The difference between me and you is that I tend to apply physics and I construct models of the physical environment that are actually coherent, and not just some dumb playing-around-with-spreadsheets hackery.
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/
Everyone knows that all you are after is to manipulate the data so that it serves your agenda of discrediting mainstream client science. You set so many honey-traps with your charts that it is almost impossible, and not even worth it, to keep up with you.
I do realize that I screwed up one time in accusing you of applying the SST incorrectly, and for that I apologize. But that does not let you off the hook for your otherwise crass hackery of the data, for example your “integration” of PDO data to show a trend.
Do you really think that mainstream climate science is so weak that you alone can make mincemeat out of it?
“But that does not let you off the hook for your otherwise crass hackery of the data, for example your “integration” of PDO data to show a trend.”
Well if PDO doesn’t fit the data, skeptics will just torture it until it does.
projection n: Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) replied to me: “Are you that frightened of a model that works as well as it does in showing how sensitive the climate is to increased levels of CO2?”
WebHubTelescope, let’s set something straight. Based on my past experience with you, WebHubTelescope, I do not find you to be a truthful person. Because you lack honesty, WebHubTelescope, anything you create is suspect.
I know nothing of your model other than a few tidbits I’ve gathered by scanning what you have claimed on this blog. Therefore, I can only speculate that with your model you’ve shown that you are capable of using multiple regression analysis to determine, via the process of trial and error, the variables you wanted to include in your model.
I’ll repeat the closing of my earlier comment:
Curiously, for some reason you think that visitors here will find your CSALT model credible, when your comments here indicate you, WebHubTelescope, lack credibility.
Adios.
Tisdale, No one knows what you are trying to do. To me and to a lot of other people it looks as if you are playing around with spreadsheets trying to make climate scientists look bad. You are embarrassing only yourself.
Since when do climate scientists need anyone else’s spread sheets to look bad?
I hear Phil Jones is a real wiz with Excel. Maybe he ought to fix the Ocare website.
Bob Tisdale said,
I agree. WHT is one of the most dishonest regular commenters on Climate Etc. But there are many others. And it seems to me that most of the dishonest people are ‘progressives’ and warmists. Many of them seem to seriously be lacking in ethics. For that reason they lack credibility, IMO.
Tisdale integrates the PDO to try to convince gullible followers on WUWT that is what is causing the warming
WebHubTelescope: How can this simple a model work so well?
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Is it because energy balance is the main driver? Yes.
Nice page, but it does not have the model or the coefficients. It would be more informative if you added both.
We can not tell how well it “works” because it has not been tested on out of sample data. It fits well because it is the latest result of a large sequence of model fits to essentially the same data (recent years have been added, the data have been adjusted by the curators, etc.) It does not fit better than Nicola Scafetta’s more recent model, and numerous others that have a nearly 0 coefficient or exactly 0 coefficient for CO2.
Nowhere in the model is energy balance or imbalance taken into account. All it says is that current temperature is a linear function of the log of CO2 concentration. An energy balance model would make current temperature a function of accumulated past imbalances. If the energy imbalance at time t is a linear function of lnCO2 at time t, then a co-integrated VAR model like Beenstock’s is more appropriate. But as you wrote before and I agreed, with these data, a model with current T proportional to current lnCO2 is numerically indistinguishable from such a model.
“So the solar heat hides somewhere for a century and then comes out? Is that your idea? Good luck with that.”
Generally, the solar heat is quite obvious, for instance, the Gulf Stream isn’t hiding very well.
Nor is denser cold polar water flowing to less dense tropical water is not hiding very well, though is less in your face- vast rivers in world not visited much. Then you got tides, earth rotation, prevailing winds, etc. Which mixing and moving water.
But, not really hiding very well.
Mixing the oceans and mixing the atmosphere allows the world to warm- allows the world to gain more heat.
Or if *somehow* mixed the entire ocean which is at about 3 C with surface ocean, the surface becomes about 3 C, and the rest of ocean slightly warmer. This of course make Earth average global temperature about 2-3 C, rather than 14-15 C. One say this is cooling the world, but actually the world is getting warmer, though it is much cooler for the humans.
More info here:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/
WebHubTelescope: More info here:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/
Thank you.
Webster, here ya go, dTSI and one lagged dTSI fit to GISS loti
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-edKySAM4ek8/Um2XU2T2yFI/AAAAAAAAKOM/DBx1JVAwpKA/s871/dTSI%2520with%2520lag%2520fit%2520to%2520GISS%2520loti.png
The lag is century scale, imagine that?
So the solar heat hides somewhere for a century and then comes out? Is that your idea? Good luck with that.
JimD, “So the solar heat hides somewhere for a century and then comes out? Is that your idea? Good luck with that.”
Check out Toggweiler on the century scale lags in the THC. Also remember the Solar “TSI” reconstructions are likely reconstructing much more than just TOA TSI. Orbital changes also impact sea ice stability, ocean mixing, techtonic plate stability, atmospheric tides and last but not least, UV which changes the atmospheric/ocean solar energy absorption ratio.
You guys grab data without even considering whether or not it is measuring what you think it is measuring. How often does Lief Svalgaard have to say “hang on!” TSI doesn’t change much.
TSI doesn’t change much.
SSI does(or at least the observations do) Most atmospheric chemistry is a response to the spectral iiridiance .The lean model (the expected values) in Haighs graph show that the Lean/Rind model is wrong.and a good reason to only use physical models and not statistical in reconstructions.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/738238main1_sorce-graph-670.jpg
captd, it just does not stand to reason. The sun warms by 1% tomorrow and we don’t see it for a century? Who is Toggweiler and why is he claiming this?
Maks, “SSI does(or at least the observations do) Most atmospheric chemistry is a response to the spectral iiridiance .”
Right, that is why I am using dTSI based on 10Be as a general solar/orbital/volcanic forcing proxy. The imbalance between hemispheres is at least as important as the actual change in radiant forcing because of the grossly underestimated mechanical aspects of climate.
JimD, “Who is Toggweiler and why is he claiming this?” Toggweiler is a senior ocean dynamics modeler with the GDFL. Neither he nor I am say to a piddle 0.1% change is solar output is capable of doing much more than .3C in the short term. If you could remove your head from your arse you would remember that I have repeatedly said I am using dTSI as a proxy for general orbital forcing.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JKxA08Jb_dw/UmLxH8ole2I/AAAAAAAAKCs/JlYHPKOVgXs/s779/sol%2520y%2520vol.png
It is pretty unlikely that Earth Volcanoes cause solar fluctuations and that correlation given the quality of the data is pretty remarkable.
Of course I do not expect you to Google Shifting Westerlie by Toggweiler or any other work that might challenge your faith.
There a constraints on the use of10be in the NH ice core data,such as weather and magnetic polar excursions.It is also difficult due to the absence of any instrument to monitor a full solar cycle in SSI,and the use of proxy data is illusory, as no single proxy can replicate the SSI.
Maks, “It is also difficult due to the absence of any instrument to monitor a full solar cycle in SSI,and the use of proxy data is illusory, as no single proxy can replicate the SSI.”
That is why I am not focusing on dTSI or estimates of dSSI, instead I am just using 10Be reconstructions as a general proxy for ALL orbital forcing. Once I get closer I can start sorting out the individual components and find out if attribution is even possible.
captd, I thought you were claiming that only now is the earth responding to solar changes a century ago. You will find that the land responds almost immediately to forcing changes, while the ocean may lag. The main thing we are seeing now is the land responding immediately to the CO2 forcing that has been changing much more than solar forcing since 1950. Let’s show this again. Summary: Land leads, water lags. 4 C per doubling transient rate for land since 1980.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:240/mean:120
“Summary: Land leads, water lags. 4 C per doubling transient rate for land since 1980.”
This is wrong, there is no global doubling, there’s regional increases that are not simultaneous.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_warming_really_recovery_regional_cooling-121820
If you look at what the surface stations actually recorded a completely different interpretation of 1970-2005 climate emerges.
These temperature indexes you all use are like trying to decide on what stock to buy, by looking at the global GNP, it’s the wrong data for the job.
But you all go ahead and curve fit to trash and keep thinking you’re making progress. Curry and Wyatt are starting to see what’s going on, a series of effects that tie together.
JimD, I know that the land is a fast response to both atmospheric forcing and ocean heat transport. Since the GISS and Hadcru guys add so many higher latitude stations, land also responds to orbital forcing (Tides) which impact sea ice stability setting up the “Stadium Wave”. In fact you can scale BEST to remove the amplification and extend the “Global” surface temperature anomaly record back to 1750.
I am a temperature and fluid flow data guy.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/teleconnections-indo-pacific-warm-pool.html
This is a bit about real “Climate” teleconnections.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/for-all-best-fans.html
That is a bit about combining “climate teleconnections” with the longest purely “Global” instrumental record we have.
All the deniers such as Cappy, Tisdale, MSalby, etc lean on this “integration” of some measure to get the result that they want to see. They do this because an integral can always create a linear trend if they cleverly hide a fixed offset in the profile.
Fascinating to deconstruct these artifices.
“lean on this “integration” of some measure to get the result that they want to see”
No not everyone, I lean on the recorded station data.
But what about your leaning on suspect GMT series? Your seasalt model is curve fitting to a non-physical global value that’s actually comprised of a collection of regional values that are all different from each other.
Actually you’re really leaning on an integration of regional temperature into a GMT that completely removes all of the useful information the data contained. Talk about a waste of time and oxygen.
Webster, with the rate of OHC increase on the order of 1 C per 400 years some “integration” or consideration of cumulative impact would seem to be prudent. You don’t know if you have the right cumulative impact until lots of other pieces fall into place, but they do at least provide a reference.
For example the atmospheric response to long term recovery is a ln(2) approach curve which is blended with a ln(?) forcing curve. It seems it would be easy to confuse the two doncha know.
Fig. 4. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI; jagged line; averaged June-November) since 1890, superimposed on the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO; smooth line, sign reversed), a longer-term Pacific Ocean signal of climate variability. The source for rainfall and SOI data is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (www.bom.gov.au). SOI was smoothed by using a 6-month moving average. IPO data were from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, reproduced under license no. MetO/IPR/2/2003 0027. El Nino and La Nina year classification was based on the work of Rob Allan (Hadley Center, United Kingdom Meteorological Office, Bracknell, U.K.); further information is available at http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/australiasvariableclimate.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2007/09/20/0704837104.DC1#F4
If you don’t have the Pacific decadal signal – the alternate warming and cooling over decades – then nothing at all makes sense in webby’s most recent curve fitting exercise. One way of analysing the signal is to add successive values of the SOI to generate a cumulative index – another is to generate a new index for the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.
Webby has been playing with this for 10 minutes – and he belligerently asserts that he can ‘deconstruct’ something for which the science is obviously different to what he believes. Some of us have been at this for decades.
Again – the warming trend last century is some 0.1 degrees C/decade. At least half of this in the most recent warming was natural variability – leaving warming at 0.05 degrees C/decade. This is it – this is what all the fuss is about.
WebHubTelescope: All the deniers such as Cappy, Tisdale, MSalby, etc lean on this “integration” of some measure to get the result that they want to see. They do this because an integral can always create a linear trend if they cleverly hide a fixed offset in the profile.
You are wrong about that. If the CO2 increase causes an imbalance in the inflow and outflow of radiant energy, then the change in temp over time has to be a function of the integral of the CO2. The “warming in the pipeline” is then the future warming from the current and future imbalance. If, instead, current temp is determined by current CO2 (linear in lnCO2), then there is no energy in the pipeline and the time to equilibrium (or nearly equilibrium at the surface and lower troposphere), is very short.
Matthew Marler, that integrated approach is a way that I have been drumming on recently. Integrated CO2 is tied to total emission, and that can be directly compared to a committed temperature change. Typical numbers for this are 1500-2000 GtCO2 emitted per degree warming, accounting for the fraction that goes into the ocean. In terms of carbon mass, it is a trillion tonnes that produces 2 C, as in one proposed example of a policy limit. These measures are probably the most useful way to relate cause and effect in the same terms, and I am glad AR5 is introducing this way of thinking now.
1. Tissy integrates PDO to get a temperature.
2. Salby integrates temperature to get a CO2 level.
3. Cappy is integrating SOI to get a temperature trend.
All of these approaches are incorrect physics.
The correct physics approach is to convolve a forcing function with an impulse response function (i.e. a Green’s function) based on some continuity equation. A convolution is related to an integral but is not the same thing and most importantly has the property of conservation of X, where X can be heat, matter, charge, etc.
It is not that hard to tell who does and doesn’t know how to do physics.
And then there are the economists who make a complete mess of the situation.
WHT,
I am in awe! You leap from incorrect assumption to irrelevant conclusion in a single bound!
You need to demonstrate the ability of CO2 to stop the Earth cooling as it has done since its creation, before you then demonstrate the heating ability of CO2.
Or you can insert into your program’s comments “a miracle occurs here . . . “, which obviates the need for any explanation of the physical impossibility of your approach.
You are in good company. Newton, Lord Kelvin, Einstein, all managed to believe the unbelievable for longer or shorter periods.
More recently, most medicos believed stomach ulcers (yes, I am using that term loosely – I crave your indulgence) were caused by spicy food and stress. Yet another belief that many still adhere to!
Well done! You will no doubt end up convincing me that my wood fire warms me by invoking the magical photonic qualities of CO2, rather than radiation of energy resulting from the oxidation of carbon to CO2. Or maybe not.
I wish you every success in your endeavours. If you need a donation, feel free not to contact me.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
WebHubTelescope: The correct physics approach is to convolve a forcing function with an impulse response function (i.e. a Green’s function) based on some continuity equation. A convolution is related to an integral but is not the same thing and most importantly has the property of conservation of X, where X can be heat, matter, charge, etc.
I concur with that, but no one can do it properly on current evidence (I think), so one has to fall back on less exact approximations, like co-integrated VARs, and integrating some function of CO2 that the energy flow imbalance might be proportional to. According to that quote of yours, your lnCO2 model is not “correct physics”.
So on what ground do you claim that your model fits because it represents energy imbalances? Or that “energy balance is the main driver”? As your model is written, it seems to me that it implies that TCS and ECS are nearly equal, and there is no “warming in the pipleline”; if TCS and ECS are much different different and there is significant “warming in the pipeline”, then your model can’t be accurate.
Your model may yet survive the testing of upcoming decades of data. If it does, I think it will call into question other assertions about CO2-induced global warming.
My model is correct physics in so far as you have not debunked any part of it yet.
I did the impulse response of CO2 to carbon emissions long ago. This matches the BERN model of adjustment time. The following page links a collection of posts I have written on the topic.
http://contextearth.com/co2-pages/
Energy balance related to OHC is here:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | October 28, 2013 at 9:00 am |
“My model is correct physics in so far as you have not debunked any part of it yet.”
Your “model” uses historical data as input. Get back to me when it has the physics in it to produce SOI as an output instead of requiring it as an input. Like DUH.
Mi Cro
According to Leroux the world comprises many different climates. It is difficult to disagree with that as it is evident that within the global ‘average’ temperature are hidden many regional/country climates that are static or cooling.
I examined some of them here some 3 years ago.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
I have suggested to Mosh several times that he should slice up the BEST data into Koppen climate zones but he seems unwilling to do that as he has other more important things to do.
Looking at a global average hides as many inconsistencies as a global average sea level or a global average GDP. It really makes no sense.
tonyb
tonyb,
If you get a chance, follow the ink in my username, you might find it interesting.
Mike Flynn, if you haven’t learned the reason that GHGs keep the earth warm, that is your own problem. Don’t blame other people for your own misunderstanding. There are places to find this out, but clearly you don’t believe what you read in blogs anyway, so there is no point in anyone answering that here. The science is there. Boldly go. Seek out new worlds.
“if you haven’t learned the reason that GHGs keep the earth warm, that is your own problem. ”
Let me quote of hostess:
“In terms of actual scientific facts in climate science, we have the infrared emission spectra of CO2. The rest of what passes for ‘information’ in the parlance of Lewandowsky, Mann etc. is really hypotheses or theories.”
And lastly, It’s going to be in the upper 50’s here today(it’s 57 now), and tonight if it’s clear it will probably match the low this morning of 31.6F, including the frost on the grass, that will be a drop of over 20F.
So, explain to me again the facts on how GHG’s are warming the planet over the last 30-40 years?
Mi Cro
Yes, I looked at your site before posting. According to Dr Mueller one third of all stations are cooling. According to Mosh, serious caveats need to be put on that figure.
We are fortunate that the oldest temperature data set in the world -CET- is one of those that illustrate that not all stations move in tandem to a warmer level, but that clear cycles are exhibited. Sometimes the majority are warming, like now- and I suspect the MWP- and sometimes the majority are cooling, like in the LIA.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
Flynn gets his physics from Star Trek.
Springer hasn’t heard of the calculus of variations and minimizing the free energy. Like I said, debunk it.
Webby
You’re writing about “free energy”.
Aw, c’mon, Webby, you know that “energy” isn’t “free”.
And if a few boneheads in the government get their way, it will be even “less free” once they’ve added on a fat carbon tax.
“Free energy”, indeed!
Max
WebHubTelescope: My model is correct physics in so far as you have not debunked any part of it yet.
You are the one who wrote that the correct physics has to involve a convolution. I merely pointed out that your pronouncement on the correct physics, if true, invalidated you model. Your model, if correct physics, invalidated your pronouncement concerning convolutions.
Your other pronouncement, that the correct physics has to be based on energy flow imbalances, also, if true, invalidates your model because it has no energy flows. If your model is correct physics, it invalidates your pronouncement that correct physics has to model energy imbalances.
Besides scoring points against me, you are writing your case for the other denizens and lurkers. Don’t you even care whether you are writing coherently for them?
WebHubTelescope: I did the impulse response of CO2 to carbon emissions long ago.
OK, that’s a plus.
Now what is the response of the climate to the CO2 accumulation? According to your model, mean temperature at time t is proportional to lnCO2 at the same time, and other things unrelated to CO2, with no energy flow related to CO2, no lag related to CO2 (except in one model that gets a tiny improvement from a relatively short lag, “short” relative to all the “heating in the pipeline” others write of), no difference between TCS and ECS.
Something has to give.
My main claim is that the science of (CO2 induced) climate change is neither complete nor accurate enough for planning and public policy. For planning and public policy, nothing is better than the recorded ranges of temperature and rainfall over past centuries. Everything important that might improve on that is in abeyance: increased/decreased cloud cover, “warming in the pipeline”, relevance of equilibrium calculations, detailed studies of heat flows, effects of CO2 on the heat flows, dozens of models that fit the data with about the same mean square error but have conflicting implications.
Webby,
“My model is correct physics in so far as you have not debunked any part of it yet. ”
Does your method show that difference continents had differing temperature increases and decreases over the last 30-50 years? Because if it only provides a uniform warming it does not match the measurements of surface stations, and therefore is wrong.
C’mon, Max. Didn’t you study Webbs Free Energy in thermo?
Mi Cro, some people don’t even understand how the GHGs we have keep the earth’s surface 33 C warmer than the top-of-atmosphere emission temperature. This explanation is well known in physics and phase one for understanding the human contribution to the global temperature. People who don’t even understand the present climate have no business arguing about past and future climates.
That’s fine and dandy Jim D, but you didn’t say anything about how temps can drop >20F in 12 and a half hours.
IMO the science can determine TCR by examining temperature response as the length of day changes, that’s why I’ve been studying the daily station data for 4-5 years.
And the data does not record any decreasing trend in daily falling temps, which has to happen for Co2 to the the source of 20th century warming.
It basically eliminates any catastrophic warming.
And to your point of business as usual to 2100, if we don’t replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy (fission then fusion) by then, the people preventing this are complete idiots. The problem I see is that there are many who would be happy if 9 of 10 humans go away, they have this fantasy of some utopia garden, and yet most of these folks live in the big cities (good heavens, not if the fly over land) , and want everyone else to live there so the rest of the world can go back to being wild forest.
Marler can’t seem to keep up. Throw him all sorts of lifelines but he is left to blubbering about not being in equilibrium and that something conflicts in the math, but that he can’t point to the specific math error.
The physics is a lot more correct than the cyclomania of someone like Scaffeta or Girma (I have trouble telling the two of them apart).
Mi Cro, there is no mystery about how temperatures at night cool down. Where do you get the idea that there is? Did you know that cloudy nights cool less than clear nights, or dry nights cool more than humid nights due to an insulation type of effect too? This gets you half way to understanding how more CO2 keeps the surface warmer.
“Mi Cro, there is no mystery about how temperatures at night cool down. Where do you get the idea that there is? Did you know that cloudy nights cool less than clear nights, or dry nights cool more than humid nights due to an insulation type of effect too? This gets you half way to understanding how more CO2 keeps the surface warmer.”
I spend hours outside on clear nights, and it isn’t an issue of why it cools, it’s how can you think a slight change in Co2 does change how much it cools when it cools 20 degrees over a single night. Did you know you can use a hand held IR thermometer and measure the clear sky zenith temp? On a 50 degree clear sky day it was -40F.
The temperature record doesn’t show any trend (it has varied a little up and down over the last 50-60 years) in night time cooling, if you’re right, how can that be? http://dkue3ufa3e1f8.cloudfront.net/files/images/Global%20Annual%201940-2010.jpg
Here are the daily changes in the max average temp for all stations North lat 23-66
http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg
The change as the length of day decreases
http://www.science20.com/files/images/Summer_Temp_Trend.jpg
The change as the length of day increases
http://www.science20.com/files/images/Winter%20Temp%20Trend.jpg
This is a jewel, a plot of the slope of rate of daily max temp change, 1950-2010.
http://www.science20.com/files/images/WinterSummerSlope.jpg
So the slope of daily day to day temp change changed, but it did so for both longer and shorter days.
Capt, Tallbloke covered the LOD vs. temperature a while ago.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/
DocMartyn,
The correlations are close but it is still the mechanism(s) that actually do the dead that are the question as Tallbloke noted. Even in that post the SSB shifts from leading to lagging dLOD. That is why I am looking more at volcanic plus solar since there is likely some other Earth specific, like lunar, tidal forcing impacting sea ice and/or tectonic plate and/or glacial mass stability that combined solar and volcanic would be a good proxy for. Geomagnetic field reversals tend to lag paleo climate indicating something along that line or impact events.
I am really more concerned with finding a rational “normal” for a baseline.
That’s excellent. It further substantiates how important CO2 and other GHGs are to the warming trend.
You see, the LOD does not add anything to the warming trend. Try it out :
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Nice to see the deniers do all the work for us. Yet, they still deny.
Hey Jim D
Between sunset and 10:15pm eastern, the temp had dropped to 37 degree a 20 degree drop in air temp.
In the 3 hours since then, since the air had already lost most of it’s heat to the upper atm or space(@~-40), the ground was keeping the surface air warm and temps only dropped another 3 degrees.
All you need is a few different probe type thermometers, and a handheld IR thermometers and you too can do the same experiment.
WebHubTelescope,
You ask how can this simple model work so well?
The answer is that you are deluded if you think that any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can prevent the Earth, or anything in or on it from cooling.
Your model is thus an exercise in foolishness. Any correlation you may achieve is the result of coincidence, pure and simple.
But hey, all I have on my side is physics, Nature, and four and a half billion years of cooling. I know that none of this can compete with the output of your model.
Might I ask one thing – what is the use for the model? Does it provide more entertainment than Solitaire? Does it predict the future (choking back guffaws)? Tell me, do.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn is another one of those Aussie geniuses that think that physics that they learned from watching Star Trek is enough to debunk all of climate science.
WebHubTelescope,
Somebody said that climate is to science as witch is to doctor.
How can you seriously propose that calculating the average of numbers in a data set is somehow a science?
I don’t need to debunk something that’s never been bunked in the first place. Try and keep your teapot warm by surrounding it with CO2. Maybe you could sell the “Amazing WHUT Free Energy Device” – a cylinder of CO2!
If anyone can make the impossible possible, my vote goes to you.
Good luck, and let me know how you go marketing your CSALT program in the interim. There’s one born every minute, so I’m told. The usual crew of climate quacks have scooped up most of the spare cash so far, but I’m sure you can get your hands on some if you really try.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The CO2 level by the next century will be somewhere between 500 ppm (heavy mitigation policy required) and 1000 ppm (seeking out more fossil fuel reserves and extracting everything economically possible). 700 ppm is a realistic estimate based on rates of population growth and development along with some move away from fossil fuels as the main energy source. Temperatures from this are 2-6 C for the IPCC sensitivity range (1.5-4.5 C). This is as far as the science gets us. What are the policy implications for this situation we are in? Skeptics need to come up with policies in case they are wrong, but they have not been forthcoming on those, which is like burying their heads in the sand. So it is unfortunate for them that all the policies now being put forwards are from the people they consider lefty socialists. Their role is reduced to complaining about policies rather than suggesting them. Should they make sure their country leads in alternative energy and fuel efficiency, and is competitive in related global markets, or should they prioritize long-term fossil fuel independence and sales, and damn the global consequences? This is a choice countries are now making, and we see Canada and Australia on the latter course.
No, warmists need to come up with policies other than making the rich richer and the poor poorer and increasing mindless bureaucracies, and not reducing any CO2 emissions thereby, in case they are right.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693.html
That’s the point. You don’t like anything proposed so far. So what is your idea?
Edim,
And they could also come up with a few real facts, rather than “future facts”.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Jim D, CO2 and AGW are not the problem. The problem is the CO2 and AGW hysteria and pseudo-science. It’s destructive for science and liberalism and I love both.
That sole comment is excellent:
“Note the following two statements: “Unfortunately, the debate on the Energiewende revolves almost entirely around costs.” And – – “Granted, it’s annoying that switching to renewable energies is driving up the price of electricity. But it can’t be avoided.” This is why the so-called left in Europe is losing the working class and working poor to right-wing parties. From Golden Dawn in Greece to the Popular Party in Norway, right-wing parties have shown the most consistent growth in nearly every European nation. Meanwhile left parties – especially those that represent the interests of working people – are in headlong retreat. One would have to be comatose not to have noticed the 25% unemployment in much of southern Europe and the 50% youth unemployment. Even in northern Europe wages and benefits have been stagnant or rolled back. Meanwhile, electricity cost have skyrocketed at a time when energy costs worldwide have been flat, even declining in some areas. One ought to ask why. Why have electricity costs doubled in Germany over the past decade, giving Germany – along with Denmark – the highest electricity costs in the world. Do the views expressed in this article indicate an utter disregard for the basic living conditions for the least-advantages members of European society? And should anyone be surprised when working people vote in droves for the Front National in France or the Freedom Party in Austria? Green activists consider themselves leftists, but in many respects their actions are reactionary and bourgeois.”
The gallery:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-costs-of-green-energy-fotostrecke-101006.html
“Environment Minister Peter Altmaier’s predecessor once claimed that switching Germany to renewable energy wasn’t going to cost citizens more than one scoop of ice cream. Today Altmaier admits consumers are paying enough to “eat everything on the ice cream menu.””
Ouch!
“It is only gradually becoming apparent how the renewable energy subsidies redistribute money from the poor to the more affluent, like when someone living in small rental apartment subsidizes a homeowner’s roof-mounted solar panels through his electricity bill. The SPD, which sees itself as the party of the working class, long ignored this regressive aspect of the system. The Greens, the party of higher earners, continue to do so.”
Etc.
“The SPD, which sees itself as the party of the working class”
Progressive parties are the “parties of the poor” like the Morlocks were the party of the Eloi.
“Skeptics need to come up with policies in case they are wrong, but they have not been forthcoming on those, which is like burying their heads in the sand.”
I see no workable solutions from the alarmist camp either. There is imvho almost no chance of universally cutting Co2 emissions sufficiently to have a significant effect on supposed warming.
I can’t speak for all skeptics obviously, but in my view the cost of meaningful mitigation is higher than all but the most dire climate scenarios…scenarios that are looking less likely as time goes on.
It is likely be hitting 500 ppm by 2060-2065 at the latest, unless of course our NTE (near term extinction) crowd is right, and humans will be gone well before then. But let’s go on the premise that the current upturn in CO2 stays with us (Asia’s appetite for coal is increasing), and we average about 2 ppm growth in CO2 per year for the next 50 years. That puts us right around 500 ppm by 2063. We also must not forget methane and N2O. They are showing similar growth rates to CO2. This continued huge positive forcing on the climate, will far outweigh any natural variability, as it has been doing for many decades.
” This continued huge positive forcing on the climate, will far outweigh any natural variability, as it has been doing for many decades.”
Apart from the last decade and a half, and quite possibly the next several decades.
Yes, I put 500 ppm in as a round number, but even the most drastic of policies will have trouble with that. The trillion-tonne-carbon idea shows it is doable, but this involves a century of gradually reducing emissions to zero at the end, despite population growth and development. That gets us to about 500-550 ppm.
R. Gates
All ya gotta do is believe it.
(I don’t)
For example, it sure hasn’t done so over the current decade, has it?
Max
Jim, you write ” Temperatures from this are 2-6 C for the IPCC sensitivity range (1.5-4.5 C). This is as far as the science gets us. ”
I am not sure what your definition of “science” is, but it must be radically different what my idea of science, in this case physics, is. In my understanding of physics, until a quantity has been measured, we have only guesses as to what it’s value is. Climate sensitivity has never been measured so no-one has the slightest idea what it’s value is. I agree it is probably positive, but that is all we really know.
Until global temperatures show signs that they are increasing as rapidly as the IPCC forecasts require, I will not be the slightest bit concerned. And there is absolutely no sign whatsoever in the recent temperature/time graph that anything unusual is happening. If the current trend towards cooler temperatures continues, and there is every sign that this will happen, then for heaven’s sake let us go on using fossil fuels, and enjoy the high standard of living they give us.
I have a pretty good idea of your definition of science and it doesn’t include energy balance physics, but you haven’t criticized that theory yet based on any physics reasoning.
Jim, you write ‘”I have a pretty good idea of your definition of science and it doesn’t include energy balance physics, but you haven’t criticized that theory yet based on any physics reasoning.”
If there is a theory of energy balance physics, then there must be empirical data to support it.. CAGW is merely a hypothesis with no empirical data to support it.
Donning the cloak of infallibility
Enables the I-P-C-C ter claim with certainty,
Well, ninety-five-per-cent probability, that
Cee-Oh-two’s warming the Earth dangerously,
Dangerously and irrevocably.
Jim D | October 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Reply
“What are the policy implications for this situation we are in? Skeptics need to come up with policies in case they are wrong, but they have not been forthcoming on those, which is like burying their heads in the sand”
My suggestion is global implementation of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
This won’t be easy. The United States might need to use military power to get it done.
Thoughts?
David, wouldn’t it be easier to just legalize texting and driving, make seat belts and helmets optional and encourage contact sports?
Not really, Dallas. The people who are breeding like rats don’t own cars or have the leisure time to engage in contact sports. They’re too busy rutting and raising babies. You know who they are.
Sceptics have all the best policies which will serve mankind more effectively as we enter a period of cooling. Deconstruct all windmills, build lots of Nuclear, and get fracking.
Unless it includes things like leaving the dirtiest energy in the ground (coal, oils sands) or exploiting the Arctic Ocean, it is not much good in the long run.
The way I see it, there are several choices, if the middle solution of 4 C warming is the most likely. This temperature comes with a cost to, for example coastal communities with rising sea levels, relocation, support for irrigation or failed harvests, flood, storm and drought recovery.
1. Ignore it now, pay as you go with regular revenue.
2. Save now to pay later (possible targeted revenue: carbon tax).
3. Punitive carbon tax to mitigate later damage.
(1) is just irresponsible to future generations, and (3) would be (and has been) tough to enforce globally, so (2) is my choice. Revenue is needed. Raise it locally and spend it locally with some funding for poorer countries. There is an obvious source of revenue that pays for future damage in terms of the current causative agents. Part of resilience is having funds in hand and lending them out, rather than not having funds, borrowing and paying back with interest (like option 1). It is just economic sense.
Good plan, Jim. In order to save money for climate change repairs we need to stop feckless spending on unrelated social programs. Sounds like a Tea Party goal. I take you’re a member already and if not why not?
The Tea Party don’t have any spending plans, so they won’t need to raise revenue. However, their type of policy may get hit with some unexpected costs and deficits as a result followed by borrowing and paying interest. It is more in line with the irresponsible approach that I labeled as (1), aka deficit spending.
Jim in order to save one needs more income than expenses. The US federal government has more expenses than income so saving is not possible at this time. In order to do that requires cutting expenses and/or increasing income. Does that not make sense? What is your plan for reaching a balanced budget?
+1
There is no evidence to support a 4 degree rise in temperatures, other than the obviously very badly failed models. And it would take a near linear relationship between co2 and temperature, which goes against the physics of co2 which is logarithmic, co2 has yet to increase atmospheric moisture levels either, another model fail. So your belief that temperature climb is inevitable is just that, a belief, an unsubstantiated religious belief.
There’s plenty of evidence that suggests significant cooling is on the way instead. There’s no evidence to suggest that higher temperatures have caused harm to evolution or life or mankind on this planet in the past, indeed the contrary is true.
You are seeking to destroy the economies of the world based on a religious belief for which no convincing evidence exists. The side effect of such precipitate action would be to disable mankind’s ability to adapt to change in either direction.
You are advocating an extremely destructive course of action which would inevitably expand suffering and disadvantage for many and bring about an increased death toll, in addition, if temperatures cooled instead of increasing then the negative consequences of your destruction of mankind’s ability to adapt would have still further lethal consequences for many.
Four degrees, utter nonsense. Zero degrees is a far more likely outcome. Jim D you are a rabid warmist.
Since the numbers are looking more like 1-3 C warming, then 2C is the most likely value, delayed by many decades due to ocean cycles and possibly the sun. 4C is an upper end, unlikely value, even by the IPCC standards. And 2C is the danger number. Everyone knows if it is 1.99C things will be great but if it is 2.01C life on earth will end.
Almost one third of man made CO2 has occurred since 1998.
Zero warming has occurred since 1998.
I predict even more CO2 will result in cooling.
Why? Because more CO2 results in earth radiating energy into space from a larger sphere, which is more efficient at radiating energy. A little higher and we will start to cool.
The people with the “pause” have also implicitly accepted the discontinuous step before it. Same as a rise overall. Everyone is in agreement about the rise since 1990 or 1950, 1900 etc.
The 50s/60s/70s was a 30 year pause.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1979/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/to:1979/offset:-320
40 years?
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/40-years-of-rising-co2-compared-to-temperature/
Easy to show the pause with the CSALT model.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6274/t4r.gif
The underlying 3C ECS of CO2 is still there
40 year pause with a rising CO2. Real data. “Officially Approved” global warming cult 40 year pause data.
CO2 is a joke.
1940-1979 temperature down with rising CO2.
1980 to 1998 temperature up with rising CO2.
1998 to 2001 temperature down, down, down with rising CO2.
2002 to 2013 temperature down with rising CO2.
Only one 18 year stretch of rising temps since 1940.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend
Jim D
Do nothing regarding the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere because it will drop during the cooling cycle of the oceans.
Trying to control the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a fools errand.
Here is why:
The ocean temperature controls the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as shown by the following observation.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/from:1979/normalise
It is just like saying umbrellas cause rain because they are always observed at the same time.
The only time to get worried is to observed an increase in CO2 concentration when the sea level rise is decreasing. That is not the case now.
CO2 rises about 10-15 ppm per degree of ocean warming (as measured after the last Ice Age), so with less than a degree of warming maybe 10 ppm was outgassing, and the other 110 ppm is manmade emission. The Salby outgassing school is up there with the skydragons in their level of scientific incompetence.
Completely agree about Salby. Nice person…nutty ideas about CO2.
http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Tropical-ecosystems-regulate-variations-in-Earths-carbon-dioxide-levels.aspx
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/review-of-humlum-et-al-2012-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature-by-donald-rapp/
http://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions
“CO2 rises about 10-15 ppm per degree of ocean warming (as measured after the last Ice Age), so with less than a degree of warming maybe 10 ppm was outgassing, and the other 110 ppm is manmade emission. The Salby outgassing school is up there with the skydragons in their level of scientific incompetence.”
Ocean warming is pretty vague. Surface ocean also fairly vague- but at least not vague as ocean warming.
But I agree the entire ocean warming and it’s mixing would seem relevant.
If one goes along with “the 10-15 ppm per degree of ocean warming” and the guess of “10 ppm was outgassing” and the other 110 ppm is manmade.
What is the total amount. Human put twice perhaps 3 times as much 110 ppm of CO2 in the air so that this 110 ppm remains in the atmosphere.
So your guess of 10 ppm is how much remained rather than the amount emitted.
Obviously there more CO2 caused to be emitted by humans other than fossil fuels- simply human breathing. Human animals breathing. Land change caused by humans. Etc.
I wonder if you guess the warming oceans have caused 10 ppm over a century of time. How much do you guess the country which emits the most CO2 from fossil fuels has emitted in ppm over the last decade?
I also wonder about involvement of methane hydrates in ocean in terms of there relationship to CO2. For instance has total amount of methane hydrates in the ocean remain constant for last century.
gbaikie, breathing is not the same as emission. The CO2 we breathe is from carbon we eat, which is not fossil carbon, but from CO2 that was recently in the air. This is a major misunderstanding that you need to go back and think about. If we were not growing food at the rate we ate it, then we would be net emitting CO2. In fact some CO2 is lost through natural sequestration (soil burial, sedimenting in oceans), but that is a slow process relative to emission.
“gbaikie, breathing is not the same as emission. The CO2 we breathe is from carbon we eat, which is not fossil carbon, but from CO2 that was recently in the air. This is a major misunderstanding that you need to go back and think about. If we were not growing food at the rate we ate it, then we would be net emitting CO2. In fact some CO2 is lost through natural sequestration (soil burial, sedimenting in oceans), but that is a slow process relative to emission.”
Of course fossil carbon is preserved old dead things.
If we were exporting food into space then we could worry
about our finite quantity of carbon. But such worrying would
rare as people would not tend be so closed minded.
Earth unlike the Moon, Mars or other ones,
has a geological young surface. The Moon since it
lacks plate tectonic activity, and with only significant erosion
is various size space rock falling on it, has an ancient
surface. Mars has has wind erosion- plus impactors.
Venus seems to have very young surface- possibly
extremely young. But Venus a difficult planetary body
to study, and world which little is known.
But if not comparing to Venus, Earth has young surface.
Though one can find some areas are which are quite old.
So we found evidence of life going back to 3.8 billions years
which is very close to period in which all inner planets were being
showered with impactors- stuff that globally incinerates and
boils entire oceans:
Wiki:
The Late Heavy Bombardment (commonly referred to as the lunar cataclysm, or LHB) is a hypothetical event that is thought to have occurred approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (Ga).During this interval, a disproportionately large number of asteroids apparently collided with the celestial bodies in our inner solar system, including Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The LHB happened “late” in the Solar System’s accretion period when Earth and the other rocky planets formed and gained most of their mass (although this period is still early in the history of the solar system as a whole).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
So anyhow, one thing is fairly certain, a large amount of fossil fuel would consumed without humans doing. And probably 3 billion years from now one could still find remnants of fossils fuels on Earth- if humans of today didn’t mine them or if human exhaustively mine them. In such time periods, fossil fuels are made and consumed regardless of humans or other sentient creatures. Though of course in much shorter time period than 3 billion years we will have many dinosaur extinct levels rocks which hit Earth [assuming there is no sentient creature intervening] and mildly incinerating the world- the chance at this late date to be hit by a rocks bigger the 100 km in diameter [thereby boiling entire oceans] is slim even over such long time periods.
So even though one might have coal or oil deposits hundreds of millions of year old, it does mean they last forever, and there is little doubt that Mother nature has in the past burnt some of them.
But what seems to far more transitory are methane hydrate deposits in oceans.
It seems to me that we should focus on mining these younger forms
of “fossil fuels”. If nothing else they seems likely they could to be wasted by mother nature in shorter period of time,
CAGWers like to discuss the danger of hydrate deposits, but it seems a greater concern about hydrate deposits is losing vast amounts of this global resource.
gbaikie, returning any fossil carbon to the air/surface system increases the atmospheric CO2 level, which leads to more warming. What are you thinking?
“Jim D | October 26, 2013 at 10:19 pm |
gbaikie, returning any fossil carbon to the air/surface system increases the atmospheric CO2 level, which leads to more warming. What are you thinking?”
What I am thinking fossil are similar to renewables.
But perhaps a more important issue is the amount energy you
get for energy from fuel using using compared to amount CO2 it
creates.
Now as rough metric this related to the cost of the energy.
So the so called dirty oil from oil sand cost more to make barrel of
oil compared to simply oil gotten from oil well. I largely costs more because it requires more to make a barrel of oil from oil sand as compared to simply pumping from the ground.
Same applies to “clean” ethanol- it cost more due to fact it requires
more energy to make a gallon of ethanol as compared to energy required to make make a gallon of gasoline.
Now, to the point, wood a renewable energy is not a dense form of
energy:
Wood 18.0 MJ per Kg
Peat briquette 17.7 MJ per Kg
Dry cow dung and cameldung 15.5 MJ per Kg
Coal, lignite 14.0 MJ per Kg
Coal, bituminous 24 MJ per Kg
Coal, anthracite 32.5 MJ per Kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Types of coal used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Types
“The energy content of lignite ranges from 10 – 20 MJ/kg (9–17 million BTU per short ton) on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis. The energy content of lignite consumed in United States averages 15 MJ/kg (13 million BTU/ton), on the as-received basis (i.e., containing both inherent moisture and mineral matter). The energy content of lignite consumed in Victoria, Australia averages 8.4 MJ/kg (6.5 million BTU/ton). …
Because of its low energy density and typically high moisture content, brown coal is inefficient to transport and is not traded extensively on the world market compared with higher coal grades. It is often burned in power stations constructed very close to any mines, such as in Australia’s Latrobe Valley and Luminant’s Monticello plant in Texas. Primarily because of latent high moisture content of brown coal, carbon dioxide emissions from traditional brown-coal-fired plants are generally much higher than for comparable black-coal plants, with the world’s highest-emitting being Hazelwood Power Station, Victoria.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite
So because of it’s low energy content lignite coal is general not transported far. It’s worth the costs of shipping it.
Wood or other renewable energy has same problem- it cost too much to ship compared to the energy per ton you get from it. And keep in mind the high cost is more or less connected to energy needed to move it.
So if you in town which processes logs- a logging town. It makes sense can make sense to use wood scraps to generate electrical power. But generally speaking it does make sense for cities where most of the population of the world live to haul low density fuel to power plant near them. Nor does make sense to grow trees turn into fuel in say Kentucky and ship them to Europe.
“There was an outcry in May when the BBC revealed that millions of tonnes of wood were being shipped from the USA to help meet Britain’s renewables targets. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23334466
“But the Manomet study shows that wood burning releases more heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per unit of energy than oil, coal, or natural gas. ”
http://www.no-burn.org/wood-burning-power-plants-may-hurt-global-warming-fight
Or here quote of what I am saying in generally:
“It’s a misconception that wood fuels are carbon neutral, minus the energy spent to harvest, process, and transport them, he says. When we burn wood, we’re releasing carbon into the atmosphere that might have otherwise been stored in that form for years, decades or centuries.
Gunn co-authored a 2010 study that concluded the amount of carbon released per unit of energy is actually greater for forest biomass than it is for fossil fuels. That’s because wood isn’t a very energy-dense material, which means you have to burn a lot more tons of it to match the energy output of gas or coal.”
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-wood-instead-of-fossil-fuels-increase-ghg-emissions/
So generally not against using biomass. But it’s not a kind “the solution”, where it’s economical it generally will be used. But pass laws
which “force” the use of biomass, it tend to make more CO2 emissions,
then if you used coal. And Coal makes too much CO2, compared say natural gas- which can be cheaply piped all over the the US, and is largely burning hydrogen, rather than carbon, so it’s emission are H20 and CO2.
Jim D and girma
A question:
Why has the fraction of the CO2 emitted by humans, which “remains” in the atmosphere, slowly decreased (by around 1% point per decade) since Mauna Loa measurements started?
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8344/8200196434_ebb7559913_b.jpg
Could it be that plants are gobbling up more at the higher concentrations?
If so, will this continue as concentrations continue to increase?
Satellite observations show that plant growth has increased overall over the past several decades and greenhouse experiments show that plants grow more rapidly at higher CO2 levels, so this could be where a good part of the missing CO2 is going – rather than the oceans, which are getting warmer (at least until 2001) and should be absorbing less rather than more CO2.
Just something to think about.
Max
manacker, on the other hand, warmer years have a faster rise in CO2 for a given emission rate, showing that the earth system has more trouble absorbing CO2 as it gets warmer.
The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.
The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.
There is an insanity of the left – 3 second memory or lies and the obligatory sneers?
linky – http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
CH, yes, the pragmatic approach by Pielke, Jr., et al. here is common sense. They promote
– reducing climate forcing
– no regrets pollution reduction, enforcing environmental standards such as smokestack scrubbing
– a carbon tax to fund the development of future energy technologies
– resilience (sea walls, resilient crop production)
– reforestation and protecting forests
I would not argue with that.
They cite progress in such things as smokestack scrubbers as models for low carbon energy development.
They suggest a low rate hypothecated tax to fund energy innovation. This has nothing whatever to do with carbon taxes as commonly proposed. Different idea entirely. It should not proceed because it gives entirely the wrong message. The latest carbon tax poll in Aus. shows support for repealing our low rate carbon tax (reduced to EU rates) running at 4 to 1.
‘Likewise, efforts are ongoing from the Netherlands and Japan to the Maldives and India to build greater resilience to the vagaries of nature, including better infrastructure, emergency planning, and resilient design of everything from sea walls and skyscrapers to food crops. Meanwhile, the development of crops that are resilient to climate stresses, such as drought, has proceeded irrespective of specific predictions of anthropogenic warming impacts, and nations continually pursue cost effective improvements in public health and
environmental quality.’
The failure of progressive pseudo science – including the simplistic reductionist ideas and pulling numbers out of your arse you specialise in – and pissant progressive – ultimately insane – social and policy is complete.
social and economic policy that is…
Jim D: They promote
– reducing climate forcing
– no regrets pollution reduction, enforcing environmental standards such as smokestack scrubbing
– a carbon tax to fund the development of future energy technologies
– resilience (sea walls, resilient crop production)
– reforestation and protecting forests
I would not argue with that.
I would add building new and enlarged flood control and irrigation systems. Perhaps it is implicit in “resilience” but it should be made explicit.
“reduced climate forcing”, meaning CO2 reduction, is not going to happen. The slight reductions in CO2 achieved by the US and parts of the EU are more than overwhelmed by the increases everywhere else in the world. Germany and Japan, to pick two, have increased CO2 production along with reducing power output from their nuclear power plants.
A carbon tax sufficient to fund alternative energy would hardly be large enough to affect CO2 production. A better use for the money would be building nuclear power plants.
Jim D: 700 ppm is a realistic estimate based on rates of population growth and development along with some move away from fossil fuels as the main energy source. Temperatures from this are 2-6 C for the IPCC sensitivity range (1.5-4.5 C).
Starting at 400 ppm, where we are now, I get a predicted range of 1 – 3, for the increase with most of the probability at or below 2. If WebHubTelescope’s ln(CO2) model is accurate, the prediction is lower still (I can’t find where he has posted the coefficient of the ln(CO2) term, so perhaps he (or she?) will stop by [it just occurred to me that I don’t know whether WebHubTelescope is a man or woman. Maybe I knew and have forgotten.])
Plans I see promoted by skeptics focus on water works for flood control and irrigation; continued development of all energy sources; continued breeding of all crops; and continued medical research. Excessive investment in reducing fossil fuel use will probably reduce investment in these other endeavors, with a net reduction in human livelihoods.
Starting at 400 ppm doesn’t include the unrealized, but committed, warming in the pipeline. You have to start with pre-industrial levels to include all of the warming. 2-6 C is relative to preindustrial. At 400 ppm we are already committed to 0.75-2.25 C.
” Jim D | October 26, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
Starting at 400 ppm doesn’t include the unrealized, but committed, warming in the pipeline. ”
the warming in the pipeline is interesting phrase. Is there a definition
for the phrase. Oh let’s google it. Nope, don’t anything much which explains this.
Since ocean can hold so much heat, I generally associate “warming in pipeline” as warmed ocean. But I also imagine that other people are plugging other things they think could be cumulative.
Now for me, if we get some cooling in next couple decades, it wouldn’t make any different in terms “warming in the pipeline” because ocean slowly cool and slowly warm. But nor I think this “warming in the pipeline” is a threat, as do people worried about runaway effects.
So is there is any way, “warming in the pipeline” can be a scientific term? Can it be quantified?
Is mostly ocean heat for instance?.
‘it just occurred to me that I don’t know whether WebHubTelescope is a man or woman’
CE has a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
gbaikie, the warming in the pipeline is the net top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance that remains to be equalized. The ocean warming just delays this equalization, but doesn’t stop it. The only way to equalize it is for the earth to warm sufficiently.
“gbaikie, the warming in the pipeline is the net top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance that remains to be equalized. ”
Of course warming ocean could major part of imbalance. And other failures to measure it.
Obvious all chemical reactions [including life could be storing energy]. But of course that is fairly insignificant in terms potential of heat storage of the world’s ocean.
“The ocean warming just delays this equalization, but doesn’t stop it.”
It could stop it in terms of human lifetimes- or tree lifetimes. Centuries.
Anyhow, I am ask what you thought “warming in the pipeline” was.
So synonymous to measurement of imbalance of radiant energy at TOA. Not something I would have guessed.
“I don’t know whether WebHubTelescope is a man or woman”
A perfect example of the logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy.
Jim D: Starting at 400 ppm doesn’t include the unrealized, but committed, warming in the pipeline.
How much more warming is in the pipeline based on CO2 added since 1900 (or 1950 if you prefer)? Or to put it differently, how many more years have to pass before we say that the surface has warmed 90% of the amount that it is proposed to warm based on the accumulated CO2 to date? Note, I did not ask how long to equilibrium, I asked how long til the surface has moved 90% of the way toward the new equilibrium value.
WebHubTelescope’s model provides for no lag whatever between CO2 increase and resultant temperature change. However, if the time for Earth surface to increase 90% of the way to the new equilibrium value is short enough compared to the time for the deep oceans to move 90% of the way toward the new equilibrium value, then that omission does not introduce a very large error into its approximation.
Matthew Marler, you can Google climate response functions. It is an area where people have published some work. I guess a 90% response takes many decades, but less than a century, but since the forcing is growing with this time scale too, it may appear as a shorter lag.
Warming from AGW is at most 0.1 degrees C in the most recent warming – indistinguishable against large natural fluctuations.
In reality ocean heat content follows closely changes in net TOA radiant flux that originate predominantly in variability in ocean and atmosphere circulation.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=145
The reality of data seem to have little connection to simplistic AGW narratives. It is all symptomatic of a pervasive groupthink.
The forcing change so far is equivalent to moving the earth a quarter million miles (a moon distance) closer to the sun, to put it in a perspective people might be able to relate to. Doubling CO2 is like a half million miles. Would that be warmer? Yes, obviously, like 1% more solar energy reaching us.
The far more realistic comparison is the effect on SW reflection of 1/2 a percent change in cloud cover.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_humlum_zps93daeba7.png.html?sort=3&o=14
Jim D: The forcing change so far is equivalent to moving the earth a quarter million miles (a moon distance) closer to the sun, to put it in a perspective people might be able to relate to.
That’s not true. Moving closer to the sun creates an increase in inbound broad spectrum radiation, 23% of which is absorbed in the upper atmosphere. Increased CO2 results in greater absorption of outbound long wave infrared mostly in the troposphere, a little of which (at most) is subsequently radiated back to the Earth surface. Only in a theory that ignores most heat transfer within the climate system can declare those “equivalent”.
I wonder sometimes how much of the total relevant evidence you want to ignore altogether.
Jim D: you can Google climate response functions.
OK, so you don’t know and you don’t have a reference. Fair enough. Nobody knows everything.
My reading seems to show that the AGW-CO2 believers focus all their attention on final states (“equilibria”), ignoring all rates and most mechanisms. That is clearly stated by Raypierre in his book “Principles of Planetary Climate.” When there is an equilibrium, the rates and mechanisms don’t matter, only the energy balances, at least if the equilibrium occurs soon enough. But in the transient, or in a stationary process, or in a chaotic process, those are what matter, and the overal balance is not informative and it fluctuates.
Matthew Marler, a forcing is expressed in W/m2, and whether it comes from the sun, volcanoes, CO2, it has the same units. This gives its overall impact on the energy balance which has to be countered by warming. The warming effect may play out in a different transient way, but the final result is a warmer world for a positive forcing change.
As I tried to explain earlier, equilibrium gives the direction of climate change. Currently the surface temperature lags the equilibrium for the current forcing and so we are warming. The forcing is still increasing too, so the lag is not being closed and may be widening during the “pause”. The sign and size of the lag are of predictive value, just like when we have a large volcano, we know it will have a cooling effect for a while due to its forcing. These are things that are observed and measured.
The major lag is between when the fuel was combusted and the adjustment time for CO2 impulse response. In terms of transient effects, the GHG properties over land should kick in quickly because it is purely radiative heating.
OTOH, I could put the same 6 month lag on CO2 as I do for TSI, but that won’t effect the final result on a monotonically ascending forcing function that grows by 2-3 PPM per year. In other words, these kinds of lags impact cyclical behavior much more significantly by introducing a clear phase shift.
The problem with the long winded and repetitive nonsense from webby is that it says nothing that hasn’t been said before, has relevance for future temps, is reductionist and therefore far too simplistic, is missing at least one major driver and tends to obfuscate the significant facts of recent warming rather then elucidate. The latter is that at most 0.1 degrees C of the recent warming (1976 to 1998) can be attributed to AGW.
e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/24/liberal-denial-on-climate-change-and-energy/#comment-403802
It is really just another example of the most pervasive delusion in human history. No amount of reality can counter the insanity, the denial of simple facts and complex science alike or the sheer lack of anything that might pass for humour or intellectual humility. Progress is glacially slow as they reconcile one anomaly after another with post-hoc rationalisations. No it hasn’t stopped warming. Oh wait – it has stopped warming but it doesn’t matter anyway because – slot in your favourite AGW space cadet rationalisation, obfuscation or misdirection.
I don’t know what the outcome will ultimately be but – as these milleniallist cults are wont to do – I suspect Kool-Aide will be involved.
… has no relevance for future temperature…
Jim D: a forcing is expressed in W/m2, and whether it comes from the sun, volcanoes, CO2, it has the same units. This gives its overall impact on the energy balance which has to be countered by warming. The warming effect may play out in a different transient way, but the final result is a warmer world for a positive forcing change.
You keep shifting your ground. Earlier you wrote that adding CO2 has the same effect as moving the Earth closer to the Sun. Clearly there is no reason to think that.
Equilibrium gives the direction of change.
Actually, when equilibrium is possible, the direction of change is given by the difference from equilibrium. Using that depends on the value of the equilibrium being known. If “equilibrium” in the Earth temperature regime is the spatio-temporal average mean, then the approximation error that is evident across the regions of the Earth means that you can have increases in some places and times and decreases in other places and times, all within the approximation error. It could mean a decrease surface temp, increase in upper troposphere, and decrease in upper atmosphere. The “equilibrium” concept provides little information about the long-term or short-term effects of a doubling of CO2 in any particular region of the climate.
WebHubTelescope: OTOH, I could put the same 6 month lag on CO2 as I do for TSI, but that won’t effect the final result on a monotonically ascending forcing function that grows by 2-3 PPM per year.
I agree. That makes the problem of estimating the “correct” lag(s) and “correct” coefficient(s) ill-posed; without know the correct lags, the equation can not be used for predicting the future temps. Put differently, “warming in the pipeline” and “no warming in the pipeline” fit your model equally well. For larger lags you have higher values of the coefficient of the ln(CO2) term, for almost exactly the same fit.
If you could come up with an independent estimate of an appropriate lag between a doubling of CO2 and the mean Earth temp moving 90% toward the new “equilibrium” value (for example), then you’d have a reason for selecting a lag greater than 0 and estimating the corresponding coefficient.
Beenstock and co-author used a co-integrated model for just that reason: current temp should be a non-linear function of past CO2 values, if the CO2 model is correct. They found that with a reasonable non-linear co-integrated vector autoregressive model, the relationship of global temp to CO2 was not statistically significant.
I consider their model, your model, Vaughan Pratt’s model, and possibly dozens more to be “live”, meaning not strongly discredited by the data. Personally, I don’t think highly of models that depend strongly on the simplified radiative-transfer-only uniform temp and illumination models that are used to derive the equilibria. But I consider them “live”, because the approximations may prove ultimately accurate enough (your time^3 model was dead on arrival, because polynomials are never trustworthy outside the range of data on which they are estimated. I am glad you quickly produced the ln(CO2) model.) GCMs may be “live”; I can’ tell for sure (I have called them “demonstrably inaccurate”), but they look moribund now.
I didn’t put a lag into the log(CO2) term but now that you mention it, if I do that the fit does improve slightly and the TCR sensitivity increases. This moves the knee in the log(CO2) slightly to the right to match the more recent warming.
Is that what you want to see, an even stronger CO2 sensitivity?
gbaike: the warming in the pipeline is interesting phrase. Is there a definition
for the phrase. Oh let’s google it. Nope, don’t anything much which explains this.
conceptually, “warming in the pipeline” is well-defined: it is the warming yet to occur from the hypothesized energy imbalance induced by increased CO2 over the last few decades. Measuring the imbalance and estimating how much warming is yet to occur and where are the open problems.
Consider the untested possibility that the Earth surface and lower troposphere have adjusted 95% of the way from the old equilibrium value to the new equilibrium value (this relates to a question I posed yesterday, and would explain why WebHubTelescope’s CSALT model [and Vaughan Pratt’s model] is so accurate at the Earth surface), and that all future warming will occur deep below the ocean surface over the next millenium. Then there is no global warming problem.
Matthew Marler, the idea that the response is so fast is belied by the ocean lag. If we were already near equilibrium, the ocean and land would have warmed about equally. As it is, their temperatures are diverging.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:240/mean:120
The clue that we are near equilibrium would be if these two lines converged again, which seems to be some way off in the future after we stop emitting CO2.
“Warming in the pipeline” can only be meaningful if we carefully define what we mean by both the terms– warming and pipeline. Warming of what? Pipeline from where to where? If by warming we mean tropospheric warming, the. We must mean that additional energy will be coming into the troposphere from somewhere. Of course, that somewhere could only be the ocean, and given that the oceans have stored about 25 x 10^22 joules of energy over the past 40 years or so…and the net flow of energy is always from ocean to atmosphere…then yes, there is some warming of the troposphere in the ocean to atmosphere pipeline. And of course, we haven’t even talked about the slow positive feedback Earth system changes going on which also mean more warming for troposphere is “in the pipeline” as the HCV seems to be sending the climate back to a Pliocene-like condition.
that all future warming will occur deep below the ocean surface over the next millenium. Then there is no global warming problem. … – Matthew R Marler
If for some reason all warming is sequestered in the deep ocean for 1000 years, you would eventually have a very warm deep ocean, and then what?
R. Gates,
The idea that troposphere would be warmed by ocean in a persistent fashion does not make sense until the ocean has warmed more than the troposphere. The only reasonable interpretation of the pipeline is that one discussed already in this thread:
Changes in forcing precede actual warming.
Warming of ocean is (by far) the slowest part of the change, not a source but a sink of heat as long as the TOA imbalance remains on the warming side. Natural variability is another issue, not a part of the persistent warming.
The dynamics of all these changes is significant. At some point in the future CO2 concentration is not any more high enough to lead to further warming but the long term cooling trend takes over. One relevant question is, what is the temperature at that moment. Both warming of the oceans and later changes in CO2 concentration operate on a time scale of centuries. Who can tell,how they will balance each other?
All energy transfer to oceans reduces the warming of surface and troposphere for a given forcing. The large heat capacity of the oceans helps, but how much?
“warming in the pipeline” is like “fairness”. It is a content free term that means whatever the progressive using it wants it to mean.
Verison 1: At first, for many, it refered to the “missing heat”. They didn’t know where it was, but they jnew it was there, and it was coming to get us.
Version 2: As the “missing heat” became more an embarrassment than an excuse, some shifted to saying the “warming in the pipeline” is the additional warming that is to come from solar heat that will be retained in the future by the CO2 that has already been released by stupid humans.
Version 3: Due to the “pause”, warmists shifted their attention to the deep oceans, where there are no measurements sufficient to contradict their assumptions. Many now claimed that the “heat in the pipeline” is now in the deep ocean (having somehow by-passsed the upper ocean), and is still coming to get us. (Though they haven’t yet gotten around to explaining how cold deep ocean will warm a much warmer atmosphere.)
Gavin Schmidt for instance was a 3, but changed to a 2.
And my opinion of why Gavin Schmidt changed his definition of the term “heat in the pipeline” was that he decided he could not argue with a straight face that the additional heat in the deep ocean would somehow get released into the atmosphere with sufficiently disastrous effects.
Now he can still clam that it is coming to get us, from the sun, where it is lurking like a cheetah, about to spring on its prey.
Basically you and other skeptics don’t understand what heat in the pipeline means because you don’t want to understand.
It’s the same willful denial that allows you to keep pretending the ocean isn’t gaining heat.
You twist the meanings of such phrases to smear the science you are desperate to deny.
Pekka said:
“The idea that troposphere would be warmed by ocean in a persistent fashion does not make sense until the ocean has warmed more than the troposphere.”
——-
Unsure of your intent here. The atmosphere is continually being warmed (i.e. Energy is being transferred) by the ocean. At any given time, at least half the energy in the atmosphere came directly from the ocean. The ocean in this manner acts as a buffer of solar energy, as it passes from sun to ocean to atmosphere. The energy content of the ocean of course vastly exceeds anything the atmosphere ever could contain. Natural variability simply alters the rate of flow of that energy, though globally, it is always positive, from ocean to atmosphere.
“Warming in the pipeline” is the dead polar bear photo of our time. It is becoming more and more an embarrassment for those who bleated about it the loudest.
It is, like so much of the rest of the CAGW dogma, PR not science. It was a political statement used because they thought it would have the right effect. It’s sort of a poor man’s “carbon volcano”.
I think most of understand perfectly well: it’s a buzz-phrase used in rationalizing an ideological agenda that really has very little to do with climate or CO2.
The earliest discussion of warming in the pipeline I can find was by James Hansen in the early 1980s, and what the phrase means has never changed.
R. Gates,
I was aware of that and tried to find a formulation that would not be unnecessarily long or technical, but could be understood in the way I had in mind.
What I was discussing were deviations from a stationary state, where the temperatures and heat contents do not change. Energy flows through the system even in a stationary state, thus only deviations from that are relevant for this discussion.
Many commenters of this thread have understood the obvious fact that the pipeline cannot be something hiding in the oceans and waiting to come out from there. The only things that precede warming of the surface are the increase in CO2 concentration and its direct consequence, the radiative imbalance at TOA.
Yeah, yeah, I heard. The check is in the mail.
=======
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference
between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing
results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global
climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations
in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
Heat in the pipeline is something that emerges from abstract ideas of equilibrium. The atmosphere warms reducing IR loss from the oceans – the oceans warm more slowly until the energy equilibrium is restored warming the atmosphere a little more and so on.
Ideas from equilibrium dynamics are invalid. The real system has constant and large changes in radiant flux and – as usual – can only be understood in terms of real world data. The changes are substantially greater than any mooted forcing from greenhouse gases and result in a complex picture resistant to simple explanations.
I would agree that the ‘pipeline’ is not an informative term for it. What it refers to is that the CO2 in the atmosphere is already high enough that it will need a warmer surface temperature to counter its effect on the energy balance. The only way to prevent that surface warming is to remove that CO2 from the atmosphere (other things, like albedo, being equal), otherwise it will happen sooner or later depending on how much the ocean can absorb. In budget terms the unbalanced CO2 is the debt, and the payment is the surface warming, net emissions are the deficit.
Pekka said:
“The only things that precede warming of the surface are the increase in CO2 concentration and its direct consequence, the radiative imbalance at TOA.”
——
Well, respectfully Pekka, this is most assuredly false. One of the most reliable precursors on shorter time frames to global warming at the surface are El Niño events. These events enhance the normal flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere. During such events, more energy than average stored in the ocean is transferred to the troposphere. An opposite occurence happens during La Niña events, where slightly less than average (though still of course quite positive) energy is transferred from ocean to atmosphere and tropospheric temperatures can fall by a few tents of a degree on average. On longer decadal timeframes, if we go through a period of more El Niño than La Niña, we can see a few decades of higher surface temperatures, and then the opposite if La Niña is more frequent.
R. Gates,
I did explicitly exclude short term (and also longer term) natural variability from my argument. It applies to the persistent changes.
If we have had a “short term pipeline” in recent history the most certain case is the opposite pipeline of cooling from the relative maximum around 2000. That’s the one we can see in retrospect, we cannot tell as much about the present.
WebHubTelescope: Is that what you want to see, an even stronger CO2 sensitivity?
I think the more lagged CO2 concentrations you use the more realistic the model becomes, and also the transient sensitivity increases. A large group of models with a few lags are nearly indistinguishable with respect to mse and R^2. You report that your model with a current lnCO2 and a lagged lnCO2 fits that data better. Based on the CO2 conceptual model, a mathematical model with lagged lnCO2 ought to fit the future data better than a model with only current lnCO2.
Any model with a demonstrably accurate estimate of transient sensitivity to a future CO2 increase would be an improvement over what is available now. All the models I have read to date have serious liabilities, and have not been tested stringently against out of sample data.
The CO2 is already lagged as a result of the impulse response against emissions.
Both CO2 and TSI lags should be short.
-JCH | October 27, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
that all future warming will occur deep below the ocean surface over the next millenium. Then there is no global warming problem. … – Matthew R Marler
If for some reason all warming is sequestered in the deep ocean for 1000 years, you would eventually have a very warm deep ocean, and then what?”-
The oceans are vast and they are cold.
So the mass of Earth’s ocean is:
“The total mass of the hydrosphere is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
The heat energy, Joules needed to heat one kg of water by 1 K is:
4.204 KJ or 4204 joules:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
To heat a ton of water by 1 C is 4204 KJ
Amount of heat needed [or which stored] to heat about 1.4×10^21 kg of water 1 C is 4204 joules times 1.4×10^21 kg equals 5.8 ×10^24 joules or watt seconds.
Total amount of Sunlight at the top of the atmosphere over the entire Earth surface in one second is the total disk area of Earth times the
solar constant.
Earth’s radius is 6,371,000 meters.
6,371,000 times 6,371,000 times pi is Earth disk area in square meters
So 6.371 x 10^6 times 6.371 x 10^6 equals 40.5896 x 10^12
4.05896 x 10^13 times pi is 12.745 x 10^13
1.2745 x 10^14 square meters or 127.45 trillion square meters
Solar constant is “roughly 1.361 kilowatts”
1361 watts 1.2745 x 10^14 is 1.7346 x10^17 watts per second
So is all the energy from the sun was converted into heat, the total
energy of sunlight at Earth distance from the sun which intersect the planet earth is 1.7346 x10^17 joules per second.
Divide the number 5.8 ×10^24 joules by the number 1.7346 x10^17 joules to determine how many seconds it would require if all Sun’s energy went into heating the the Earth’s ocean. So
5.8 ×10^24 divided by 1.7346 x10^17 is 3.34 x 10^8 seconds.
Or 334,398,025 seconds
There is 31,536,000 seconds in 365 days [one year].
So it would take more 10 years of all the energy of sunlight to warm
the ocean. And oceans would have act like a black hole- only energy goes in and no heat radiating from it for the +10 year period, in order
have the same amount of energy as 1 K rise temperature in the entire oceans of Earth.
Or the cooling if entire ocean by 1 C gives more heat than sunlight for more 10 years. If the blinks out, and you consider 3 C as warm, then ocean will keep you warm for thousands of years.
Or what commonly known, the ocean require centuries to warm and for entire ocean thousands of years.
What important in terms of reaching the average Earth temperature is merely the surface temperature of Earth ocean- which are about 24 C
in the tropics. When averaging, since the tropic region is 40% of entire surface of Earth and most of this area is ocean and since about 24 C warmer than 15 C , it brings the average up to 15 C.
WebHubTelescope: The CO2 is already lagged as a result of the impulse response against emissions.
You are not concerned with “warming in the pipeline”? If the model with no lag or short lags is best, then there is no or little “warming in the pipeline”.
Current CO2 represent past burning, but if the CO2 causes an energy flow imbalance, then current temperature has to reflect past CO2.
Heat sinking is trivial to accommodate to first order. A fraction of the excess heat is sunk into the ocean. If that heat sink is big enough, you don’t have to account for the gradient leveling off for a while. This is a typical thermal diffusion process.
Jim D: Starting at 400 ppm doesn’t include the unrealized, but committed, warming in the pipeline.
This provides a good opportunity for you to comment, should you like to, on WebHubTelescope’s lnCO2 model (CSALT.)
WebHubTelescope: Heat sinking is trivial to accommodate to first order. A fraction of the excess heat is sunk into the ocean. If that heat sink is big enough, you don’t have to account for the gradient leveling off for a while. This is a typical thermal diffusion process.
I hinted at that indirectly somewhere. Your model is compatible with the idea that warming of the surface and upper ocean is rapid compared to the warming of the deep ocean; if the predicted response to a doubling of CO2 is 2.2C (per your model), it’s possible that the surface and upper ocean could warm by 2C before any warming in the ocean can be detected, indeed, within a couple days of the increase in CO2. But the system now maintains a huge gradient between surface/upper and deep ocean; whatever it is will continue to operate, so the deep ocean will equilibrate, so to speak, at about 2.2C warmer than today. This is one of the reasons that it is so important to consider the disparity between the “equilibrium” approximate temperature, and the actual temperatures of the parts of the climate system.
Elsewhere I emphasize the importance of considering the transient responses that preced any equilibrium. Given the climate as it is now, it is possible that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the rate of transfer of tangible and latent energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere, producing an extremely slight increase in rainfall without any net warming of the surface an lower troposphere.
Jim D: If we were already near equilibrium, the ocean and land would have warmed about equally.
This is an example of how the “equilibrium” concept ceases to be informative. At best, CO2 increase might raise the mean of the distribution, of a process which may or may not be stationary. Land surface, ocean surface, and deep ocean will never be at the same temperature. But land and sea surface mean temperatures could be within a tiny fraction of their new mean values in the new distribution appropriate to (or modeled from) current mean CO2 concentration, even as the deep ocean has hardly changed at all.
The focus on equilibria of an average Earth, instead of rates and transients in particular places and times, is terribly misleading.
Matthew Marler, for climate equilibrium what matters is surface temperature and this is always an asymptotic process. We can only be sure when we are far from it such as now, especially with the land warming so rapidly because its response is faster and more direct.
Jim D: We can only be sure when we are far from it such as now, especially with the land warming so rapidly because its response is faster and more direct.
I think you miss the point, or deny it outright, that we are always far from equilibrium and always will be: even if there is global warming, the diverse temperature gradients will be maintained and the surface will warm and cool through the seasons and day and night.
There may be no “warming in the pipeline” at and near the Earth surface with responds quickly to changes in radiation; and the 2C or so “warming in the pipeline ” of the deep ocean may take 1000 years.
That’s true. As long as we keep pumping out non-condensing GHG’s, there will be a strong forcing function pushing us even further from equilibrium.
Matthew Marler, for its albedo and distance from the sun, the earth has an equilibrium radiative temperature (255 K). For its atmospheric composition its surface temperature has an equilibrium difference from this radiative temperature (33 K). It is a steady state solution in physics. It is no coincidence that the surface temperature of the earth averages 288 K. It is from this equilibrium. We can mess with the atmosphere’s 33 K contribution to change it, or with the earth’s albedo, or some combination, and these have predictable effects on this temperature. The Ice Ages are explained by this. You can choose not to believe that the 288 K is explainable from the atmosphere’s radiative properties, but that means you are adding uncertainty where there is none. It’s just physics, as Lacis would say.
WebHubTelescope: As long as we keep pumping out non-condensing GHG’s, there will be a strong forcing function pushing us even further from equilibrium.
We shall never be at equilibrium. Full Stop.
There will always be spatio-temporal variation in temperature and rainfall (the hydrologic cycle broadly considered.)
Jim D: It is no coincidence that the surface temperature of the earth averages 288 K.
the important fact about the Earth climate is not what its mean temperature and rainfall are, but their spatio-temporal variation and covariation. At times and places with high temps (relative to the range), outward radiation increases proportional to T^4 (Pierrehumbert writes that the error in that approximation is about 10%) in that time and place, and cloud cover increases in that time and place increasing albedo. When temperature is low compared to the range, outward radiation decreases and cloud cover decreases. Thus the temperature oscillates with multiple approximate periods, entrained and driven in part by changes in the incident radiation from the sun.
Estimates of the “natural” mean temp derived from the equilibrium approximation are necessarily inaccurate to some degree, differ somewhat from one calculation to another, and totally fail to create the correct distributions.
That’s not true. I’ve repeatedly made a suggestion: full steam ahead on methane, both from wells and sea-bottom methane hydrate (clathrate), a really major R&D initiative pursuing solar PV/electrolytic hydrogen/biomethane to ultimately replace fossil sources. This would retain the value of investments in methane processing, transportation, and power generation.
I’ll add to that: new coal-fired power plants should be made capable of burning powdered, carbonized azolla, as well as, ideally, generic carbonized biowaste. This would allow investments in coal-fired energy to also retain their value, being converted to “renewable” fuels.
As for liquid fuels (oil), there are current projects to generate bio-gasoline and other fuels using taylored cyanobacteria. These fuels would not require any retro-fitting of current technology to use.
Each of these proposed initiatives could, IMO, be accomplished without significantly raising the cost/price of energy. For instance, research could be stimulated by changing the Intellectual Property laws, perhaps allowing companies to divert a specific fraction of their tax bills to research, allowing them to retain limited patent rights: enough to provide strong incentives for real research, but not as much as they would get for R&D they’ed paid for out of their own funds.
the high risk that there’s not really a problem, raising the price of energy should be avoided. Given the high risk that there is a problem, initiatives to transfer to energy not dependent on fossil carbon should be pursued. Just not raising the cost/price of energy.
Any solution that continues with putting all the coal carbon in the atmosphere is not an actual solution to the problem. It’s net carbon over time that matters, not efficiency of use.
” Skeptics need to come up with policies in case they are wrong, but they have not been forthcoming on those, which is like burying their heads in the sand.
That’s not true. I’ve repeatedly made a suggestion: full steam ahead on methane, both from wells and sea-bottom methane hydrate (clathrate), a really major R&D initiative pursuing solar PV/electrolytic hydrogen/biomethane to ultimately replace fossil sources. This would retain the value of investments in methane processing, transportation, and power generation.”
It seems if government were do something, it should do something in regards to studying methane hydrate. Why do spend almost twice as much on the Energy Dept as NASA and have the DOE doing very little about this issue.
“I’ll add to that: new coal-fired power plants should be made capable of burning powdered, carbonized azolla, as well as, ideally, generic carbonized biowaste. This would allow investments in coal-fired energy to also retain their value, being converted to “renewable” fuels.”
Hmm. Could be a serious answer in Asia. Something China should look into when they run out of coal. Start developing it now.
Wiki:
“A study of Arctic Paleoclimatology reported that Azolla may have had a significant role in reversing an increase in greenhouse effect that occurred 55 million years ago that caused the region around the north pole to turn into a hot, tropical environment. This research conducted by the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University claims that massive patches of Azolla growing on the (then) freshwater surface of the Arctic Ocean consumed enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for the global greenhouse effect to decline, eventually causing the formation of Ice sheets in Antarctica and the current “Icehouse period” which we are still in. This theory has been termed the Azolla event.”
Never heard of that theory.
So many of them:)
Jim D | October 26, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
“Any solution that continues with putting all the coal carbon in the atmosphere is not an actual solution to the problem. It’s net carbon over time that matters, not efficiency of use.”
We have yet to establish that global warming does more harm than good. A lot of the earth is too cold and it’s the cold bits that get the lion’s share of the warming. For most of the earth’s history it had no polar ice caps. It was green from pole to pole. What exactly is wrong with that? Do a cost/benefit analysis please.
DS, yes, some might suggest that 700 ppm and no ice is all good, never mind that sea level will be set on its way to being 200 feet higher, areas of the tropics will be uninhabitable, and polar methane may begin outgassing. Let them make that case.
Sorry, I’m short of time.
@Jim D…
My proposals have also stressed the ability of all these methods to extract CO2 from the air. Later on, when the technology is mature, it becomes possible to divert some of the output to dumping into sea-floor subducting trenches, which would add up to a remediation process that could suck the CO2 right back out of the air, and nearby sinks where it’s accumulating.
@gbaikie…
I’ve discussed Azolla on my blog.
AK, at the moment that looks fanciful compared to the idea of: let’s just stop digging up the stuff. The phrase: when you’re in a hole you stop digging, should apply to mankind.
While we’re at it why don’t we stop committing crimes, stop having wars, stop having corrupt governments, share food and shelter so no one is ever cold or hungry again.
How about after we do that we stop digging up fossil fuels? Sound like a good plan? What could go wrong?
@Jim D | October 26, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Well, “just stop digging up the stuff” looks pretty fanciful right now, considering the economic implications. It simply isn’t justified by the possibility that there’s a risk.
Jim D: let’s just stop digging up the stuff
Why even bother writing that? Who is going to give up electricity, transportation, heating and manufacturing?
Matthew Marler, the scale of the warming depends on the ultimate amount burned. Any future policy needs to limit that. For example a trillion-tonne limit for carbon that was proposed as what is needed for the 2 C warming target, but we have already put more than half that in the atmosphere leaving a quite strict budget for what remains, and it also implies leaving a lot of even known fossil fuel resources (coal, oils shale) in the ground, let alone undiscovered ones. I don’t think it is possible to hit this target, but it gives the kind of balance between warming and using fossil fuel reserves that need to be known about. This balance is the one humanity has to consider. There is no winning strategy: more warming and more burning or less warming and less burning. Both directions are painful.
The sort of thing only an ignorant fool or somebody with a political agenda beyond carbon could say.
AK, it is called realism. What do you think the choices are? You are going to propose some geoengineering carbon sequestration effort that no one will pay for, I expect.
“@gbaikie…
I’ve discussed Azolla on my blog.”
You can separate fresh water from saltwater with solar pond:
“A solar pond can be used for various applications, such as process heating, desalination, refrigeration, drying and solar power generation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond
So use ocean water and deserts- like Sahara desert in Libya.
Mine the salt and make fresh water.
So fill a large pond, have fresher water separate from pond warming from sunlight. Remove top layer of fresher water, then remove the saltier water. Fill pond back up with sea water. Repeat.
Have salter water heat up, separate fresher water. Repeat,
The fresh water can heated and the fresher water will go to the surface.
And probably fresh enough for Azolla.
But would think main process is making fresh water and mining seawater.
But since Libya [or Egypt, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression ] are political challenging. Perhaps saltwater lakes in the US could used. Such as California and Utah.
But seems what you need lots unusable land and not needing to pump the sea water up much elevation.
More.
Re:I’ve discussed Azolla on my blog.
And solar ponds
I thinking coral islands- but not much room.
Then thinking could large large rafts or seawater containers.
You have problem of cost of material. It could be just plastic
liner. And to insulate it double pane the plastic liner.
But you have to have a lot of it.
One problem is you make a lot fresh water. But if wanted a lot
fresh water for Azolla, that be way to get a lot of “land”.
Now waves, whales:), and weather.
But you would have a lot flat area.
Of course if rains a lot you one get freshwater that way.
But probably areas of lots of sun and less wind and storms.
One thing to do about storm is to flee from them, by sinking
under the water. Keeping the Azolla crop while doing this
could be challenging. You also need a lid.
And want a plastic that sinks in seawater. Then have the perimeter
being most structural integrity of the container.And the perimeter
would have mean controlling the ballast. So well above the water
or sink and get a neutral buoyancy at say 30 meter under water.
So it’s kind of like a huge jellyfish.
And need weights to sink the warmer more buoyant water.
Or since complicated to save crop and the crop, you could harvest
abandon crop and save farm and start over after the storm.
@Jim D | October 27, 2013 at 4:27 pm…
Here’s my point: the cost of a process is critically dependent on the situation, especially availability and cost of the resources it uses. If there’s already a very large volume process of CO2 extraction from the air, used for fuel, then setting up a parasitic process to divert some of the product to sequestration would be far less expensive than starting from scratch.
The bio-methane process, as I’ve envisioned it, would (should, IMO) be able to extract CO2 from the air or sea-surface water using the energy output from the reaction: 4H2+CO2=2H2O+CH4. I doubt this energy could be extracted in a standard chemical reactor, but using existing methanogens it probably could, given it happens in nature (see my blog post). The methane produced can then be fed into the same industrial processes as that from fossil sources such as sea-floor methane hydrate, fracking, and standard wells. Over time, as the cost of solar PV decreases exponentially, and the cost of the other parts of the process also become lower due to technology maturation, methane from this source will become competitive with fossil sources.
Once the volume becomes sufficiently high, and the cost sufficiently low, the actual cost of diverting large amounts to sequestration becomes far, far, smaller than it would be today, or doing it from scratch.
A similar situation can be envisioned for Azolla, used in place of coal. Again, doing it from scratch would be more expensive than diverting a fraction of production to sequestration, once the price has come down and the volume up.
One good possibility, rather than simply dumping fuel, would be to use carbon-capture technology on the back end (for fixed power plants). If this technology also becomes mature, over perhaps 2-3 decades, it could be used to capture CO2 after power generation that had originally been extracted from the air, and sequester it. There’s another likely synergy from solarPV/electrolysis: the oxygen created from this process is essentially pure, and could be used as input to oxygen-fired power plants (as opposed to air-fired), which IIRC makes back-end carbon-capture much cheaper.
My point is, that with the right “steering” of technology development and maturation, the actual cost of sequestering large amounts of CO2 at a time-point 2-3 decades in the future would be much lower than starting today. Instead, power generation technology is switched from fossil to “renewable” for purposes of energy generation, and the science is given a few decades of maturity to produce a better estimate of the risk, and the need for CO2 removal at all.
And, IMO, this would be essentially no-regrets, in the sense that energy costs/prices wouldn’t have to increase substantially, our culture(s) would transfer from fossil to “renewable” carbon without major impacts to improving life-style, and we’d have a few more decades to determine whether sequestration is even necessary. And if it is, it could be done as an addendum to existing power technology with little additional cost, and no major impacts.
Temperatures from this are 2-6 C for the IPCC sensitivity range (1.5-4.5 C). This is as far as the science gets us.
This is not science.
This is a guess by the same people who have guessed wrong for decades.
There are some people who deny the whole IPCC range.
Including the IPCC.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
Ensembles of opportunity are at the core of the most pervasive delusion in human history.
CH, you noticed that was talking about ‘prediction’ not ‘projection’, right?
So the predictions are wrong – but if you call it a projection that makes it OK? The fact remains that ‘projections’ are impossible for the same reason as ‘predictions’. Unless you count utter BS as a valid scientific method. Oh – I forgot – it’s Jim D.
Projections depend on a given scenario, which is not easy to predict. The scenario includes not just emissions, but solar variations and volcanoes. No one can predict these even with all the science we have, so that is why they say climate prediction is not possible, but for a given scenario, there are climate changes that can be projected. It’s subtle, but that is why the IPCC does projections, not predictions.
Neither prediction or projection is possible because both climate and models are coupled non-linear systems. As they quite clearly say.
‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)
We have had this dance before and the tediousness of it all grows daily. I reference world class science. You pull things out of your arse. The ability to substitute your own reality in insane post-hoc rationalisations is I believe characteristic of space cadets and reveals again the reality of the most pervasive delusion in human history.
It’s subtle, but that is why the IPCC does projections
The academy of Laputa employed projectors in their experiments as well,with similar results.
CH, yes, uncertain it is. It comes down to the question: 700 ppm CO2 warmer or not? How about looking at the last time it was 700 ppm, if you don’t want to use a model, and use that as a first guess at least. Turns out that was before the Antarctic had glaciated, so it was pretty warm and sea levels were quite high. Now you might say, we still have ice, so that albedo might reduce the temperature and sea level a bit, but then the question is how long will that ice last? It’s a fresh new perspective on the problem, starting from the other end and working backwards.
Cooler seems more likely in the Quaternary due to AMOC changes.
This will lead to substantial and quite rapid declines in atmospheric CO2.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ Wally Broecker
It is quite delusional to promulgate simplistic space cadet narratives and then to believe utterly in your own nonsense.
The reality is that AGW in the most recent warming was at most 0.1 degrees C – this makes no difference at all over reasonable time frames. If it were not for the potential for abrupt change.
Chief Hydrologist: Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’
Excellent quote.
Thanks Matthew – I usually get accused of cutting and pasting irrelevant quotes. I’m sure it just goes over their heads. There is a threshold concept in there – but without an understanding of the concept it means very little indeed. With an understanding it is a whole new world.
Jim D
“Temperatures from this are 2-6 C for the IPCC sensitivity range (1.5-4.5 C). This is as far as the science gets us.”
That is PART of current published papers, not THE science. Numerous o other papers suggest sensitivity half of that. For reviews, see ClimateChangeReconsidered.com
The current anti coal hysteria is severely harming the Crow Tribe that depends on coal sales for their economy.
Jim D,
I suppose that would include me. I saw somewhere that science is to climate as witch is to doctor.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Jim D
Try a reality check of putting people first and looking at the benefits of CO2. Then review prioritizing the most beneficial humanitarian projects per cost. See CopenhagenConsensus.org led by Bjorn Lomborg. See their review of progress achieved.
Copenhagen Consensus 2012
Remember, when considering insurance, if the premium exceeds the risk, don’t insure!
When it comes to future costs, it is better to save and lend than to borrow and spend (hey, that rhymes). The former means you earn the interest, the latter means you pay it. The countries with the money will bail out those that don’t have it. It is financial planning that matters.
Jim D
Yes, those are truisms for individuals from the days of Proverbs.
However, look closer at: “The countries with the money will bail out those that don’t have it.”
Take a closer look at Jeffrey Brown, The Export Capacity Index, especially Fig. 19 and Fig. 20
“The countries with the money will bail out those that don’t have it.”
However, from 2002 to 2011, global public debt doubled from $20 to $43 trillion, while the ratio Gross Net (oil) Exports/(China + India Net Oil Imports) dropped in half from 11 to 5.
Why will the “countries with the money” chose to “bail out those who don’t have it”?
Will thety have the $ to do so?
What if instead they buy up the wealth in those countries as they fall into bankruptcy?
Look at what OPEC has done during the recent economic crisis.
The US is running the deficit, and China the excess.
Will China “bail out” the US?
If it does, it will have gained a strategic financial advantage.
David L. Hagen, we could phrase your question as whether China will continue to lend the US money when it is faced with a series of climate-related costs, as China will also be. Wouldn’t it be better if the US had its own pot of money to deal with this and had revenue siphoned from the carbon consumption that caused the issues in the first place? It helps to play out the scenarios of high cost and how they might be handled on the international stage when all the countries are facing them.
Jim D
To save money, need to have profit – which means to reduce costs. Requiring sequestration will increase power costs by 30% to 50% even though increasing CO2 is projected to be beneficial for the next generation of power plant lift. That will REDUCE savings, not increase it.
China and India are rapidly adding power at the lowest cost possible – coal fired. Their demand is so high it has increased the global cost of coal. They are saving, and Obama is reducing our savings.
Build Nuclear power stations, start now, fund research on nuclear, fund fusion.
Why isn’t this the first thing out of the warmists mouths? Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows wind and solar isn’t ready to replace fossil fuels, and won’t be for a long time, yet thats all they want. Maybe it more about putting a stake in societies heart, than warming?
Besides, can someone explain why I need to worry about .1 degree, when I just saw a 5 degree/hr drop in temp when the clouds cleared?
OK, OK, rubbing two brains cells together is just wonderful; a spark under the Java and a beastly cup with two backhandles.
=================
Jim D | October 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Reply
Skeptics need to come up with policies in case they are wrong, but they have not been forthcoming on those, which is like burying their heads in the sand”
==============
The Law of Unintended Consequences tells us that good intentions often have bad results. The problem with good intentions is that it excuses great harm, which blinds the righteous on their path to hell.
We send food to hungry people, driving local farmers out of business who cannot compete with “free”, and thus create starving people the next year.
To prevent possible warming 100 years from now, we artificially boost energy prices to aid wealthy investors, while the elderly die of fuel poverty. Either because they can afford heating in the winter of cooling in the summer.
The solution is straight forward. Take care of today’s people today and let the future’s people take care of the future people. Who can say what discoveries will be made along the way.
Perhaps a right-wing version of decarbonization does neglect the poor, but there are also versions that don’t, especially if run by people who care (lefties to you).
Jim D, so far, from 1940 to 2013 there is only 18 years of warming.
AGW Cultists should explain that before the world squanders another trillion dollars.
Count of years is irrelevant, overall warming is the only relevant measure.
ferd berple
+100
Pekka, the most warming occurred long, long ago.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/hadcet-top_18-year/
JimD, the essential feature of decarbonization is to kill off the poor.
All decarbonization plans punish people with lower incomes. The lower your income, the bigger the punishment.
Your estimates of future CO2 concentration are probably correct enough to support your arguments, provided you accept the IPCC’s sensitivity estimates are close to correct. But the IPCC sponsored models have all grossly exaggerated global temperature. Not one of their 20 or so models correctly predicted global average temperature during the last 15 years. or replicated the 1940 to 1970 fall in temperature. This on/off global warming bears no relation to the IPCC models, Consequently the the IPCC papers, which are all based on those models, should be ignored in any quantitative climate studies.
Jim D
You write:
“The science” is a murky expression, Jim. What you should have written is: “this is as far as the science as interpreted by IPCC gets us”.
I’d agree that somewhere around 650 ppmv by 2100 is a reasonable estimate for a “business as usual” case with no mitigation initiatives.
But the rest of your calculation is goofy. At 1.5C ECS, the warming at 700 ppmv CO2 would be 1.2C (not 2C). At 4.5C ECS, the warming at 700 ppmv CO2 would be 3.7C (not 6C)
But back to your assumptions.
Several recent observation-based studies on 2xCO2 ECS show that a more likely range is 1.2C to 2.4C.
Switching most new coal-fired plants to nuclear plus a few other “no-regrets” actions based on existing technologies, as suggested in a recent ASME summary report, could reduce CO2 by around 80 ppmv by 2100 (from 650 to 570 ppmv).
So the theoretical warming from CO2 (at equilibrium) is likely to be 0.9C to 1.7C without “no-regrets” actions, and 0.6C to 1.3C incorporating the “no-regrets” actions.
If new technologies are developed over the course of this century, which are more economical than fossil fuels (quite likely), then the CO2 level and resulting theoretical GH warming could be even lower.
Since studies have shown that the first 2.2C warming is likely to be beneficial on balance to mankind and our environment, there is no apparent problem and “the policy implications” are sit back, enjoy the ride and worry about real problems.
You have to watch out using bloated assumptions and goofy calculations that arrive at grossly exaggerated projections, as IPCC has done with its ridiculous RCP8.5 scenario. They only make you look like an irrational alarmist
Max
Max estimated:
That will give a most-likely 3.5C warming in land areas in comparison to the temperature in 1850 according to current observational estimates.
Max has a bad habit of picking the warming from the current date, instead of taking into account the anthropogenic warming that has already occurred.
manacker, ln(700/280)/ln2=1.32
1.32*4.5 C=5.95 C
maybe you made your usual error of forgetting to include the CO2 effect already committed by the increase from 280 ppm.
Also 650 ppm requires the CO2 growth rate flatlining at 3 ppm per year from now until 2100. Given population growth and development, this is a mitigation scenario, not business as usual, because it requires carbon per capita to decrease when even in the last decade it has been increasing steadily, and is already almost at 3 ppm.
Webby
You write
That “bad habit” is called “logic”, Webby (too bad you don’t apply it to your comments here).
The warming, which has already occurred since some arbitrary date long ago labeled “pre-industrial” by IPCC is history, Web.
And we are arguably much better off than we were when it was around 1C colder back then (as we were still coming out of a period of even colder weather, the LIA).
So fuggidaboudit, Web.
What counts is the warming projected from today to the future, and studies have shown that this warming is most likely to be beneficial to humanity on balance up to around 2.2C above today’s temperature.
Logical, right?
Max
Jim D
Don’t be a dummy like Webby.
The studies showed that warming of up to 2.2C above today’s temperature would most likely be beneficial for humanity on balance.
That’s what’s being discussed.
Get with it, man.
Max
Jim D
I’ve corrected your first error of confusing “warming since 1750” with “warming from today” (which was used as the baseline for the “up to 2.2C is beneficial” conclusion).
Now to your second boo-boo.
World-wide average per capita CO2 emission increased by around 10% from 1970 to today.
In arriving at the 650 ppmv level by 2100, I have used population growth estimates of the UN and US Census Bureau and estimated that per capita CO2 emission would increase by another 30% over this century. Run the numbers yourself, Jim, and you’ll see that they are correct.
To arrive at the IPCC RCP8.5 level of 1000+ ppmv, the average global per capita CO2 emission level would have to increase to a level higher than that in the USA today.
This is obviously balderdash (to put it politely).
The USA per capita CO2 level has already decreased significantly over the past decade (as it has in most already developed nations).
Get your numbers straight, Jim, or you just make yourself look silly (as IPCC has done with RCP8.5).
Max
Max lies in plain sight.
That means he admits to fabrication while showing no concerns.
Fake skeptics condone the behavior.
Webby
You are resorting to blah-blah again.
Whazzamatter?
Run out of real arguments?
Max
Max,
I have lots of real arguments both here and at my blog. The problem is that every once in a while one has to empty the trash bucket.
manacker, if the population grows by 40% by 2100 (7 billion to 10 billion) and the per capita emission also grows by a modest 40% through development in populated less developed areas (from globally 5 tonnes per capita to 7 tonnes per capita), we have a doubling right there. This would be 5-6 ppm per year by 2100. You then see with an average of 4 ppm per year we easily exceed 700 ppm by 2100.
manacker, what is the optimal sea level?
JimD
What is the optimal global temperature and in what year was it reached?
tonyb
Jim D
Let me address both questions:
Between 1970 and today the average global per capita CO2 emission increased by 10%
I have estimated that over the rest of this century, it would increase by another 30%. This is a result of increases in the underdeveloped world today (per capita CO2 in the developed world is decreasing already and will most likely continue to do so).
Using this basis and the UN/US Census Bureau projection of population growth, one arrives at a concentration of 650 ppmv by 2100 (no mitigation actions assumed).
With existing technologies and the “no-regrets” mitigation initiatives I mentioned (from the ASME report) this could be lowered to around 570 ppmv.
If new technologies emerge which provide more economical energy than fossil fuels, this could lower this, of course, but (even if this is likely) that is “dream-scheming”.
So 650 ppmv (an added 250 ppmv) with no “mitigating initiatives” and 570 ppmv (80 ppmv less) with “no regrets’ initiatives using existing technology seem reasonable.
IPCC RCP8.5 assumes CO2 level of over 1000 ppmv by 2100 (an added 600+ ppmv). This would require the entire world to emit as much CO2 per capita as the USA does today.
Ouch!
You have to use reasonable bases for your estimates, Jim – or you end up looking silly (like IPCC).
Max
Jim D
Your second question related to the “optimum sea level”
This is very local, as I’m sure you’ll agree, but I do not believe that there is an “optimum” even locally – and certainly not globally..
The Dutch have been living with rising sea level for centuries, periodically raising the levels of their dikes.
I suppose this will continue to be the case.
Max
tony b
The optimum global temperature will be reached on May 10, 2086.
It will be exactly 0.45C warmer than the same average on May 10, 2006.
This estimate, as always, is without guarantee.
Max
manacker, in the last 30 years, the emission rate almost doubled due to population growth and increasing per capita emissions. To say that it goes from doubling in one 30 years to almost stopping in the next is a big mitigation step. Continuing to double every 33 years, as it did in the 20th century gets us to 1000 ppm in 2100. Can that happen? I don’t know. It needs a lot of fossil fuels and probably a larger population than the 10 billion projected, and only coal could fulfill that demand.
tonyb, the optimum CO2 level was 350 ppm and it was reached in 1988. At equilibrium this is 1 C of warming, which some have suggested helps agriculture too, and it keeps LIA’s from happening. It maintains summer Arctic sea ice too and prevent Greenland from losing too much ice.
Max
Its time to put our cards on the table and you will be the judge of this matter.
If there has been any rise at all in sea level in your country over the last two thousand years I will convert to warmism.
On the other hand if there has been no change at all JImD must convert to scepticism. Sound fair?
Let us have your answer…
tonyb
“…in the last 30 years, the emission rate almost doubled due to population growth and increasing per capita emissions. To say that it goes from doubling in one 30 years to almost stopping in the next is a big mitigation step.”
Climate science at its finest. What happened in the last 30 years must be assumed to be what will happen in the next 100 years, with no analysis at all.
It was cooling in the 70s, so we were looking at a new ice age. It was warming in the 90s, so we were looking at thermageddon. The sea level appears to be slowly rising currently, so the inhabitants of the coasts are all going to drown.
Of course, that principle only applies to phenomena that can cause catastrophe justifying massive increase in government. The decline in emissions per capita as economies modernize, the improvement in producing food stuffs, must be assumed to stop, the constant innovation in the free market in technology that has characterized the last 100 years, all have to be assumed to stop.
Who needs critical analysis when the world is so simple.
tonyb, Max is more likely to be losing glaciers in his land-locked country, I believe. He wants to let other people worry about where that water is going.
The obsession with 350 ppm is absurd; it’s a spectrum, and no one has shown that anything less than 1200 ppm is anything but net beneficial.
There ya go, Jim D, a statement almost as absolute as yours about the optimum level of ambient CO2.
===================
kim, my answer was at the level of tonyb’s question.
The appropriate public policy is to maximize national and global wealth so as to be more resilient to problems. It would probably also be a good idea to stop subsidizing development in flood-prone areas. Everything else is second-order:
Stop biasing research funding in Earth sciences toward fleshing out the IPCC-style narrative and let the pure science types go back to curiosity-driven research. Pay the applied people to work on improved weather forecasting of extremes and improved region-specific databases and models. Put more money into collecting and curating climate and weather data along the lines of how we handle economic data. Maybe do some experiments on geoengineering to assess emergency options.
Easy-peasy.
Jim D,
Here’s an easy one for you.
What science shows that CO2 in the atmosphere has halted the last four and a half billion years of cooling of the Earth?
Actual science, not assumptions or computer models, please. Please ensure that you don’t confuse correlation with causation. It’s easy to do.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Correction: Robitaille’s
Instinctive FEAR of powerlessness blocks us from using the principles of science to see the same reality.
There is a great deal of recent research relating to cycles ordvic!
§ A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate “Cosmic-ray cycles don’t explain global warming.”
§ The Carbon Cycle as the Main Determinant of Glacial-Interglacial Periods “Milankovic cycles don’t explain global warming.”
§ Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2 “CO2 does explain global warming.”
The article “The Carbon Cycle as the Main Determinant of Glacial-Interglacial Periods” will be particularly fascinating to Climate Etc cycle-seekers:
It is a pleasure to point you toward cycle-related scientific literature ordvic!
Thanks Fan, I’ll check that out :-)
You should read the guy I pointed to. His website has a heading ‘Sun-Earth Publications’ that has a number of papers.
Whatever the narrative – the answer is always the same. It all comes back to CO2 apparently. And the memes just endlessly recycle amidst the obligatory complaints and sneers.
Here’s a bit of blog science from Kyle Swanson.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/rc_fig1_zpsf24786ae.jpg.html?sort=3&o=26
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
In the midst of the inevitable post-hoc rationalisations and sneers – we find that the true warming signal is the trend from 1979 to 1997.
This excludes the ENSO dragon-kings of 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 – which are extreme events at climate shifts in the sense of Didier Sornette. This leaves some 0.2 degrees C warming – of which at least half was natural decadal variability. So we get at most 0.05 degrees C/decade AGW. Scary hey? A temperature increase of 3 degrees C this century seems impossible. This couldn’t be simpler or more obvious.
There are at least three ideas in there that are not AGW. The space cadets understand none of it seemingly and are fast to dismiss new ideas leading to glacially slow intellectual progress. .
AGW is a teddy bear. Climate shifts may be a wilder beast but the world is not warming for a decade to three hence for the reasons Kyle Swanson reveals in the fine print.
I don’t think you have understood what Swanson said.
It is rising CO2, not natural cycles, which is causing a longterm energy imbalance. Don’t confuse short-term noise as being a “cause”, it is merely the means by which nature adjusts to the dominating anthropogenic forcing.
‘Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño.’
The pre-1998 trend is some 0.1 degrees C/decade. At least half of that was natural, decadal variation.
This is so utterly simple. Remove the large ENSO transitions in 1976/1077 and 1998/2001 and realise that natural variability has warmed and cooled the planet over decades.
But no – it all comes back to carbon hey? And I have misunderstood?
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
I don’t know how this is not understood? Warministas have an unprecedented ability to misunderstand – and misrepresent – plain English. This capacity for self delusion strongly suggests deeper psychological turmoil. I don’t know what the solution is – but I suspect it will involve kool-aid.
Chief, if sea-level rise showed vigorous decadal variability, then climate-change scientists would be deeply concerned.
But it doesn’t and so they’re not.
It is a pleasure to assist in clarifying and simplifying your understanding, Chief Hydrologist!
Fan
Quite how a record dating back only two decades can be held up as lacking decadal variability only you can say.
Here is a reconstruction back 2000 years where the oscillation of the seas we can see in records is graphed.
http://www.physorg.com/news150645386.html
The current rise is neither unprecedented nor frightening merely history repeating itself and reacting to the latest in a succession of warm eras
Tonyb
Neither oscillations over thousands of years nor evidence of solar influence on our climate are recognized by Liberal brains. There is a blind spot in their prefrontal cortex.
Chief, try this simple computational exercise:
• Extend the graph you supplied, which covered the past 2000 years, to cover the *next* 2000 years, at the present rise-rate of 3.2 mm/year.
Q By what factor did you have to magnify the vertical axis of the graph, Chief Hydrologist?
• Now redraw the graph, for rise-rates of 5 mm/year, 10 mm/year, and 20 mm/year.
Q How much of the world’s carbon need we burn to achieve those accelerated rise-rates?
• Now thoughtfully consider issues of global sustainability in light of your findings.
Q Now are concerns of Popes and grandparents and conservationists are easier to understand, Chief Hydrologist?
It has been a pleasure to help enlarge your conception of climate-change, Chief Hydrologist!
It certainly wasn’t me FOMBS – but projecting sea level at the current rate of 0.5mm/yr (ARGO) for 100 years is – gee it’s difficult – 50mm.
I guess we can put away the waders – and my house – from which I can glimpse the ocean – is not going to be sea front anytime soon. Damn.
Chief
It was me who posted that graph. I have used it before . Its from Wunderground, created by Grinsted based on a piece by Moberg, the only paleo reconstructionist who seems to have got the paleoclimate even vaguely correct as regards the extent of natural variability. I also reposted the piece from R Gates demonstrating that there had been past periods of severe arctic melting and glacier retreat.
I also reposted the work by Phil Jones that demonstrated that the two warmest consecutive decades in Greenland were the 1930’s and 1940’s.
FOMD does not seem to like the notion of natural variability of which the current era is an example. Whether there is any co2 enhanced warming is as yet difficult to discern.
However, what is interesting is the recognition that the LIA was the coldest period during the Holocene. There is therefore much more snow and ice to melt than in earlier periods of warming (the glaciers had largely melted 5000 years ago)
So, there is more ‘raw material’ to melt. Combine this with an effect by depleting aquifers and this period of warming will have to be less pronounced than previous ones if it is not to have a greater effect than during the MWP.
tonyb
Hi Tony – yes I realised. FOMBS is as usual so far off course that he may as well have addressed it to Genghis Khan.
The correct physics approach is to convolve a forcing function with an impulse response function (i.e. a Green’s function) based on some continuity equation. A convolution is related to an integral but is not the same thing and most importantly has the property of conservation of X, where X can be heat, matter, charge, etc.
It is not that hard to tell who does and doesn’t know how to do physics.
I don’t waste my time on webby’s nonsense at all anymore. His intention is to make himself sound clever rather than communicate. In plain English – what is done is to take a times series and scale it to a temperature. These are then added together and compared to the temperature series and a correlation calculated. This is an empirical rather than an analytical method that webby’s discussion above implies.
The situation is shown here from the Lean and Rind 2010 paper.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Lean2010.png.html?sort=3&o=90
Note the temperature scaling on the left hand axis. The residual shows variation caused by volcanoes and ENSO around a rising trend resulting from greenhouse gases.
The core problem is that there is another factor in the cumulative effects of the decadal Pacific state that added to temperature in the 1976 to1998 period. This factor varied with CO2 adding to temperature in ways that are not possible to disentangle without knowledge of TOA radiant – especially SW – flux. Because this Pacific system changes cloud cover.
‘The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW flux from the mid-1980’s until the end of the 1990’s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appear to caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements…
The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period…’
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
To correct a common – and quite convenient – misunderstanding. These are anomalies – changes in relation to a reference period – and not anything to do with radiant imbalances. They are changes and not absolute values – they are an order of magnitude more accurate. There are multiple lines of consilient evidence.
‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global
climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
It is abundantly clear that changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation cause large changes in the Earth’s energy budget. If the variation is factored in using available data – AGW becomes a minor effect – 0.05 degrees C/decade. I am sure they just don’t want to know. It is all part and parcel of progressive denial.
In Lean’s graphic, the extrapolated temperature chart, isn’t going to happen without constant further positive adjustments. Hate to keep keep coming back to that same subject but that’s what I see now. I set like a dummy and read maybe twenty articles in the last few years at wuwt on adjustments and it all just never quite sank in until recently. Those are what we are seeing over the real data and they don’t appear to have stopped being applied recently, like a thousand tiny cuts. Maybe help keep an eye on those little paranha.
Chief, “The correct physics approach is to convolve a forcing function with an impulse response function (i.e. a Green’s function) based on some continuity equation. A convolution is related to an integral but is not the same thing and most importantly has the property of conservation of X, where X can be heat, matter, charge, etc.”
It is kind of funny how Webster picks up on the convolution but misses the cross-correlation and autocorrelations. The general shapes of the time series should tell you which should be considered and where.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Comparison_convolution_correlation.svg/512px-Comparison_convolution_correlation.svg.png
Of course that would require comparing regions which he is really not into :)
Its not the convolution that is relevant but the coevolution of T and Co2.SH data shows that there are real step like changes, WFT shows this if we simulate
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/isolate:60/mean:12/normalise
maks right, CO2 forcing should be a lagged a*ln() with a fairly stable shape. Volcanic forcing should be and in convolution with an -a*e^(-t) entry and an a*ln(2) recovery if it is critically damped. Since the SH and NH have different time constants the NH should be cross correlated with the SH producing the various pseudo-oscillations.
Since the atmosphere responds to any temperature change with an a*ln(2) response, Schwartz was able to tease out an ~8.5 year lag. If everything were critically damped it would be easy :)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vgbFByFl7as/UmyPuUPdm8I/AAAAAAAAKMs/1pH73wWgidY/s563/damped%2520oppo.png
Thanks to volcanoes though you have weakly damped responses with periods averaging 60 years that can last thousands of years when you add solar precessional changes.
Captain, why no apply Occam’s Razor and omit *all three* forcings?
Instead, explain climate change via spontaneous millennial-scale Volterra-equation geochemical “stadium waves”?
See de la Quest et al. “The Carbon Cycle as the Main Determinant of Glacial-Interglacial Periods“ (2013) for details.
`Cuz heck, if you’re going to cycle-seek, yah might as well seek the simplest cycles.
That’s plain-and-simple cycle-seeking common-sense, eh Captain?
Fan, “cycles” are one thing and “pseudo-cycles” another. The couple ocean atmosphere system would have recurrent damped psuedo-cyclic responses to perturbations. The system has to settle to a new state. If the system is symmetrical and critically damped the response would be different than a system that is asymmetrical and weakly damped. I am not looking at “cyclic” responses but the lots more fun damped responses. They help determine the relative lags that need to be considered. As far as “fitting” anyone with a laptop and 5 degrees of freedom can to that :)
A M Selvam might be a good author to put on your reading list.
Fan of More Discourse,
Here is a good example of recurrent responses versus Cyclomania.
The “pause” Actually started in the southern hemisphere around 1985. It wasn’t obvious because the NH land lags the SH by about 15.75 years plus land temperatures are amplified by the differences in specific heat capacity and measurement method (Tmax+Tmin)/2 where Tmin lags with the oceans.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Ir3539YJvQU/Um5xAqdd4mI/AAAAAAAAKPs/jtovkGRUyPA/s725/GISS%2520versus%2520HadSST3%2520with%252015.75%2520year%2520lag.png
There is no guarantee that there will not be another perturbation that throws the sequence off, but “all things remaining equal” we could have decades to centuries of no significant warming or cooling. That would be embarrassing to some I would imagine :)
Compare and contrast Trenberth’s measurements of steady state fluxes between 1997 and 2009.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/1997and2009_zpsc79b5968.png
The effect of increasing [CO2], boosted by water vapour or not, is less than the estimate for latent heat transfer or for the amount of solar energy absorbed by clouds.
The fact that they have not performed steady state modeling speaks volumes.
DocMartyn, Steady state or static modeling should always be step one to estimate realistic boundaries. Instead they hand wave about how bounds will “emerge” in the models. That makes the comparison of the Stephens and Trenberth budgets hilarious.
Chief rightly points out the Lean & Rind paper that my analysis substantiates. This paper along with other work by Kosaka & Xie [1] and Foster & Rahmstorf [2] and others, both professional and amateurs, demonstrate how natural fluctuations can bring about the pause and mask the underlying upward trend.
I have simply applied another component related to Curry’s stadium wave, a factor empirically related to LOD (Length-of-day) variation which sensitively relates a multidecadal energy fluctuation in ocean temperation.
[1]Y. Kosaka and S.-P. Xie, “Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling,” Nature, vol. 501, no. 7467, pp. 403–407, 2013.
[2]G. Foster and S. Rahmstorf, “Global temperature evolution 1979–2010,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 044022, Jan. 2011.
You are entirely correct TonyB, and I have amended the attribution of the figure,
What scientists *do* appreciate, because it represents “the best available climate science”, is the striking *absence* of decadal fluctuation in measures of global energy imbalance.
It’s that “best available climate science” that assures us — “us” meaning, Popes and grandparents and conservationists and farmers and fishing folks and scientists and insurance executives and military leaders — that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating TonyB!
Fan
It would be nice if you sometimes actually responded to the data posted rather than the data you WISH had been posted.
Moberg, Phil Jones and a piece contributed by R Gates citing a number of well known scientists is hardly out there on the denier fringe is it?
There is considerable natural variability looking at the records which we do not seem to have exceeded yet in the Holocene.
You need to demonstrate the physics that things will get worse due to co2 and pointing at the past does not achieve this.
tonyb
Fanny
Tide gauge records over the 20thC show an average SL rise of 1.7 mm/year.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
Over the first half of the 20thC, it was around 2.0 mm/year on average.
Over the second half it was around 1.4 mm/year on average.
Over the 20thC the rate of SL rise decelerated slightly.
There were, however, wide swings in the decadal rate of SL rise, ranging from -1mm/year to over +5 mm/year.
Let’s forget the fact that IPCC has changed methods of measurement (and scope of what is being measured) around the end of the 20thC, when satellite altimetry became available.
We are now in a period of around 3 mm/year SL rise, so well within the 20thC range, so we really cannot say that there has been a recent acceleration in the rate of SL rise.
If this rate of rise continues over a few decades (and is confirmed by tide gauge measurements), we might be able to conclude that there has been a real acceleration in the rate of SL rise and not just a temporary “blip” or spurious signal resulting from the change in measurement methodology and scope.
To extrapolate the current rate over many decades would be silly, wouldn’t it?
To ASS-U-ME that the rate will suddenly more than triple to cause 820 mm or even 1000 mm increase in SL by 2100 would be stretching logic even further, wouldn’t it?
Since you probably think of yourself as a logical person, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something as illogical as that, would you Fanny?
Max
It is a pleasure to answer your question, manacker!
A1 Extrapolation from pure data-fitting/cycle-seeking is silly.
A2 Extrapolation from integrative energy balance considerations, with three-fold validation from global-scale thermometric observations (ARGO), gravimetric observations (GRACE), and altimetric observations (JASON), is wise.
Your sustained commitment to gaining greater climate-change knowledge is commendable, manacker!
Many folks underestimate broad-ranging employment opportunities for young climatologists.
It is a pleasure to help expand your appreciation of these opportunities, Mike Flynn!
No apologies need be offered Mike Flynn; your appreciation and gratitude are more than sufficient!
AFOMD,
Can I assume you are unable to answer my question?
I can only assume you are compelled to continue to provide me with links to Warmist tracts, which I have previously informed you are of little interest to me.
If you cannot provide a cogent and relevant answer to my query, I will assume you are mentally deranged. You might care to harass someone who wants such treatment. I don’t, but I realise that you may not be able to control your impulses.
I do appreciate your desire to seek my approval and gratitude. If this provides you some solace, I can only say that it is my pleasure to be of assistance.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
It’s good that you and I are *both* rejoicing in the burgeoning career opportunities for young climatologists, Mike Flynn!
AFOMD,
Are you totally aphasic, or just pretending to be so, for some reasons beyond my comprehension?
I am totally unaware of “rejoicing” about any fantasy in which you may be immersed.
If you can provide me with details, I will of course provide an appropriate response. At present, I have not the foggiest notion of the matters to which you refer.
Please provide further detail at your earliest convenience.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike and Max, You are wasting your time with FOMD. He is having a wonderful time writing controversial messages, just for the fun of seeing how people respond. There have been people like him ever since Usenet was invented. I realised what he was like a few weeks after he appeared on CE, and have ignored him ever since. If only people would realise the only way to shut him up, is to completely ignore him, he would go away. But as long as you give him the enjoyment of getting your answers to his messages, he will go on posting.
Jim Cripwell
I realize that Fanny is simply tossing out garbage in the hope that someone bites.
But, in doing so, he (or she?) demonstrates how the goofy fringe element of the CAGW loons thinks (or, rather, does NOT think).
So, while you are absolutely correct that a rational debate with Fanny is not possible (as it is, for example with Gates, Pratt or some other less irrational CAGW believers) it is still fascinating to me how goofy the fringe element really is.
And it demonstrates this for all undecided lurkers.
Max
Willful ignorance by manacker, links by FOMD.
Manacker, isn’t what you are calling “garbage” is what Judith Curry’s students call “outstanding career opportunities that concretely contribute to society“?
The world wonders!
It is neither necessary nor desirable that everyone embrace the nihilistic cognition of climate-change denialism, manacker!
Max
I had always thought that Fan throws out ‘Chaff’ designed to confuse and obscure. Interestingly it has three meaning all of which seem relevant, one conforms to your definition, one to Fans references to Farmers and the third to mine
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/chaff
tonyb
Jim Cripwell,
I understand your sentiment. I cannot find it within myself to deprive AFOMD of the enjoyment he obviously experiences.
I have the time. Who am I to deny the handicapped the opportunity to participate in society as fully as they are able? I take the view that AFOMD deserves my compassion rather than my condemnation. He cannot help being what he (or she) is.
Please excuse me if I accommodate AFOMD’s fantasies, at least for the moment. Whether I wish it or not, the time will come where even my patience is exhausted. I am only human. In the meantime, please excuse me whilst I humour AFOMD.
I thank you in advance for your forbearance.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Fanny
You are skirting the main topic here, namely that it is questionable to ASS-U-ME that SL rise has accelerated recently due to AGW, inasmuch as the data do not show such an acceleration (as I pointed out).
To ignore the past SL record and, instead, cobble together a bunch of highly questionable sources of unrelated data, such as GRACE, ARGO, JASON, etc. and extrapolate a three-fold increase in the rate of SL rise over the next eight decades would be total folly.
Is this seriously what you are proposing?
I hope not, because it would raise serious questions regarding your sanity.
Max
Fanny
In the study which you cited, Hansen et al. give us the dire warning:
But the “conclusion” reached is not substantiated in any way.
“All fossil fuels”, as envisioned by Hansen’s “coal death trains”, is a sinister but nebulous concept.
But fortunately there are groups out there that, unlike Hansen et al., understand something about fossil fuel resources on our planet.
One such group is the WEC, which issued a summary report on proven fossil fuel reserves and inferred possible recoverable resources remaining on our planet (basis 2008).
On the basis of these estimates the more optimistic estimate of “inferred possible total recoverable fossil fuel resources” remaininng equaled around 85% of the original resource (IOW, we have used up 15% of the original total to date).
Other estimates (Hubbert, etc.) are much less optimistic, with much lower recoverable resources left, but let’s stick with the WEC estimate.
The first 15% got us from a “pre-industrial” 280 ppmv CO2 to 385 ppmv CO2 in 2008.
So the remaining 85% could get us to
385 ppmv + (385 – 280) * 85 / 15 = 980 ppmv when they are all 100% gone
And that is going to “make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans”, as Hansen et al. claim?
Duh!
How stupid do these guys think that the readers of their study are?
Are you that gullible, Fanny?
For your sake, I hope not.
Max
In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.
You are assuredly immune to rationality FOMBS.
First there are no decadal variability in sea level and now no decadal variability in radiant flux. Even quoting the IPCC doesn’t get through to you. Bizarre.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/26/open-thread-weekend-38/#comment-405191
And a correction to a link.
Ah – recent ocean heat. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LymnaandJohnson2013OHCA_zps703732d0.png.html?sort=3&o=5
AFOMD,
Ah, the old “extend the graph” riposte. Excellent work, lad. Unfortunately, it only works if you have an audience of dullards, or devout Warmists.
Prayer may help.
Maybe you could provide the Chief Hydrologist with a few links to religious Warmist tracts. He may experience an epiphany, but I fear conversions to the Warmist persuasion are falling. Good luck anyway.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
It works with scientists, economists, grandparents, conservationists, and religious leaders!
As for “dullards,” they’ll come ’round eventually, eh Mike Flynn?
AFOMD,
I presume your link is to another Warmist tract. I’ll pass on reading it if you don’t mind.
As a devout follower of the Warmist faith, I know you are taught to misread, so I will repeat my statement.
“Unfortunately, it only works if you have an audience of dullards, or devout Warmists.”
It may help if you sound out the words ” . . . or devout Warmists.”
Anybody who believes that the future can be predicted from a graph, is odd, to say the least. Obviously your list of scientists, economists, grandparents, conservationists, and religious leaders must be Warmists, if they truly believe that a graph can predict the future better than you or I. I am far too polite to imply that some may be dullards.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
ERBS shows a radiant flux peak in 1998. Along with a peak in ocean heat. It finishes shortly after.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=145
Net ISCCP-FD shows cooling after 2000.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif
‘The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW flux from the mid-1980’s until the end of the 1990’s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appear to caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
This is captured as well by Project Earthshine.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.
The significance of 1998/2001 is in the latest climate shift – again seen in separate data series. The change in ocean and atmospheric circulaton cause changes in cloud cover.
Space cadets like gatesy are heavy on snark and sneer but light on any actual science.
Denialist cognition by Mike Flynn, links by FOMD.
It is a pleasure to help expand your cognitive horizons, Mike Flynn!
AFOMD,
If I needed your help, I would probably request it, being the nice person I am.
Gratuitous advice is worth what you pay for it.
Cognition : –
“the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the sense”
I deny that the Earth is flat.
I deny that lead can be transmuted into gold by alchemical means.
I deny that the Earth can be no more than twenty million years old.
Obviously you believe the above, which I deny.
Thank you for your interest.
Good luck!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I never check your links anymore FOMBS – it is all very tedious and usually very misleading.
Sea levels do have considerable decadal variability – e.g http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-4.html
Sea level data has considerable uncertainty as well. ARGO shows a steric rise of 0.69mm/yr in a period when ocean mass was shifting to the land as increased rainfall. This is consistent with CERES in the period – where all the change is in SW.
As shown here – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=56
This is an order of magnitude different to the satellite altimetry. I am not sure what the source of the difference is but I imagine sea level altimetry when we are talking millimetres is quite difficult.
The tide guages are another thing entirely – http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_meas_tide_gauge.html
Ocean heat content is problematic before ARGO – with at least one recent reconstruction showing a plateau in this century.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_meas_tide_gauge.html
TOA data show energy inputs peaked early this century – it all seems of a piece.
I’d suggest that your silly little antics are ill informed – as usual – and that you would be better off reflecting more deeply on the available data and it’s limitations – rather than adopt only that which suits your preconceived notions.
Ah – recent ocean heat. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LymnaandJohnson2013OHCA_zps703732d0.png.html?sort=3&o=5
And none of it shows your most beloved “1998 Peak” for OHC.
AFOMD,
There are marine fossils widely found throughout the high Himalaya.
Does this mean that the sea level has dropped by up to 8800 meters since they were deposited? If the land rose, what effect did this have on sea levels around the globe?
How would anyone establish whether either of these processes proceeded uniformly and smoothly, or whether they occurred discontinuously, somewhat like the Great Rift Valley, the Kakadu escarpment and so on, and what was the effect on sea levels at the time?
I’m talking about facts, not the usual drivel bandied about and presented as “facts” by devout Warmist acolytes.
Please stay on track. I have asked quite specific questions. I expect either quite specific answers, or a simple admission that you don’t know.
No links to religious tracts, please.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The Himalayas are about 10 million years old. That’s very young in Geologic terms.
What effect has this had on sea levels? That’s not a bad question. It must have caused them to fall a bit. I often wondered if sedimentation by rivers has also caused them to rise over time too.
Whatever the answer, it doesn’t change the fact that the melting of the Greenland ice cap will cause the oceans to rise by about 7 metres.
Previous comment meant for Mike Flynn.
tempterrain,
If the Greenland icecap melting returns Greenland to the state documented when the name “Greenland” accurately described the country (according to records kept by the Roman Catholic Church, amongst others), will sea levels return to those observed at that time?
I am unaware of any decrease in European sea levels when the ice “returned” to Greenland and forced the Vikings out, but I might have missed it.
Is your sea level rise of 7 metres a “fact” or a fact?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
You gotta share the chronic man
Greenland was accurately described as “green” when?
Put me down for a kilo
Broken threading is very tedious.
Webby’s substantiation of Lean and Rind merely substantiates the wrongness of his analysis. Length of day? Related to the stadium wave?
The essential problem remains of attributing between these co-varying factors. Natural decadal variability and CO2. The distinction webby draws supposedly using LOD is entirely arbitrary and meaningless.
This is a dead end method – an utter waste of time.
Chief Dingo, The LOD is part of the Stadium Wave concept. Get with the program.
It is a small effect but adds to the understanding of natural fluctuations.
SOI and LOD
Did you know you can rearrange the letters into “DO OILS”?
Did the handbag fight between the usual suspects go over the top? Again?
Enough is enough – the threading has gone to sh_t – and to make matters worse Jabberwock returns to add his 2 cents worth of homophobic jibes. We are certainly not getting value for money.
Chief,
(This is not a response to you. I’m just piggy backing your comment to get near the end of the thread. Which as you note, is compost.)
The Obama administration proposing a regulation to lower its demands for ethanol production by 3 billion gallons has the enviro’s panties in a bunch.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-caving-in-to-big-oil-cutting-fuel-standards-greens-charge/article/2537853
Maybe a few less African children will die of starvation as a result of a slightly less inflated price for basic food stuffs. So one cheer for the Obama Administration.
Just a note of warning. Ethanol produced from food is, chemically, the same as ethanol produced from cellulose. The latter does not deplete the food supply. At present there is no commercial production of cellulose ethanol, but this may change drastically within the next 6 months.
‘…atmospheric circulation and related sub-processes of precipitation and global redistribution of water account for ~14% of the magnitude of ngLOD variability (Gross 2005); the remainder attributed to interactions within the Earth’s interior (Jault et al. 1988), suggesting a mechanism common to both factors (Sidorenkov et al. 2005; Sidorenkov 2005, 2009; Dickey and Marcus 2011).’
The stadium wave is the opposite of reductionist mechanisms. It attempts to get a very preliminary handle on the system as a whole because that’s the only way it can be understood.
‘Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.’ Marcia Wyatt
You take a part that is barely understood and apply it in some arbitrary manner to a small collection of the parts. It is a diversion. The real fact of climate variability is in the data I supplied and which you steadfastly refuse even to acknowledge.
The reality is that you are both incompetent and dishonest.
bob droege,
This might help to get you started:
“. . . the Eastern Settlement had one
hundred and ninety farmsteads, twelve churches, and two monasteries; the
Western Settlement had ninety farmsteads and three churches. . . ”
I believe that fields of barley are green at times. Growing hay is green, and so was the pasture required to support the herds of cattle.
I will let you wade through the list of exports of farm produce, ox hides and all the rest.
The weather got a bit chilly eventually. They all left for warmer climes. Nothing wrong with a bit of warm weather, even for those tough Vikings.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
When the name for the new territory was being considered there were two suggestions.
The other was in Danish and translates approximately as: Itscoldenoughtofreezetheballsofabrassmonkeyland.
They must have thought Greenland had the edge over that in terms of marketing appeal!
lolwot,
In case your detailed study of climate models didn’t tell you, the GHE doesn’t seem to apply at night. The temperature seems to fall – in tropical arid deserts, amazingly quickly.
The only long term energy imbalance is the Earth losing more energy than it receives. This is called “cooling” and the evidence can be seen in the solidified crust of the Earth, which has cooled from the molten state.
To reject fact is a symptom of Warmist fervour. An atmosphere of 100% CO2 cannot prevent the Earth cooling, given the science of physics as it is currently understood. Ascribing magical properties to CO2, chanting the sacred mantras of the Team, or indulging in other eccentricities, will not fool Nature.
Good luck with your attempts.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Chief,
“So we get at most 0.05 degrees C/decade AGW. Scary hey?
It’s funny that you mention that here is what Jager said in paper mentioned above in reply to pochas:
“Finally, the question is opportune whether the excess of 0.311
in 1999 (as compared with the reference temperature in 1960; cf.
Fig. 3) is consistent with current ideas on greenhouse warming.
Judging from current estimates (Ch. 9 of the 4th IPCC report) the antropogenic part of global warming since 1960 is 0.51 with an
uncertainty of 0.31. This agrees with the result found here.
In conclusion, the residual temperature increase that is not
correlated with solar variability (0.051 1C/century), as well as the
recent residual temperature increase (0.31 1C in 1999), can both
be explained by model calculations.”
In several places though he discusses the strength of the driver and how it is underestimated. He also only went up to 1970 to avoid the AGW influence. He also gives some numbers:
In an earlier investigation (De Jager and Duhau, 2009b) we
found that the tropospheric temperatures are not only correlated
with the toroidal field components of the solar dynamo, but also
with variations of both the toroidal and the poloidal magnetic
field components. In this paper we partly confirm that conclusion,
but an important new finding is that surface temperature
increases when the poloidal field strength decreases and vice
versa: the influence of the poloidal component is largest for
smallest fields. We find that over the period 1620–1970 the
average terrestrial surface temperature slowly increased with an
average gradient of 0.087 1C/century. This can be split in three
parts. The first is a gradient of 0.077 1C/century that can be fully
explained by the variation of the total solar irradiance and the
consequent feedback by greenhouse warming due to H2O vapour.
A gradient of 0.040 1C/century is related to the poloidal field
component. It is tentatively ascribed to the open (non-magnetic)
solar wind flux emanating from the coronal holes; it should lead
to tropospheric warming but a quantitative physical explanation
is still lacking.
The residual gradient of 0.051 1C/century is correlated with
climatologic processes. There are several numerical model studies
which provide a quantitative explanation of secular trends but
these studies differ in details and therefore further clarification is
needed, particularly referring to the quantitative explanation of
the found gradient.
We studied the present period of global warming and found
that, in comparison to the average temperature for the period
1800–1950, it reached a value of 0.31 1C in 1999, a value that agrees
with current atmospheric model calculations. Data for later years
cannot be given because of the data-smoothing technique used.
I guess if that article you pointed out by Roger Pielke Sr that details the lag of CO2 to temperature is right (a lot of sneering on that whole idea I’ve seen) and the sun driver (and it’s variability)(and ocean wind cycles) eventually are realized to be primary climate influences then we’ll see CO2 start to decline if we go toward minimal sun. Do you see it that way?
This month is a good time for learning pokerguy!
§ Economic benefits of decarbonising the global electricity sector “Quit burning carbon; create jobs, reduce deficits, save money.”
§ The dynamics of technology diffusion and the impacts of climate policy instruments in the decarbonisation of the global electricity secto “Investing in technology and people is smarter than investing in strip mines and pipelines.”
§ Development Towards Sustainability: How to judge past and proposed policies? “Short-sighted market forces drive toward long-term catastrophes.”
It is a pleasure to assist your learning pokerguy!
Not decarbonizing. Dehumanizing. Let’s face it the problem is a growing number of people all expecting to live higher off the hog than their parents. The problem isn’t carbon the problem is people. You know the old gun rights mantra – “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” In the same way carbon doesn’t cause global warming. People cause global warming.
As always you should write that down John Sidles!
A fan of *MORE* discourse: “Quit burning carbon; create jobs, reduce deficits, save money.”
That’s not a workable policy, it is a wish list. Except for the fact that natural gas has more hydrogen than coal does, there is no workable policy to stop burning carbon. Even the fracking revolution has produced at most a slight reduction in the rate of increase in carbon burning.
Bjorn Lomborg & Copenhagen Consensus find the major climate priority is R&D into sustainable energy that is cost effective, not subsidies.
Was going to post this on the “stadium wave” thread, but thought it might get lost there. Could have high interest for those interested in that topic:
http://www.clim-past.net/9/2379/2013/cp-9-2379-2013.pdf
Rgates
Interesting study, not the least because it supports the various periods of arctic warming I have been writing about.
The ice extent in the 1920 to 1940 period in particular is greatly overstated by the 1970’s predecessors to CRU and by kinnard.
Tonyb
Indeed Tony, it does support many skeptical points related to questioning certain IPCC findings. There seems to very little room for doubt that the Arctic saw a warming period in the earlier part of the 20th century. The real interesting thing remains the causes and how it relates to the warming we are seeing now.
Rgates
If you remember I invited Neven to cooperate with me in trying to map the extent of the warming. It did not appear to be as great as in 2007 and 2012 but otherwise appeared to have similarities to the modern era but that needed to be quantified rather than roughly estimated.
I also wrote about the warming from the 1820’s although that was not as great as the two other periods.
This frequent warming and cooling can be detected from observational records going back to the Viking times.
The causes? A difficult one, but the 1820 arctic explorers noted soot on the ice. The modern era allows us to see films showing the extent of this soot. I came across few references to soot in the 1920 to 1940 period but it may be the researchers were examining other things. Big tides? Storms? Inflow of warm water? The 1820 arctic explorers noted coconuts swept up from the Caribbean on the gulf stream .
Excluding co2 what are your thoughts?
Tonyb
The most recent rise is at most 0.3 degrees C – in the Arctic with Arctic amplification. It must be presumed that other warmings and coolings are quite natural as well.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arctictemps_zps395995c2.png.html?sort=3&o=12
‘Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.’ Marcia Wyatt
Reductionism is at any rate an entirely inadequate framework for climate analysis.
Related to Arctic warming, Tony asks:
“Excluding co2 what are your thoughts?”
—-
I think it is highly likely that internal variability has played a role in the current Arctic warming. But this tells only part of the story. Just like with ENSO, when the anthropogenic forcing is in line with internal variability, you will get new records being set. This year will be the warmest non-El Niño year on record globally. This is significant. Even with a weaker solar cycle and a cool phase of the PDO we are staying at the higher temperature troposphere we established after 2000. I know many AGW skeptics are expecting a cool down in the troposphere to commence any day now, but with records being smashed in places like Australia, I don’t see it happening.
Rgates
You say….’ with records being smashed in Australia…’.
I had a meeting at the Met Office last week. One of the subjects covered rainfall. Britain probably has the oldest and most developed weather records in the world, but the first truly nationwide (even in this tiny country) rainfall record that you could point to as being reasonably representative of the past, comes from the last few decades, perhaps 1910 if you were to exclude the mountainous areas where most extreme rainfall events occur.
Rainfall heaviest since records began in 1910 -excluding the rainiest areas- doesn’t have much of a ring to it does it?
in all seriousness, with a vast empty country like Australia whose cities are few and have grown enormously in recent decades, with all the temperature biases that may create, how far back do reliable national records go? Serious question.
tonyb
A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
The nature of this contrast is that it shows up in surface temperature because of reduced lapse rates but not of course in tropospheric temps. I have corrected gatesy – but there seems no real possibility he will stop repeating nonsense propaganda just because it is ignorant and irrational.
Here – for instance – is the tropospheric temperature for Aus. – http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/uah-aust-aug-2013-graph.gif
No hint here of the hottest year.
Rainfall and temperature records are generally regarded as reasonably accurate and representative from the turn of the last century. It was recognised early that climate variability in Aus. demanded the best possible records.
Unfortunately Chief,
The longest records in Australia for tropospheric temperatures- yes, at the surface in the troposphere are not satellite records, and those records indicate the past 12 months have been the warmest ever recorded. The “pause” has ended for Australia– and this is driving the “globe is cooling” Aussie nutters crazy as it takes away a talking point.
The surface temperature at 2m – which you make you make a song and dance about being a tropospheric temperature – is influenced by water availability and therefore lapse rates. We are pretty dry at the moment.
Land is not actually warming faster than ocean surfaces – but there is a differential that varies with water availability. I linked to science that explicitly says this. It is factual both globally and regionally.
Despite this your merely insist that the surface temperature for is longer than the satellite tropospheric record – which shows the pause over the past decade plus – therefore it is better at showing changes over the past year. Odd argument indeed.
Your problem is that your silly little warminista memes mean more to you than reality – more than good faith – more than rationality.
Chief,
Your point about sensible heat versus moist enthalpy measurements was made by Pielke Sr. In 2006. It actually goes against the argument for the “pause” being as significant as the AGW denialists would posit. If you are trying to suggest your current surface records being smashed in Australia are not important because it is a “dry heat” then of course you only reinforce was a true nutter you are.
Quite apart from you being a nasty little deluded dweeb?
The point is that with drier surfaces – surface temperature is higher. The troposphere is not warmer. Dry heat? You are dishonest or an idiot.
Chief,
What measure of handwaving and justification won’t you resort to in order to excuse the fact that Australia has seen the warmest 12 months of temperatures on record? The same records were used to talk about the “pause” but now that they indicate that “pause” has ended for the land of Oz, you want to start handwaving in a mad-nutter fashion. Quite humorous.
Chief Hydrologist: Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
thank you again
The handwaving is based is based on decreased lapse rates and higher surface temperature in drought conditions. Science in other words. There is no record in the tropospheric record – despite your confusion on the terminology.
It shows that you need to look at the whole picture before suggesting that a marginal 12 month regional, running average surface temperature peak means much at all in terms of global energy dynamics.
Seriously – move on to something serious and relevant.
SCIENTIST
“As he formulates his final theory, the scientist subjects it to intensive criticism. Seeking to make it as useful as possible, he asks himself: Is this proposed law universal throughout the extent of space and the passage of time? Does it lead anywhere? Does it predict one state of affairs as arising out of another? Can it be transposed from one frame of reference to another and still remain valid? And finally, because of his innate passion for orderliness, his aesthetic appreciation of things which are neat and fitting, he asks: Is this theory as elegant as possible? Could I formulate it more succinctly?
Now comes the moment of verification and truth: testing the theory back against protocol experience to establish its validity. If it is not a trivial theory, it suggests the existence of unknown facts which can be verified by further experiment. An expedition may go to Africa to watch an eclipse and find out if starlight really does bend relatively as it passes the edge of the sun. After a Maxwell and his theory of electro-magnetism come a Hertz looking for radio waves and a Marconi building a radio set. If the theoretical predictions do not fit in with observable facts, then the theorist has to forget his disappointment and start all over again. This is the stern discipline which keeps science sound and rigorously honest.
If a theory survives all tests and is accepted into the canon of scientific law, it becomes a fact in its own right and a foundation for higher spires of thought. Abstract though it may be, a theory which has been proved can suggest new hi-fl sets or hybrid cattle just as surely as do experiments with electricity or stock-breeding. It serves as a starting point for new theories just as surely as any experience on the plane of protocols. Galileo’s formula for the increasing speed at which a body falls freely near the surface of the earth became a single example of Newton’s law of gravitation. Newton’s law, in turn, became a single special case in Einstein’s theory that gravitation is a manifestation of the geometry of space and time. At this moment some child in a hamlet somewhere may be preparing himself for the work of constructing a “unified field theory” of both atom and cosmos, in which Einstein’s sweeping concepts of relativity will appear as mere details.”
The Scientist
Life Science Library
By Henry Margenau, David Bergamini
And the Editors of LIFE
1966
Girma-
I note that nowhere does it say that The Scientist acts like a jerk. I guess that is a new trait that has taken hold since 1966. Those who act like that will remain nameless. :)
Maybe this is an application of Occam’s Razor :-
The Earth’s climate is a chaotic system, with a large number of internal and external variables. Therefore “change” is a normal part of the system, with alternating cycles of warming and cooling. .. A chaotic sytem is not a static system.
A chaotic system is not strictly cyclic. Control variables change until the system hits a tipping point and moves into a new configuration. Other than that – chaos in climate is considered paradigm shifting illuminating the futility of reductionism.
Okay, thanks for that.
Heard this today – lovely voice and Bob Dylan lyrics.
‘Though at our backs we always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near,
… though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we can make him run.
H/t Andrew Marvell
Nice version, but no one sings it like Joan Baez.
Blimey! Fancy you liking Joan Baez !
PS I think she’s marvellous too!
tempterrain
We don’t agree on much (and this dates us both), but I also loved Joan Baez’ clear, beautiful voice (her guitar-pickin’ wasn’t bad, either).
Max
Try again.
One of my fixations is the puzzle of the amount of sea ice at the polar caps. Which has been increasing for 30 years in Antarctica and is now roughly 750,000 square kilometres above average.
The arctic has gone the other way but now seems to be recovering. For the first year in however many (too tired to look it up) we are going to have the average global sea ice above average.
This should be being prompted as it gets closer to reality.
It complements the concept of the pause.
Back to the puzzle, surely if the world is warming, both caps have to melt.
The only other explanation is that the sun is staying closer to the North Pole all year round not physically possible other than if we are in a computer model game.
Or that we are not warming .
Data wrong? Models wrong?
The Antarctic has a different mode of loss, known as the collapse of the ice shelves. This has been happening regularly and more, and bigger ones, are due.
The Antarctic has a different mode of loss
Indeed it is called Tsunami or big wave.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tsunami-bergs.html
The other known causal mechanism is the propagation of infragravity waves to the Antarctic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infragravity_wave
Gain is gain JimD – the Antarctic has been increasing for > 25 yrs and now the Arctic is increasing in stunning fashion. Why are you Co2 freaks so dense ? We are cooling – period… Get it into your head !
The Antarctic, Jim D ,grows ice outwards 100’s of kilometers in winter and then they melt in summer. The same as the Arctic. Identical. The same process called heat and cold.
Ice shelves eg Larson A-X, are a smaller part of the total ice which are more or less permanent at the end of Summer. They are semi equivalent to the multi year ice at the north pole except they last for thousands of years instead of 2-6 years because they cannot float freely to a melting position.Occasionally they collapse. Occasionally they disappear. New shelves form all the time.
But they are an insignificant part of the ice loss in summer and , what irks me, is you are not dense.
You know what you have said is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that the Antarctic sea ice is increasing and you cannot accept it.
It’s in my head and won’t get out! How long? How long?
=================
Jim D
A paper on Swiss alpine glaciers (Schlüchter) points out that these are simply slow-flowing rivers of ice. Just like a normal river allows the water accumulated from rainfall to eventually flow out to the sea, so does a glacier – except this occurs much more slowly, with the ice moving inches per year rather than feet per second.
The snowfall occurring in the vast interior of Antarctica or Greenland eventually flows out to sea over thousands of years, either by ablation or melting (although this is rare at the temperatures encountered).
What counts is the overall mass balance over a longer period of time.
The last such studies that were made for both GIS (Johannessen, Zwally)and AIS (Wingham) were made by 24/7 ESA satellite altimetry over the period April 1992 to April 2003, with other spot estimates using other methods to cover the marginal polar or coastal regions that cannot be captured by satellites.
These showed that both ice sheets gained mass over this time period.
More recently we now have GRACE results, which show net ice mass loss. But the methodology is still fraught with bugs, so it is too early to tell whether there really has been a change in net mass balance from the earlier studies. There have also been speculations that “rapid dynamics” could cause both ice sheets to lose more mass than is added by snowfall in the interior, but the confidence level here is low.
The important thing to remember (as Schlüchter points out) is that these systems are dynamic and the overall mass balance of snow in – ice mass out is what counts, not spectacular pictures of calving glaciers.
Max
“the sun is staying closer to the North Pole all year round not physically possible”
Well, actually it is, the slow but steady change in obliquity means that the sun as seen by planet earth is effectively moving north to the tune of about 14metres per annum.
The puzzle of the Antarctic ice now on average 750,000 square kilometres above the normal and increasing for the last 30 years.
If I was a Gavin clone running a cooling blog I would be spruiking this news to the world.
“The world is cooling. The skeptics cannot be trusted. Look at this evidence.”
I would promote Etnavs studies (1860’s and never disproven) showing that Co2 increase causes an increase in heat being irradiated into space and hence global cooling.
The fact that total global sea ice is now above normal for a full year as well confirms the cooling trend and presages CAGC.
“The puzzle of the Antarctic ice now on average 750,000 square kilometres above the normal and increasing for the last 30 years.
If I was a Gavin clone running a cooling blog I would be spruiking this news to the world.
“The world is cooling. The skeptics cannot be trusted. Look at this evidence.”
I would promote Etnavs studies (1860′s and never disproven) showing that Co2 increase causes an increase in heat being irradiated into space and hence global cooling.
The fact that total global sea ice is now above normal for a full year as well confirms the cooling trend and presages CAGC.”
But why make the same mistake as Gavin?
Why do something like
Watts Up With That?
Copy things which are successful. True Watts does do a lot work,
and Gavin is successful way to be lazy [and as dumb as brick].
I don’t think sea ice is causal. Like CO2 it more of effect of warming or cooling. If you don’t want an argument, then at least CO2 was an effect
of cool or warming, *before* the fantastic human creature made his appearance on this blue marble in the vastness of the universe.
And in terms CO2 radiating heat. This has number of things wrong with.
Exhibit A: Venus.
Exhibit B; Global CO2 is about 400 ppm. Or .04% of the atmosphere.
You assigning similar magical properties to CO2 as the cagwers.
More on understanding the scale involved:
Convert Earth’s atmospheric gas into liquid. So:
Nitrogen is about 78.08% of the atmosphere if
liquefied, it would be globally about 42 feet deep.
CO2 would be about less than 0.2 inches
So the argument regarding the denial of the utter insignificant
of CO2 in our atmosphere. It to argue than thin reflective material
can make a difference and/or that something like black ink can make
a significant difference.
So, CO2 is not reflective. Anything transparent is reflective, but CO2
even in same quantity of nitrogen is not reflective in comparison.
Second, CO2 isn’t like black ink. Dust is like black ink.
Large volcanic eruption [10 to 1000 cubic km of ejecta] is one source
of dust in the atmosphere. And that dust does measurably cool earth.
gbaikie,
I must spring with alacrity to Gavin’s defence!
He is as thick as at least two or three bricks, not the puny one you mention. Give him credit, at least, for his thickness ability.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
gbaikie,
Uh oh! In my haste to spring to Gavin’s defence, I overlooked you used the word “dumb”, and I asserted he was “thick”. You are of course correct.
In my view Gavin is as dumb as at least two bricks.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Gavin has a great site for arctic maps which complements WUWT,s weather and ice sites and both are free to go to. His Arctic Sea Ice blog which Judy links to and has the arctic maps site on is a hoot worth reading especially this year with some commentators predicting the disappearance of the arctic ice [at least 3 of his regulars] and great anticipation of the ice breaking up at the start of summer [ if they could break up like Jim D’s ice shelfs perchance]. As Summer progressed talk turned to the great white hope, Arctic hurricanes which would whip the broken up ice chunks into a giant melting thin blanc mange.
Sadly they made the ice thicker and the blog commentators went away wishing each other happy melting next year.
Australia’s liberal Labor Party received a crippling blow in the recent elections, as Abbott’s conservative coalition garnered enough votes to create the largest ruling coalition in the country since 2004. Conservatives rode in on a wave of widespread disapproval of the previous government’s handling of the economy, including the imposition of a carbon tax in the summer of 2012.
“We’ve got an overwhelming majority of scientists telling us our planet needs to do this,” said former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who implemented the tax. ”Are you really going to be the one who bets that the vast majority of them are wrong with something as important as the planet’s future?”
However, the tax quickly began to impact families and the economy. The carbon tax increased taxes on 2.2 million people and did nothing to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, according to a study by Dr. Alex Robson, economist at Australia’s University of Brisbane. The study was conducted for the Institute for Energy Research, which opposes a carbon tax.
News Limited Network reported in March that the tax was contributing to a record 10,632 businesses facing insolvency in 2012 — up from 10,481 for 2011.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/aussie-pm-carbon-tax-is-socialism/
Live by the governmnet, die by the government. A lesson for us all.
“REGI And The Dangers Of Making Regulatory Assumptions”
…
“This caps a 3-month period that has seen RIN prices collapse, reducing a major driver of biofuel demand. While I originally expected the share price of biodiesel producer REGI to increase by 150% or more by the end of 2014 due to the impending arrival of the ethanol blend wall and the company’s unique ability to get around it, I am reducing my price target to $15.68 due to the impact that the proposed reduced volumetric mandates will have on REGI’s earnings if they remain unchanged in the final rule.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1776402-regi-and-the-dangers-of-making-regulatory-assumptions
Open threads and open society
go together like a horse and carriage,
or weakening and strengthening trade winds
and ENSO variability. Yer can’t have
one without the uther.
“The year-old divestment campaign, Fossil Free, has grown even faster than similar efforts that once targeted apartheid, tobacco and arms manufacturers. It now aims to focus attention on the £5bn invested in coal, oil and gas by the endowment funds of UK universities. The move comes as financial giants such as HSBC, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs are starting to take seriously the prospect that global action to reduce carbon emissions could leave two-thirds of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves unburnable and worthless.”
from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/27/fossil-fuel-divestment-campaign-uk
Right. Let’s destroy the only industry that is healthy. Typical liberal BS and short-sightedness.
And then there’s the BBC pretending that their global-warming campaigning and reporting might not be skewed by any vested interest:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/bbc-conflict-of-interest-pensions-relying-on-pushing-alarmist-climate-agenda/
Global mean temperature prediction:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmtModel.PNG
RGates
This is the second part of that Historic article on SSW’s, the first part of which I posted last week. I reread your Neven article but could see no reference to the solar activity angle mentioned at the end of this piece and wondered about your thoughts on that aspect?
Tonyb
——— ——
“On the afternoon of 24 February 1952, radio links and even long-distance traffic on carrier-frequency channels broke down practically over the whole world. The universally abnormal ionospheric situation lasted for several days and normal conditions did not return until the middle of March.
Professor Scherhag gives interesting facts about the gigantic solar eruptions during the early morning of 24 February which caused such disruption of communications and exerted an influence on the
weather. (He) states that, owing to a notable achievement in radio-sonde development, the radiosonde station at Berlin has been able to yield most
interesting data on the influence of the solar eruption on the distribution in the stratosphere of temperature, pressure and wind. On 24 February, a
temperature of minus 64°C was measured at the 17mb level (27 km) during the 09:00 GMT ascent;this is a quite normal value for the height and season.
However, the 17:00 GMT ascent indicated a rise to minus 47°C … and by the following morning a value of minus 17°C was observed. Within less than 24 hours the temperature at 27 km had risen by nearly 50°C! Owing to this tremendous change in the temperature distribution, the pressure field changed completely and the normal westerly winds round the circumpolar vortex were replaced by an easterly storm of 60 knots around a powerful stratospheric ‘high’ over Europe. The remarkable increase in temperature in the higher stratospheric layers proceeded steadily downwards and at 20 km the temperature rose from minus 66°C on
26 February to minus 39°C on 29 February.
It would seem that the effects of the great solar eruption of 24 February were felt much further afield. A Siberian cold wave stopped suddenly on 27 February and two storm depressions developed almost simultaneously
on the same day at Bermuda and the Azores. This development could not be readily explained from the previous tropospheric situation and is therefore being investigated by Professor Scherhag”.
Despite the many articles and explanations which can be found on websites, few if any now seem to mention a link between solar eruptions and the SSW. So was the event of late February 1952 just a
‘coincidence’? Personally, I still favour a link between the variations of solar activity and broadscale stratospheric and tropospheric patterns. After
all, the sun does provide all the ‘heating’ which drives the weather of our planet. I hope to provide another article from the Weather archive on a
similar theme in the next newsletter.
He was elected a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in 1891, and in 1912 he was awarded the Symons Memorial Gold Medal, which cited his contribution “to instrumental, statistical, dynamical, and thermodynamical meteorology and forecasting”.
Alan Heasman An excellent full biography can be found on NOAA’s
“Giants of Science” web site:
http://www.history.noaa.gov/giants/abbe.html
Hi Tony,
Very interesting historical reference to SSW’s– thank you very much. Early on in the research into SSW events many different possible causes were explored, from solar to volcanic. But that early research was before the satellite era, when better and better data has been available. What the satellite data seem to clearly show now is that SSW events began at lower latitude as planetary scale waves that propagate northward toward the pole. These are waves affecting large scale circulations of air in both the stratosphere and mesosphere and are therefore closely associated with the Brewer-Dobson circulation. These waves break on the tropopause, causing a rapid descent of air over the pole, often disturbing or completely disrupting the polar vortex. As an example of how large a scale these events are, I’ve often pointed out here that simultaneously with the falling air over the pole, we see rising air in the stratosphere over the equator– a teleconnected event covering over 9000km! This teleconnected event provides a substantial “kick” to the Brewer-Dobson circulation.
You might enjoy this bit of research on the large scale ionic disturbances associated with SSWs:
http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/4125/2009/angeo-27-4125-2009.html
R gates
Glad you enjoyed it. Its an interesting subject. If the ‘Weather’ journal does have a follow up article I will let you know.
Where do you go from here with your own research?
tonyb
Tony,
My focus right now is on the generation of the planetary waves that lead to the SSW event and their close association with the BDC. As I’ve also previously posted here, there has been an observed enhancement of the BDC occurring. This enhancement has very interesting effects on both the QBO and indirectly then ENSO. But as discussed in my last post– there is a little “kick” given to the BDC when a large SSW event occurs. These relationships between the BDC, SSW’s, and even the QBO are my current focus.
Hi Tony
Some interesting ideas there.
You say:
Despite the many articles and explanations which can be found on websites, few if any now seem to mention a link between solar eruptions and the SSW
I’ve been monitoring daily solar magnetic input due to solar eruptions – CMEs, and the Earth’s response via its own field, which averages about 1% of its total intensity:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
This may be considered as a negligible; but lets look at it in another way. The Earth’s field is generated by thermal convection within outer core , the energy involved mast be huge considering its volume and the internal temperatures. I would suggest that 1% of something very very large is not exactly negligible.
Vuk
Ah! I was going to point you to this but you have beaten me to it. I find the whole business of solar to be very interesting and I suspect there is going to be much more to learn about it. It surely must be the single biggest influencer of climatic events in one way or the other.
tonyb
Ah, yes, “much more to learn about it”, but only after complete demise of the CAGW.
In last two days the sun has been CME active
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c2.gif
(it takes few sec to download, the second loop is impressive)
and here is my favourite screen saver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ddt5Y1hXfgI
(best consumed at full screen, at bed-time)
FOMD,
The Earth has been cooling for in excess of four billion years – unless you choose to believe Lord Kelvin’s calculation, which put the age of the Earth at twenty million years.
In any case, the long term trend is cooling. More than 99.9% of the Earth’s mass is at least red hot. Do you seriously believe you can stop this molten blob from cooling by surrounding it with gas?
You persist in using the term “climate science”. There is precisely no science involved in computing averages of weather parameters. The so called scientists cannot provide cogent reasons why “climate” is an average over a particular length of time. The so called “surface temperature” so beloved of the poseurs has one outstanding characteristic. Any temperatures of the actual “surface” are rejected out of hand!
This is your understanding of science? I am sure that many people share your views, unfortunately. We are going to have to live through a grand experiment of putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum. What fun it will be!
You may worry on my behalf, if you wish. I can’t be bothered.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I have a simple question. It is impossible to do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere at the present time. So it is impractical to measure climate sensitivity, however defined. When are the warmist denizens of Climate Etc, including our hostess, going to admit and agree that CAGW is a hypothesis, with insufficient empirical data to support it? I fear the answer is never.
Jim
It is possible to estimate climate sensitivity.
The Global Mean Temperature (GMT) is given by the HadCRUT4 dataset.
The CO2 concentration is given by the Mauna Loa data.
The relationship between GMT and CO2 concentration is given by the relationship:
T- To = CS * Log[CO2/Co]/Log[2]
To apply this equation the GMT should have the same monotonic shape as the CO2 concentration. For this, you remove the multidecadal oscillation from the GMT to obtain the Secular GMT (T). You do that by using moving averages. The moving average period that gives the secular GMT is a period of 63 years. You then fit a mathematical equation to this secular GMT to give you the function for T[year].
Now in the above equation, the temperature T and the CO2 data are known for the period from 1959 to 2012 and by curve fitting the value of climate sensitivity CS can be determined.
The value I got is 1.3 deg C!
Here is the equation I got:
T-0.11=1.3*Ln[CO2/339]/Ln[2]
Where 0.11 deg C is the 63 year moving average for 1980 and 339 ppm is the CO2 concentration for the same year.
Girma, you write “It is possible to estimate climate sensitivity.”
I agree. But that is not the issue. I said CS could not be MEASURED. I can estimate it , and the value I get is indistinguishable from zero.
Girma,
With great respect.
Rubbish. There is no clear definition for the GMT, therefore any data purporting to “measure” it is nonsense. Temperature at the surface (however defined), or of the atmosphere near the surface, varies from moment to moment, and does not necessarily repeat at any given interval.
Something as simple as wind speed and direction may affect temperature measurements. Anybody who claims that wind speed and direction has ever been accurately measured at the thermometer site is living in dreamland.
Anybody who examines a thermograph chart will quickly realise that an instantaneous temperature measurement is essentially meaningless. And of course, an “average” over a period such as 24 hours is equally meaningless.
Given that IR images taken from space using the main CO2 IR absorption band (as I understand it), demonstrate visually that CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. Images taken at different times show that CO2 does not remain specially constrained.
Any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot and will not stop the Earth cooling, let alone cause it to warm.
There are numerous instances where the consensus scientific view turned out to be nonsense. This is the most recent.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn
How can you then explain the following correlation between global mean temperature and CO2?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative/from:1978/normalise
“Global mean temperature” is not global, it is not a mean, and it is not even really temperature we are concerned with (according to the warmists).
There is sparse coverage on some land surface areas, sparse coverage of the upper ocean, and damned near no coverage of the deep sea.
The GMT is thus not global in any real sense of thew word. A point the warmists are now making with regularity now that their reported GMT has not been cooperating with their political movement for going on 15 years now.
The GMT is also not a mean of global temperature – it is a mean of averaged anomalies at the various sparse locations at which temperatures are taken. I suppose it is a mean, but not of global temperature.
And the “pause” in reported temps has forced the CAGW community to finally admit what they have known all along. Global land and sea surface temps do not tell us all that much anyway. Even deep sea temps, if we were measuring them, would not be the story. The issue is heat content of the entire global system.
So no offense, but showing a correlation between CO2 and GMT, even if it is accurate, is a bit of a yawn.
(And this is without even addressing the issues of UHI, siting, interpolations, kriging and other adjustments that go into the GMT before it is published).
” The GMT is also not a mean of global temperature – it is a mean of averaged anomalies at the various sparse locations at which temperatures are taken. I suppose it is a mean, but not of global temperature.”
The work i’m doing is an average of the measurements, they’re not doing this, they have resorted to making up missing data.
Girma,
I am no scientist to be sure, but let me ask you a layman’s question about the WfT graph you linked to here. You said it showed a correlation between CO2 and GMT. And your comment suggested it was evidence that supports a calculation of climate sensitivity.
Leaving aside for now my disdain for “global mean temperature’, I think you understate that graph. It doesn’t just show correlation, it shows an almost instantaneous, global correlation between CO2 and global temp.
If you re claiming this correlation is actually evidence of climate sensitivity, to this layman that implies rather strongly that the spikes in temp are caused by the spokes in CO2. The climate is responding (sensitive to) the level of CO2 in virtual lockstep.
It seems to me that if you think that graph reflects a causal relation between CO2 and global temps (which is what climate sensitivity means when you get down to it), then you are arguing that CO2 is not just the climate’s control know, but an incredibly precise one.
My first guess would be that, if accurate, the graph at most shows the climate’s short term response to heat, in the form of natural CO2 emissions, rather than the other way around. The 1998 el Nino being the best example.
Or did I just misunderstand your graph and comment?
GaryM
I agree with you. The global mean ocean temperature determines the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
This is seen in the Vostok ice cores where it shows increase in CO2 concentration with global warming and a decrease with cooling.
This observation can be explained by the reduction in the solubility of the gas CO2 in the oceans with increase in temperature.
Girma
You are doing it wrong.
First you have to estimate lambda. The sensitivity of the climate to forcing
So,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/
Total forcing from 1750 to today = 2.3 Watts ( 1.3-3.3)
Change in temperature 1.5C
lambda = 1.5/2.3 = . 67 ( .45- 1.15 spread)
Whats that mean? for every 1 watt of forcing you will see an increase of
.67C
next, what is the forcing for doubling c02? 3.7Watts thats 2.5 C per doubling.
if lambda is ..45, then 1.6C per doubling
if lambda is 1.15 Then 4.2C per doubling
To recap
lambda = the sensitivity of the climate to FORCING ( any forcing )
Change in forcing is between 1.3 and 3.3 Watts between 1750 and today. Average is 2.3
Change in temperature is about 1.5C
Lamdba = Change in temperature/ Change in forcing
lambda = 1.5/2.3 = .67 C per watt
Next you need to calculate the change in forcing for doubling c02
its 3.7 Watts ( 5.35ln(co2/co2))
Lastly 3.7 * .67 = 2.45C per doubling
That’s just one approach, back of the envelop estimate. includes feedbacks ( fast ones )
Girma,
Coincidence. May I point out that number of pirates inversely correlates extremely well with “global warming” since 1820. The graph also accurately reflects the “pause”, no doubt due to the increasing number of pirates operating in areas near Somalia and in the South China Sea.
I believe the Russian authorities intend to classify the arrested Greenpeace activists as “hooligans” rather than “pirates”. What effect this will have on global warming, I can’t foresee at this time. I believe I will be able to foresee it after it has occurred.
So, unless you have the odd fact or experiment to show that surrounding a body with CO2 can prevent it cooling, at the very least, all your correlations are a load of rubbish. Sorry about that, but somebody has to say it.
I really mean no offence.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I think you mean you hope the answer is never!
Dream on !
TT is petermartin2001 one of your sock puppets or is it the other way around? :)
As late as AR4, the IPCC has refused to acknowledge the role of aquifer depletion in global sea rise, thus allowing the factors of glacial melt and heat expansion to be grossly overstated. So what was the reason for their refusal?
Uncertainty, of course. It seems uncertainty works like a ratchet, only turning in one direction.
We now know that between a quarter and a third of sea level rise is correctly attributed to the pumping of aquifers.
This is not a trivial matter because it means that sea rise projections are highly suspect. It also meas that assumptions built into the models about glacial melt and heat expansion of the oceans are just plain wrong.
Anyone willing to take bets on how this will be treated in AR5?
It’s too late for bets as the final draft is out. It states:
Not surprising.
Apparently the IPCC found just enough uncertainty to deny the role of aquifer depletion in sea level rise. Odd how that works.
Is it possible to contact IPCC’s WGI coordinating lead authors:
– Gumar Myhre (CICERO) & Drew Shindell (NASA), CLAs of the Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcings.
– Gregory Flato (Env. Can.) & Jochem Marotzke (MPI Met.), CLAs of the Chapter 9: Evaluation of climate models.
– Matthew Collins (U. Exeter) & Reto Knutti (ETH Zurich), CLAs of the Chapter 12: Long term climate change projections.
and challenge them?.
In their chapters, there is an abuse of science in order to support IPCC’s historic claims (check my document):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
but can we contact these CLAs and ask them … if scientific deduction drives us towards “A”, why are they interested in driving climatic science (and world’s policies) towards “Z”?.
Bjorn Lomborg highlights IPCC’s official report that almost ALL models are predicting HOTTER than actual global temperatures.
WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT; CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS
Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf
ManBearPig Attacked by Science!
By Khephra
Today I’d like to more thoroughly address specific planks of Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW) that I think deserve further scrutiny. Over the past year AGW rhetoric has reached deafening levels, and advocates have successfully framed the hypothesis as unassailable. Propagandists have yolked AGW with “wise stewardship” and today it’s common for skeptics of AGW to be derided as ignorant anti-environmentalists. But I don’t think that things are nearly so simple.
Unfortunately, once people become emotionally invested in a position, it can be very difficult to provoke them into changing course. Liberals and progressives hailed the election of Obama as the most wonderful thing since sliced-bread. With a battlefield full of broken promises behind him and the insinuation of institutionalized corruption and illegal forced detentions stretching into the foreseeable future, many of those same liberals and progressives have fallen into an exasperated, listless complacency. They became emotionally invested in the “hope” engendered by Obama, and when the reality failed to live up to the myth, they were forced into cognitive dissonance, apathy, or synthesis. If you meet someone who still supports Obama, dig a little and you’ll find the cognitive dissonance – and, I would argue, the same could be said of supporters of AGW. … continue at:
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/manbearpig-attacked-by-science/
Super-storm Fall-Season..
“Anyone looking to get some delicious Chilean fruit this winter is going to be disappointed, as the worst frost in more than 80 years has damaged 50 million boxes of fruit exports — causing the country to declare a state of emergency in its agricultural sector.
The Chilean Fresh Fruit Exporters Association said that freezing temperatures throughout mid-September hit the country’s fruit growers with the coldest frost since 1929. Temperatures fell to an average of 19 degrees Fahrenheit for an average of seven hours in several of the Chile’s growing regions, contributing to a huge drop-off in fruit exports.
Chilean growers exported about 282 million boxes of fruit last year, and experts believe that exports will fall short of that by about 50 million boxes for this year. However, when production increases are taken into account, the total frost damage to fruit production could be closer to 60 million or 65 million boxes.
The wine industry was hit hard by the frost as well.
Estimates put the total damage to Chilean crops at $1 billion. Reuters reports that between 35 percent and 61 percent of stone fruit crops were damaged, 57 percent of almonds, 48 percent of kiwis and 20 percent of grapes. The U.S. imports about 42 percent of the country’s grapes.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/26/global-warming-chile-hit-with-worst-cold-spell-in-80-years/
Lou Reed’s walk on the wild side is over. RIP.
Satellite’s gone, up to the skies.
Chief,
“This capacity for self delusion strongly suggests deeper psychological turmoil. I don’t know what the solution is – but I suspect it will involve kool-aid.”
If I may interject, to me, cyanide laced Kool-Aid is not only for the followers, but the messianic figures themselves. The messianic figure and followers are going to a far better place than current terra firma. To drink the Kool-Aid, is an admission of group failure and the solution is to run away en mass.
Instead, if one views the end of WW II as observed in Nazi Germany as more of a representative conclusion to a failed paradigm such as we are observing with climate change group-think, then the messianic figure withdraws in their bunker mentality, leaving the followers to fend for themselves, which they do, in spite of some grim choices like surrendering to a Soviet Army.
If one is messianic in viewpoint, one’s self identity is wrapped up in the paradigm, failed or not. Hiding, plugging one’s ears, simultaneously yelling la la la la over the voices of reason and sanity is also a well known pattern and behavior of escapism.
The pressure being applied to the warmista’s prototype is not from a skeptic’s blog, rather, it is the relentless reality, one of which is the “pause”, keeps hammering its message: “you’ve got it wrong.”
There is not a problem in climate change communication. There is a problem of repetitive reality checks which are going un-heeded.
Rio,
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the kool-aid. But the fearful narratives are frightening little children – stopping people having children – invoking culturally defeatist narratives. This is not the way for the human race to survive and thrive over the rest of the century – let alone for the next million years.
I am feeling especially mellow this morning. My wife was throwing away a shoulder bag – which I claimed for my own. Totally not g@y. I am filling it with boy stuff. A solar powered calculator, a found blue ball that used to belong to Aliesa Hughes, my poetry journal, a little blue LED torch, a screwdriver with different heads contained in the barrel, a penknife with one broken blade. It is 7.30 am and I have been working for a couple of hours. My renovations are almost complete – and work is about to start on the last of the painting. I am totally ready for global warming with a new turbo-charged air conditioner. Just goes to show – it is not a big problem and the future is technological.
One aspect is that they are absolutely invested in a narrative of their own intellectual and moral superiority. This is of course symptomatic of groupthink and emerges I believe from a fundamental lack of self belief. Pop psychology is not of course a respectful pursuit for macho types like us
and the preference is just to knuckle it out in some bar somewhere. I have challenged springer to a fight out back of the Great Western Hotel – but he wanted to bring a gun. OK. I can fit one in my new man-bag.
A cool breeze is blowing from the ocean I can glimpse from my dining room table. Elvis is on the stereo and every song is talking to me. ‘We can’t get on together with suspicious minds’. ‘If I can dream’. ‘This time the girl is gonna stay’. ‘Burning love’. ‘Suspicion’. ‘Moody blues’. ‘Heartbreak hotel’. ‘Blue suede shoes’. ‘You ain’t nothin’ but a hounddog’. Elvis has the answer to everything. Elvis was the King.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeqBqkBMcU
Have fun – make mistakes – get messy as someone once said.
The Chief of unintentional irony.
Always and forever.
Can’t possibly be wrong about ‘beloved sceptics’ or neanderthal conservatives Joshua? Too much of a shock to the system? They obviously care nothing for the children, the Earth or the little animals.
You are an idiot but that doesn’t mean you should hang on my every word waiting for an opportunity to parrot unintended irony.
And your imagination is impressive as well.
I put “skeptics” in quote so as to distinguish them from skeptics. Which are you, Chief, with your intermittent respect for uncertainty?
And you have never, either, ever, read me directing vitriol towards conservatives as a group. Not once.
And anyway, what kind of skeptic confuses “Mommy, he does it toooouuuu” with accountability?
And speaking of imagination, what kind of poet confuses boasting with poetry.
To summarize: Projection, fantasies, imagination, childishness (name-calling), boasting – what can we add with your next comment? Let’s read it and see, shall we?
Can’t possibly be less than superior can you Joshua. That really is the essence of your unintentional irony. You bury your intent in a snarl of gratuitous pop psychology whines and sneers, smarmy snarks and one eyed science and content free trivial complaints.
You are a humourless drone intent only on defence of your of your progressive tribe using formulaic and ultimately immensely tedious comment. Doesn’t take any thought at all to repeat nonsense endlessly does it Joshua.
Positive feedback due to water vapour as a consequence of AGW now looks like a dead duck.
It is pointless to keep supporting models that were proved wrong almost two decades ago.
Does anyone still claim a positive feedback? If so , please supply evidence.
The land, since 1980, has been warming at a transient rate equivalent to nearly 4 C per doubling. If that is even without water vapor feedback, you are in a world of trouble when that kicks in :-)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131027,0,1228881.column#axzz2iwz1aoLh
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131027,0,1228881.column#axzz2iwz1aoLh
Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal — Nature and Science lead the list — encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn’t a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.
Reporting its third quarter results, Cabot Oil & Gas (COG) delivered a fresh crop of “monster” Marcellus wells that further reinforce the productivity and consistency of the play’s dry gas sweet spot in Northeast Pennsylvania. The results for the quarter also highlight a steady trend towards higher EURs per well.
…
The progression toward longer laterals and more frac stages per well will continue for at least another two years, although at a slower rate. Cabot confirmed that it anticipates longer lateral lengths and more stages per well in its 2014 drilling plan compared to its 2013 program. Additionally, 2015 program will provide yet longer laterals and more stages. Barring deterioration in well productivity due to well locations outside of the most productive fairway, Cabot’s average EUR per well has potential to approach 20 Bcf already during the company’s 2014 drilling campaign.
While Cabot anticipates a moderate increase in well completion costs due to the increase in the number of stages (current cost per stage is less than $90,000, according to the company), total well cost will likely remain in the ~$6.5 million range. As a result, Finding and Development cost would fall to a staggeringly low ~$0.40/Mcf and drilling economics would show further improvement from the very attractive current level (slide below).
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1777122-20-bcf-per-well-new-operating-standard-in-the-marcellus-shale
…
As the productivity of the U.S. gas shales, on a per well basis, has continued to grow far beyond the industry’s most optimistic expectations, the resulting excess oilfield service capacity has been re-directed towards the emerging oil and liquids-rich shales.
Still, given the massive scale and powerful momentum that have built up in the oil shale area, it may appear somewhat counter-intuitive that the excess oilfield service capacity is having difficult time to be fully absorbed by the highly service-intensive oil shale industry (particularly given that natural gas drilling has remained more or less stable for more than a year). The persistent, even increasing, capacity surplus is attributable to a great degree to significant equipment productivity gains which have allowed Oil & Gas operators to get more done with less equipment. While productivity improvements have been broadly publicized, the magnitude of such gains is truly striking and may not be fully appreciated.
The productivity growth trend is vividly illustrated by the following two slides from a recent presentation by Nabors Industries (NBR). The first slide (below) shows drilling productivity statistics for four major U.S. basins – the Eagle Ford, Marcellus, Permian and Williston – since the first quarter of 2012. Excluding the Permian where the average number of wells drilled per active rig has remained little changed (which is explained by the increasing weight of more complex horizontal wells in deeper plays), the other three basins show productivity improvements over the seven quarters in the 30%-69% range.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1777102-u-s-shale-oil-service-equipment-surplus-to-sustain-cost-advantage
Tonyb: “The current rise is neither unprecedented nor frightening merely history repeating itself”
Maybe I should quote Mike Flynn who said “the predictive power of cycles is overrated”. But no, I won’t …
Tonyb you have to be careful. You are making the assumption that the sea level will drop again after some time in the future like it did at the end of the MCA. There is no basis for that. It’s in fact merely a wishful thought.
Yes, maybe you are right and the IPCC is wrong, but we should be banking on the facts not the wishful thoughts.
Tonyb: “The current rise is neither unprecedented nor frightening merely history repeating itself”
Maybe I should quote Mike Flynn who said “the predictive power of cycles is overrated”. But no, I won’t …
Tonyb you have to be careful. You are making the assumption that the sea level will drop again after some time in the future like it did at the end of the MCA. There is no basis for that. It’s in fact merely a wishful thought.
Yes, maybe you are right and the IPCC is wrong, but we should be banking on the facts not the wishful thoughts.
Got facts?
obo Tony Brown, who is not here right now, when and where did he claim that: “the sea level will drop again after some time in the future like it did at the end of the MCA” ; that it is a “wishful thought”, and if so, in what context?
Your point is hard to understand. What “facts” should we be “banking on”? When is “after some time in the future?” Huh?
If Tony (or anyone else) said that it is quite possible that sea levels will fall in the future – as they have done in the past – so what? I can’t see why this perfectly reasonable statement of a possibility agitates you so much.
Johanna.
Back on duty but not yet had my coffee. Of course I never said anything like RO has posted. In fact I had just said this
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/26/open-thread-weekend-38/#comment-405279
tonyb
Some geoengineering I approve of:
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-giant-mirrors-winter-sun-norwegian.html
cool. I read about that before. blowing up the mountains would have been ore fun i mean more fun
Snow falling over Siberia is raising the prospect for frigid temperatures in New York come January.
Enlarge image Snow in Siberia
The more ground covered by snow across northern Europe and Asia at the end of October, the greater the chances of triggering a phenomenon known as the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. Photographer: Valery Titievsky/AFP via Getty Images
The weather half a world from Central Park can set off atmospheric events that result in icy air descending from the North Pole in December and January, driving U.S. temperatures down and natural gas and heating oil use up, according to Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmosphere & Environmental Research in Lexington, Massachusetts.
“It’s the best winter predictor that we have,” Cohen said in a telephone interview. “We haven’t made a forecast yet, but we’re watching it closely and the snow cover has definitely been above normal so far.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/if-new-york-freezes-in-january-blame-siberian-snow-now.html
Sheffield is among producers who’ve together invested $150 billion in the Permian since 2010 seeking their piece of an oil trove estimated to be worth as much as $5 trillion. As the money pours in, risks are mounting of a bust as analysts including Marshall Adkins of Raymond James & Associates Inc. forecast crude is heading down to $70 a barrel next year, a price that would slow drilling in the most expensive U.S. shale formation.
While traditional wells have been drilled in the Permian since the 1920s, producers have become giddy over the potential of the region’s vast overlapping layers of oil-soaked shale rock. Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (PXD) estimated the remaining yield at the equivalent of 50 billion barrels, more than any field on Earth except Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar. The varied geology, though, makes it more costly to explore and develop.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/oil-s-5-trillion-permian-boom-threatened-by-70-crude.html
Wall Street attacks denialists! ouch!!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warning-100-year-climate-disasters-every-100-days-2013-09-25?link=kiosk
The main points seem to be repeated a few times for emphasis, but are:
“Fortunately, a brainstorm just ignited in the global insurance industry’s collective consciousness, triggering a new paradigm. Insurers are capitalists in business to make a profit. They can’t continue relying on 19th century rules-of-thumb and outdated formulas. Nor can they let the myopic rhetoric of today’s science deniers influence insurance rates and policies.”
and
“Starting now, climate-science deniers can babble all they want — Big Oil, Koch Brothers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, lobbyists and extremist politicians — all those climate-denying Luddites can rant and rave all they want about their myopic ideologies, unprincipled obstructionism, underlying greed, and tout their made-up scientific reports. They can pay off academicians to write articles and make speeches to cast doubt on legitimate climate-change science. And they can buy all the national ads they want to degrade climate activists like Greenpeace, Tom Steyer, Bill McKibben and his 350.org global army fighting to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from polluting America.”
My interpretation: realism strikes in business when it hits the profit margins.
The insurance companies with the most accurate predictions of future weather will make the most money. Will people pay insurance premiums for risks laid out by some of those who are the far end of warmist spectrum?
Sounds like they have had to change their paradigm because they have already been hit by the higher frequency of “100-year” events.
Paul Farrell is a two-bit reporter at MarketWatch – not exactly my definition of “Wall Street.” He has been beating the CAGWer drum loudly lately. He actually believes global warming is an investable thesis. Go put your money where his mouth is. I dare you!
I mean, Jesus, he believes Greenpeace is a viable, reputable organization? Give me a break!
Poor fella Farrell. What’s a comment section like that gonna do for him?
============
The cool thing, jim2, is how anachronistic the writing seems. I checked the date to be sure it wasn’t written in 2008.
=================
If you think that about Farrell, what do you think about the whole insurance industry that he is just reporting on?
If you haven’t seen Doctor Yorke, you might find this interesting:
http://www.washacadsci.org/videos/yorke.htm
Starting at about 55:30 he says a number of interesting things about Weather Models and CO2.
Mentioning problems:
The weather models may be lame
The weather models don’t do well with clouds
A doubling of CO2 suffers from uncertainty as we are entering a different domain, as there is no historical data – which I think he means, to feed into the models
We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, referring to CO2
All the above are my paraphrasings.
And there’s also a few interesting remarks about some of his uses of models
The part that I found the most interesting, starting at 55:30 is about 7 minutes long.
I just came across this trying learn about Period Three. It is another, all nails are chaos, video.
I think it is interesting that I put up a post about MEASURING climate sensitivity, and there were a lot of comments discussing the ESTIMATION of climate sensitivity. No discussion of measurement whatsoever. I find it fascinating that the warmist denizens of Climate Etc cannot bring themselves to discuss the fact that, because, we cannot do controlled experiments, on the earth’s atmosphere, we cannot measure climate sensitivity, however defined, and therefore the various values which are claimed to represent this number are nothing more than guesses.
well there is no categorical difference between estimating and measuring.
Both require assumptions
Both have uncertainty
In general we prefer measurements. Why? because measurements require FEWER assumptions and because measurements have less uncertainty.
I estimate that if a moon sized asteriod hit the earth that the result would be horrible. I know this even though I haven’t measured anything like it. Do I know it better than I know the damage from car hitting a wall? yup, even though I have plenty of data and measurements on the latter.
Steven, you write “well there is no categorical difference between estimating and measuring.”
I maintain that this statement is just plain wrong. One of us is right and one of us is wrong on this issue. No amount of traffic on Climate Etc is going to decide which of us is right and which of us is wrong. But we cannot both be correct.
“there is no categorical difference between estimating and measuring.”
“In general we prefer measurements.”
…because they are the same as estimates.
Clown.
Andrew
Andrew, you write “clown”. I agree. But the problem is this. There are no measurements of climate sensitivity, so the warmists have to find a way to justify the values of the estimates they produce. You and I know that they are little different from guesses. But if the warmists ever actually admit this, then the whole house of cards that is CAGW comes crashing down .
So Steven has come up with the very elegant argument that there is no categorical difference between estimates and measurements. On this sort of blog, this is an effective argument, as I cannot prove he is wrong. I have tried, but he as a wonderful way with words, and it is impossible to pin him down and prove he is wrong.
It wont make any difference in the end. If CGAW is a hoax, then eventually the empirical data will prove this to be true.
“well there is no categorical difference between estimating and measuring.”
The obvious difference to me, is that measurements are more reliable. I would not get on an airplane without a fuel gauge, otherwise having only the pilot’s best guess as to whether we have enough to complete our journey.
Similarly, I would not recommend remaking our society on the basis of guess work.
Measuring = estimating the value with the help of a measuring device.
Every measurement is incomplete without an error estimate.
Estimates can be made in other ways than direct measurements as well. Thus estimating is a more general concept.
Pekka, you write “Measuring = estimating the value with the help of a measuring device.”
I suppose I should expect you to side with Steven. As I have noted, warmists like yourself will never admit that the estimates of climate sensitivity are little more than guesses.
Sorry, you are writing scientific nonsense.
“he as a wonderful way with words”
I don’t see this at all. I see Weasel.
Andrew
“Measuring = estimating the value with the help of a measuring device.”
Translated: Measuring=Estimating+Measuring.
We already know that Warmers can’t do math, but this takes the prize.
Andrew
“No amount of traffic on Climate Etc is going to decide which of us is right and which of us is wrong. But we cannot both be correct.”
Sorry Jim, Mosher is right. Pekka is right. I have also tried to get you to understand measurement and estimation. You won’t listen or agree with what the three of us have said many times and you even admit there is nothing wrong with our argument, yet you cling to your idea. You just can’t accept CS has been measured using the best available methods and that such a measurement exists. I don’t know why that is the case or what you think you lose by not accepting it.
Stephen Mosher,
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, because in most instances I would agree with you.
However, if I build a wall eight bricks high, it is precisely eight bricks high. My unit of measurement is the brick.
If I ask another person how high the wall is, in brick units, they will respond “eight”. No more, no less. Precisely.
I assume you are generally referring to measuring devices involving an estimable measurement based on something that does not actually exist, like an inch, or a foot, in which case you would be right. Ultimately, imprecision must reign.
It would seem logical to ascertain the situation and determine an appropriate measurement regime first.
In relation to measuring the amount or quantity of “warming” due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, I would propose that measuring something that does not exist falls into the category of “pretend measurements”.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn
John, you write ” You just can’t accept CS has been measured”
You can say that as many times as you like. It will not make any difference. CS has NOT been measured..
I hear Cripwell wants to know how to measure climate sensitivity.
He should try my CSALT model out:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
It’s all automated to make it convenient for him.
WHUT,
I’ve been meaning to ask a couple questions about your model:
1. Have you submitted your model for review? Not necessarily formal peer review, but on any open forum like a blog, for review by your fellow consensus members. If so, what was the response?
2. You say on the page you link to: “The temperature records as provided show noise at the yearly, decadal, and multi-decadal level due to natural variation. Many factors contribute to noise. When all these factors are small and of the same order of magnitude in their impact, it may no longer make sense to deconstruct the individual contributions. At that point statistical characterization of the noise makes sense.”
How do you know “all these factors” are small and of the same order of magnitude? It seems to me that if climate scientists knew all the “factors” that go into climate, their more complete, and complex, GCMs wouldn’t suck so bad.
3. Have you tried your model on paleo data (for what it’s worth), ie. other time periods?
Mike
“However, if I build a wall eight bricks high, it is precisely eight bricks high. My unit of measurement is the brick.”
Unfortunately, your measure is not repeatable.
If I build a wall with 8 different bricks and say my wall is the same height as yours, we will have a problem.
There are very few properties that can be measured directly. Length for example. It is measured by comparing to a standard. The assumption is that the standard does not change in the process of measuring.
other properties can only be measured INDIRECTLY. Take speed for example. We “measure” speed by measuring distance and time and then applying a formula speed = distance/time.
The vast majority of what we know is never measured directly, but is rather measured indirectly, so you have direct measures IN CONJUNCTION WITH physical formulas (models of how the world works ) to derive indirect measures.
If we limit what we know to only what we can directly measure, then we end up knowing almost nothing. So there is a spectrum of knowledge
going from what we directly measure ( that thing is one meter long + or minus, assuming my standard of measure is non changing ) to things we can estimate: we estimate the universe is x billion years old. we estimate the speed of light is y.. and so forth.
What Jm is trying to do is state that since we cannot directly measure CLimate sensitivity that this fact is somehow important. Its not. We cant measure how tall jim was in 2004, but we can still talking intelligently about his size. we could calculate the maximum impact velocity ( under assumptions of no drag falling in a vaccum) before we could ever measure drag (indirectly of course) .. and so forth.
In short Jims argument depends upon there being a categorical difference between measuring and estimating. He hasnt been able to articulate what this difference is. Well, at one point he said his teacher told him so. And further, even if he were able to articulate the difference, he hasnt logically shown WHY this difference is any bar to making meaningful statements about sensitivity.
Stephen Mosher,
Please excuse me, but i think you have changed the goal posts.
You say my measurement is not repeatable. Of course it is – eight is eight. Every time. You didn’t mention you were going to use different size bricks, or that our walls had to be the same height. Who said they had to be?
In medieval times in Europe, and for a few thousand years before that in other parts of the world, people managed to build quite a few impressive brick structures – by specifying wall heights in bricks. Of course, nobody expects all those walls to be the same height. Why should they? The buildings are still there.
The system of measurement incorporated differing sizes of bricks, whether you want to accept it or not. No estimates of partial bricks required.
In regards to length, an example is the mile. Measured in paces of two steps, a mile was precisely one thousand paces. No more, no less.
You might complain that each mile would be different – who cares? That’s the way it was, and it worked pretty well.
These days, the metre is not measured by comparing it to a standard. I guess you know the definition.
Have you ever used a snap gauge? There is no estimation. The part either goes or does not go. I don’t estimate. It’s a binary situation. I know you are going to complain I don’t know the exact dimension of the part. Who cares? That’s why you use a snap gauge.
This whole discussion is somewhat pointless, as you are trying to convince me that you can estimate or measure or otherwise describe a non existent property of a material. This has been done in the past. The properties (including the negative weight) of phlogiston were calculated. Likewise, the physical properties of the luminiferous ether were well known, and accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Pity that neither actually existed. Non existent measurements or estimates of non existent concepts.
Unfortunately, the ability of any amount of CO2 to arrest the cooling of the Earth is about as physical as Warp Factor 5. This would require CO2 to have perfect insulating properties, in order to prevent any energy leaving the Earth. If any does, the internal energy of the Earth is reduced. I can assure you this will show up as “cooling”, not “warming”.
Unfortunately for this hypothesis, CO2 is a transparent gas. No perfect insulation properties here. Regardless of wavelength.
Now you have the situation where, in spite of CO2 being unable to arrest the cooling of the Earth (or anything else, for that matter), it magically increases the temperature of that which it could not even stop cooling.
Give over Steven. You can estimate the magical properties of CO2 until you are blue in the face. This doesn’t mean they exist. If they did exist, someone would have demonstrated them experimentally. After all, what have we got for the expenditure of millions, maybe billions, of dollars so far. Zip, nil, nada, nothing, zero. Sorry about that.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Steven, you write “In short Jims argument depends upon there being a categorical difference between measuring and estimating.”
There IS a categorical difference between estimates and measurements. They are completely different processes, producing completely different results. You are never going to admit that I am correct. I have no intention into entering into another handbag fight with you. The CS of CO2 has NOT been measured, and this is not only an important fact, it is an absolutely vital fact.
In the future, I will go on writing that CS has not been measured. If you want to claim that it has, so be it.
Maybe I should add that the difference between an estimate and a measurement is res ipsi loquiter, so far as I am concerned.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/
“You say my measurement is not repeatable. Of course it is – eight is eight. Every time.”
Mike, you are confusing ‘counting’ with ‘measuring’. They are not the same. Counting is ‘how many’. Measuring is ‘how much’. Its the difference between qualitative (discrete) units vs quantitative (continuous) units. Counting does not equal measurement.
John, when you MEASURE sunspot number, you count “how many”.
A word of warning to Mike. I suggest you don’t try talking science on this subject to the warmists. They are vowed and determined NEVER to admit that CS cannot be measured. No amount of reasoning will do any good. All that will happen is what happened to me with Steven; you get into a handbag fight, and no-one wins.
And the same goes for atomic number, Geiger counters, and a huge number of such measurements in sub-atomic physics.
Wrong again Jim,
“The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
The “sunspot number” is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
This is a good example of a measurement where estimation is part of the measurement, but as you can see it is not absolute discrete counting of individual sunspots. There is an estimate that each group contains about 10 sunspots, but that is an average. So when a sunspot number is calculated, it is a count of the number of individual spots plus an estimate of the number of spots in groups. The final sunspot number, therefore, is not an exact count because we don’t have the resolution to count the individual spots in every group.
I’m sure you thought you got me on that one… nice try.
“And the same goes for atomic number, Geiger counters, and a huge number of such measurements in sub-atomic physics.”
Again Jim, atomic number is not a measurement, it is a count. The number of protons in an atoms nucleus. It distinguishes one type of element from another. That is not a measurement, it is a discrete number. It is a qualitative description of an element. Also, Geiger counters count… its in the name fercristsake.
There is no measuring without counting. Try it.
Andrew
John, you write ” So when a sunspot number is calculated, it is a count of the number of individual spots plus an estimate of the number of spots in groups.”
Absolute, complete and utter garbage. The sunspot number is measured in Belgium. They count the number of sunspots, and the number of sunspot groups. There is NO estimation whatsoever. So you take the number of COUNTED sunspot groups, multiply by 10, and add the number of COUNTED sunspots. There is NO estimate in the measurement at all.
“Absolute, complete and utter garbage. The sunspot number is measured in Belgium. They count the number of sunspots, and the number of sunspot groups.”
Read harder Jim. I linked to the NASA page that defines how sunspots are counted. You repeated it….
“So you take the number of COUNTED sunspot groups, multiply by 10, and add the number of COUNTED sunspots.”
Groups are multiplied by 10. Where did the number 10 come from? Was it determined arbitrarily? Not every sunspot group contains 10 sunspots. It is an average number of sunspots in a group. Some groups have 7, some 8, some 11, some 12. So the average is not an absolute count, therefore a sunspot group is an estimate of the number of sunspots in the group. Sunspot groups are part of the overall sunspot count. I’m sorry this is so difficult for you to understand, but even counting sunspots is not so straightforward and in fact contains uncertainty. Perhaps the uncertainty is negligible or does not factor into the final count in any meaningful way…. but it is there and you cannot deny it… that is a fact.
John, I am not going to get in to another handbag fight over an issue that it inconsequential. You don’t know what you are talking about. But you will obfuscate until kingdom come, rather than admit that CS cannot be measured..
John Carpenter,
With respect, I don’t think I am confused.
If you decide to measure one of my bricks, how can you do it without counting?
You may count a number of centimetres, then add some millimeters, and so on down to femtometres or such like.
You will wind up with a number which is an exact multiple of your smallest unit of measurement. “Aha”, I hear you say “It’s still an estimate – gotcha,”
Well, no. I have kept going, and counted the length in the brick atoms. By definition, a brick is composed of brick atoms (my story, my units). And a brick cannot be composed of half atoms, unless it’s a Warmist brick.
Now I have measured my brick, precisely and uselessly.
Now your turn. Estimate the length of anything you like, in your continuous unit of choice, and communicate your answer without counting.
The problem with the “anti cooling” effect of CO2 is not that has to be estimated so much, as that it has to assumed to exist. Unlike any other property of CO2, it cannot be measured or even demonstrated.
If global temperatures have not risen for some years, and CO2 levels have, then the “anti cooling” effect of CO2 seems to be an attribute akin to Uri Geller’s spoon bending powers. It appears and disappears at random.
I would suggest that anyone assigning a measurement to “climate sensitivity” is not so much estimating as trying to impose a devout, firmly held, conviction on Nature.
Doesn’t seem to be working that well at the moment, as far as I can see.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn
“If you decide to measure one of my bricks, how can you do it without counting?”
Mike, of course you can’t and I never claimed otherwise. You missed the point. You stated eight bricks is eight bricks. No disagreement. However eight is a discrete number (no uncertainty) and counting is only a description of how many, not how much. How much is a description of length, width, weight, speed, etc… these are continuous quantities, non discrete, and therefore expressed as measurements with uncertainty. Not until you get to quantum levels of energy do we see discrete quantities again, quanta. In the macroscopic world we live in, quanta appear as continuous and for all practical purposes are.
Counting is not the same as measuring although you obviously have to count to measure. So, I do think you are still confused.
John Carpenter,
I think we are talking around each other.
You say “In the macroscopic world we live in, quanta appear as continuous and for all practical purposes are.”
You are correct. I believe this whole discussion was about differing points of view relating to “measuring” vs “estimating”. My point was that by selecting a somewhat larger unit than something at the quantum level, say a pace or a brick, it is perfectly possible to measure without estimation.
If you then ask me to measure something, and specify that I have to use your impractical units (because I don’t have any, or the concept of modern mensuration is unknown to me), then I am reduced to estimation. Your units are incapable of providing me a clear, unambiguous, precise measurement. In the real world of course, the whole discussion is pointless.
Let me move to Climate Sensitivity.
CO2 has many properties – measured, derived, calculated, estimated to a useful degree of precision. The ability to stop an object cooling, or cause an object to warm is not one of them.
What Warmists refer to as “measuring” CS, and then later “estimating” CS, is nothing more or less than a numerical description of a pious hope. If CO2 levels rise whilst “global temperature” does not, then even that hope is dashed – at least temporarily.
Good luck with CO2 and climate sensitivity – you may well need some.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Fan, just for grins I did a single input with one lag combination fit to GISS loti.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-edKySAM4ek8/Um2XU2T2yFI/AAAAAAAAKOM/DBx1JVAwpKA/s871/dTSI%2520with%2520lag%2520fit%2520to%2520GISS%2520loti.png
Smoothing is technically a degree of freedom so that is what, 4 degrees of freedom for that fit?
Of course there is much more to the story :)
Three (or four?) examples of sustained, finite-amplitude nonlinear oscillations:
• von Karmann vortex streets
• Lotka-Volterra cycles
• glacial cycles
• Wyatt/Curry Stadium Waves (?)
Why not enlarge your mathematical conceptions, CaptainDallas?
Fan, there are also Bond events, D-O oscillations and glacial/interglacial changes are related to the 2nd or 3rd precessional cycle. The glacial cycle shifted from 41ka to ~100ka and there is no reason it can’t shift to ~21ka. Kari Lawrence might be another good addition to your reading list along with J R Toggweiler and most of GFDL gurus.
And retroencabulators with tremmel pipes and girdle springs.
Thanks Chief for not wasting any more of your time by showing how the pause comes about, thanks to the Lean & Rind paper.
Broken threading is very tedious.
Webby’s substantiation of Lean and Rind merely substantiates the wrongness of his analysis. Length of day? Related to the stadium wave?
The essential problem remains of attributing between these co-varying factors. Natural decadal variability and CO2. The distinction webby draws supposedly using LOD is entirely arbitrary and meaningless.
It is nice to see so much science discussed on Open Thread. However, Jim D’s early assertion that “Skeptics need to come up with policies in case they are wrong, but they have not been forthcoming on those, which is like burying their heads in the sand” is one of the strangest policy ideas I have ever heard.
People who oppose a policy should propose those policies, in case they are wrong? We are truly through the looking glass. Gun control advocates can propose ways to increase gun ownership. Endangered species advocates can propose extermination plans. Everyone is on every side of every issue?
I hesitate to point this out but there is a role for disagreement.
Gun control is a solution to a problem, proposed by one side, so this is not a good example. OK, some people don’t recognize a problem, so they also oppose solutions. I get it. We see that with guns too. When the majority of the public and scientists recognize a serious climate-change problem is occurring or will soon, it makes sense to listen and advocate something rather than just say they are all wrong, and then complain about any solutions that are suggested. Some say doing nothing is a good option, and others go as far as legislating against considering climate change in planning decisions. Others advocate for widespread nuclear power or for paying the fossil fuel industry to slow their emissions, but these are the ones who are conceding that more warming is not good. So, what I am saying is, rather than just saying carbon tax: bad, emission trading: bad, alternative energy: bad, replace it with something equally effective that also has a funding source to pay for it.
“Others advocate for widespread nuclear power or for paying the fossil fuel industry to slow their emissions, but these are the ones who are conceding that more warming is not good. So, what I am saying is, rather than just saying carbon tax: bad, emission trading: bad, alternative energy: bad, replace it with something equally effective that also has a funding source to pay for it.”
Nuclear had businesses who were willing to pay for it until the legal injunctions added a significant percentage to the cost, and delayed things so long they couldn’t keep the funds available.
But I think it’s a good idea in general, not because of Co2 emissions, not because of warming. I’ve been reading about nuclear since I was 10.
To be clear, I don’t think there’s any evidence of any GHG warming in the temperature record, if temps have actually gone up from GHG’s it’s so little it is surely not going to be a problem until long after we can decommission fossil fuel power and replace it with nuclear. Except the same irrational fear of Co2 is also displayed over Nuclear.
deeper we head into the anthropocalypse..
Jabberwock returns to add his 2 cents worth. We are certainly not getting value for money.
@Jim D | October 27, 2013 at 11:53 pm | Reply
“If you think that about Farrell, what do you think about the whole insurance industry that he is just reporting on?”
I am taken aback, NO – shocked … NO … I am AGHAST that the insurance companies would take up the mantle of Global Warming as an excuse to raise rates! This must be a once-in-a-thousand year event!! It HAS to be!!!
Lots of room for “denier” insurers to undercut their rates and take their customers then. It’s only business. This spell of 100-year events may end soon, then they win (or they get soaked if they turn out to be wrong).
That’s right, Jim D. Competition is something one would think a reporter for a web-zine like Marketwatch would take into account. I agree with you, anyone trying to gouge customers will soon find themselves with an uncomfortable earnings report.
So, you may have noticed that this increase in rates is the result of having losses that show things are not obeying historical statistics. That was the bottom line of the article. The competition already took place and they lost. Now some entrepreneur can bet that the future will change back, but they might look foolish, and I would not invest in them.
No, Jim D., do you have a study to back that up? Sandy happened to hit a densely populated area, it wasn’t really a ‘superstorm.’ Atlantic hurricanes are almost non-existent. I guess I’m just not feelin’ it.
Insurance, like climate change, is all about statistics. They don’t live and die on one event. Events add up, and if they get it wrong statistically over time they lose.
JimD, “Insurance, like climate change, is all about statistics. They don’t live and die on one event. Events add up, and if they get it wrong statistically over time they lose.”
Flood insurance is a federal program and it is all about politics. Most of ‘Nawlins was exempt from paying flood insurance because they were butt buddies with politicians and ‘Nawlins filed the claims that put FEMA in the hole. How much flood insurance you reckon New York and New Jersey paid?
Jim D:
“Despite the impact of Superstorm Sandy and smaller investment gains, private U.S. property/casualty insurers’ net income after taxes grew to $33.5 billion in 2012 from $19.5 billion in 2011, with insurers’ overall profitability as measured by their rate of return on average policyholders’ surplus climbing to 5.9 percent from 3.5 percent.” – http://www.pciaa.net/legtrack/web/naiipublications.nsf/lookupwebcontent/A2A6472B1025107386257B58006CA14
All I can say to them is good luck with that. I was thinking about this conversation and remembered pix of Katrina when it just about filled the Gulf of Mexico. Now if Sandy were the same size and a cat 5 and hit NY 15 miles South of NYC, they would probably be wishing for Sandy.
Concerning other weather events, the drought is slowly easing. Winter is off to a good and early start. A lot remains to be seen. I know I don’t have all the answers.
Jim2 says: And what about Climate Science???
“Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes “Michael Hiltzik writes in the LA Times that you’d think the one place you can depend on for verifiable facts is science but a few years ago, scientists at Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology and found only six could be proved valid. ‘The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they’re investigated further,’ says Michael Eisen who adds that the drive to land a paper in a top journal encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. ”
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/28/0322241/how-to-better-verify-scientific-research
WHT – Take Heed!
On the natural gas side, the report illustrates the most powerful trend that has defined the dynamics within the North American natural gas market in the past three years: the meteoric rise of production volumes from the U.S. Northeast, which has led to forced displacement of traditional import inflows into the region from other higher-cost sources. The report shows that the Marcellus production volumes have grown at essentially constant pace over the past three years and have just crossed over the 12 Bcf/d mark (November 2013 volumes are expected to increase by another 408 MMcf/d).
…
The actual results in the Marcellus show how hopelessly off the mark many forecasters have been in their predictions of the region’s production trajectory. To provide just one example, Wood MacKenzie’s forecast from May of last year missed on the 2013 volumes by a wide margin. At the long end, the forecast projected the Northeast’s total supply to reach ~16 Bcf/d by 2020 (graph below), which in retrospect from today is an unrealistically low scenario. Notably, the forecast represented a substantial increase from the firm’s earlier forecasts, as analysts were scrambling to catch up with the actual numbers from the Marcellus.
Wood MacKenzie’s forecast from just a year later appears to be adjusted upward at the long end by another 1.2-1.5 Bcf/d (Spring 2013 Outlook quoted on the slide from Dominion’s latest presentation, below).
However, the updated forecast is already obsolete in terms of its estimated 2013 exit volumes. At its longer end, the forecast also appears too low and is likely captive to an old-paradigm mentality unable to anticipate the magnitude and pace of improvement in completion techniques and work flow optimization that have already delivered massive productivity gains in the Marcellus and amplified the region’s cost advantage over many other producing areas. The forecast may also prove to understate the productive potential of the Utica, another giant awakening at the Marcellus’s side.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1779352-marcellus-region-producing-12-bcf-d-according-to-eia-report
“jim2”
Take your piddly natural gas. When there is oil around, frackers will exploit the oil and let billions of dollars of NG flare off.
http://entroplet.com/context_bakken/navigate
WHT proves once again that the oil companies are evil.
Nothing about MNFTIU?
There’s a new vehicle available for Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Thomas Friedman, James Hansen and the rest of the climerati who demand everybody else drive a Prius.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477960/Car-maker-unveils-expensive-model-costing-140-000-complete-class-airline-style-seats-champagne-chiller.html
Climate Change Benefits Grizzly Bears In Canada
http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-benefits-grizzly-bears-canada-study-suggests-global-warming-fattens-bears-increases
Climate Change Causing Lake Superior To Warm ‘Faster Than Any Lake On The Planet’ – http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-causing-lake-superior-warm-faster-any-lake-planet-1427474
“…there also seems to be a short-term benefit to the Lake Superior warming. Scientific American notes that the increase in the walleye population is bringing much-needed business to the area.”
Of all the fish, Walleyes are the ones you want to catch. They didn’t mention a lengthening of the shipping season. The Duluth and Superior ports are economic drivers. Grain, iron ore, coal, and general cargo move through those ports. An average season is around 9 months, and looks to be getting longer.
Australia held a federal election in September. The Labor and Greens parties (progressives) policies were to maintain carbon pricing and tie the Australian ETS (cap and trade) to the EU ETS. The LNP Coalition (conservatives) opposed carbon pricing and committed to repeal the Labor-Green carbon pricing scheme. They are committed to an alternative called ‘Direct Action’ which is basically a reverse auction for emissions reductions. They won the election in a landslide, but did not win control of the Senate – well not before 1 July 2014 anyway.
Labor and Greens still have control of the Senate. They have said they will block repeal of the carbon pricing legislation. However, Labor is starting to make noises looking for a way out. It is a toxic policy issue for Labor. The electorate is heartily sick of the whole thing. A national poll released today shows their support has dropped to 31%.
I’ve been arguing along the following lines, so I’ll post one of my comments here to perhaps stir up some policy discussion:
“Labor should walk away from its carbon pricing policy, and the earlier it does so the better for all of us. It was a bad policy.
1. An Australian ETS will make no difference to the climate (and no one is going to follow Australia’s example as was so clearly shown by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s failure to get the world to follow ‘Australia’s example’ at Copenhagen); and
2. the ETS would reduce Australia’s economy by $1,345 trillion cumulative to 2050, which is the equivalent of a one year loss of GDP.
And, for those arguing that an ETS is better than ‘Direct Action’, I question what is their criteria for ‘better’? Is it cost or global GHG emissions reduction? (Australia’s emissions don’t matter, only global emissions matter)?
Regarding the pros and cons of ETS and ‘Direct Action’ policies:
– ETS would, in theory, cut Australia’s GHG emissions by 5% by 2020, but the cost to achieve the targets is unlimited. And Treasury’s projections of the cost are based on impracticable and unrealistic assumptions. The cost of achieving the GHG emissions targets would almost certainly be far higher than Treasury’s projections.
– ‘Direct Action’ limits the amount of taxpayer money we are prepared to spend/waste on trying to cut Australia’s GHG emissions, but the emissions reductions are not guaranteed. However, arguably, Australia’s emissions reductions are of little or no benefit in the absence of a world agreement because no matter what Australia does it will have a negligible effect on global emissions. One of the great advantages of ‘Direct Action’ is that it can be easily modified at little cost as it becomes more clear what the world’s large emitters are going to do.
IPCC AR5
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
Looking for Lost Watts
Thermal interactions between the subsystems in the earth’s climate system do not receive much attention. The steady-state energy-flow-budget diagrams are always presented in terms of heat flux ( Watts per meter squared, for example).
In GCMs, and other earth-system models, these fluxes must be calculated, under both steady and transient conditions, by use of various quantities also calculated by the complete model. The energy fluxes can’t be divvyed out to agree with those pictures.
As an example, heat transfer between subsystem ‘a’ and subsystem ‘b’ is usually expressed by
Qab = H_c,ab * A_ab * ( T_a – T_b )
where H_c,ab is the heat transfer coefficient based on the fluid state and flow conditions, A_ab is the area over which the heat transfer coefficient is active, T_a is an appropriate representation of the heat-transfer temperature for subsystem ‘a’, and likewise for T_b.
Even more important, and without question the most important aspect of all, the representations of the exchanges at the boundaries of the interacting subsystems must be handled in the discrete approximations in a manner that ensures that artificial numerical-methods sources and sinks of mass and energy are not introduced.
It is a fact that the nitty-gritty aspects of the discrete representations of the interaction terms in the continuous equations completely determine the rigorous conservation of mass and energy and balance of momentum. Hand-waving pronouncements about GCMs being based on long-validated concepts of conservation do not begin to address these most critical aspects. The detailed mathematics of the discrete approximations must be presented to show that the fundamental principles have in fact been carried through to the final numerical solution methods. Considerations of mass and energy are ultimately reflected in the equation of state for materials. Improper handling of the equation of state can easily undo mass conservation, for example. All conservation principles correctly implemented prior to evaluation of the equation of state can be undone in a few CPU cycles.
For example, all of the following representations of Qab introduce artificial energy sources or sinks into a model energy equation for calculations of the transient response of the subsystem temperature:
Qab = H_c,ab * A_ab * ( T_a^(n+1) – T_b^n )
Qab = H_c,ab * A_ab * ( T_a^n – T_b^n )
Qab = H_c,ab * A_ab * ( T_a^n – T_b^(n+1) )
That is, none of these expressions is equal to the heat flux that will be evaluated at the new-time level
Qab^(n+1) = H_c,ab * A_ab * ( T_a^(n+1) – T_b^(n+1) )
Energy is not conserved.
Note that for some conditions, the heat transfer coefficient itself can be a function of one or both of the temperatures. This introduces additional complications into the matter.
Here is an important consideration. None of the quantities in the expressions for the energy exchange are known with certainty. The heat transfer coefficients, especially, are notorious for having large ranges of possible values. The coefficients are typically based on estimates developed from data measured under limited material and flow states. It is assumed that the states to which they are applied are nearby the states used to obtain the data.
For some limited conditions the heat transfer area might be more-or-less a well determined value.
The material temperature at any time during the transient is determined by integration of the over-all complete model up to the time of interest. It goes without saying that generally the calculated temperature will seldom, if ever, be equal to the physical-world temperature.
Is it not possible that the uncertainties in all of the quantities that enter the model for energy exchange are such that significant differences between model calculations and real world situations are introduced? This question addresses both the distribution of the energy content among the materials that constitute the climate system, and the lack of energy conservation.
The concepts addressed in the above discussion apply equally to mass and momentum exchanges between the subsystems. To all models that depend on empirically-based and code-calculated quantities. All of them. Some are very likely more important relative to the system-response functions of interest than others; some are no-never mind, others are Wow, like, we’ve go to get that puppy correct.
Can these models ever have sufficient fidelity relative to the real world that we can see the 2 out of 240 that we’re looking for?
I doubt that any of the exchange coefficients are in the list of varied parameters whenever the ‘data’ from those ensembles-of-convenience are amassed.
Corrections of incorrectos will be appreciated.
What do you think…
” It is common knowledge that our Galaxy is permanently in motion. Being a barred spiral galaxy it rotates around the Galactic centre. It has now been discovered that our Galaxy, the Milky Way, also makes small wobbling or squishing movements.
It acts like a Galactic mosh pit or a huge flag fluttering in the wind, north to south, from the Galactic plane with forces coming from multiple directions, creating a chaotic wave pattern. ”
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Galactic_Mosh_Pit_999.html
…could it have anything to do with Earth’s climate?
…
We read a very interesting article in The Wall Street Journal (located here) regarding what they dubbed ‘The Coming Carbon Bubble’. The story is based off of work done by Al Gore, which is ironic on many levels – the first being that his family’s fortune came from oil! Although we disagree with much of what is laid out in the article as the argument against owning carbon assets, we are constantly on the lookout for reasons why our various investment theses may turn out to be incorrect. As readers know we are big energy investors and have been for years, with an allocation that has grown significantly over the past few years for carbon based energy sources.
…
It is because of our views over the next 5-10 years that we are bullish of oil and natural gas names and not solar names in general. Natural gas is a more logical choice to replace oil, which is part of the reason why we have been such strong bulls on Cheniere Energy (LNG) as they would be one of the few with the means to export tomorrow’s energy source from North America (arguably the Middle East of natural gas). If we were to skip from oil to electric powered motors then obviously long-term that would hurt names like Cheniere Energy and producers like ExxonMobil (XOM) and Chesapeake Energy (CHK) but one still has to factor in the fact that the electricity has to come from somewhere and cheap natural gas makes very competitively priced wholesale electricity.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1787322-commodities-today-carbon-bubble-we-think-not
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101156317
“Great insights are made by people who combine deduction with feel, structure with improvisation, sciences with the arts.”
“There are several revolutions in data science, said Georgia Tech associate professor Rahul Basole. The first is how to generate all the data; the second is how to organize it; and “what people mostly get stuck on is the third: How do we make sense of it, make actionable executable insights?””
The above 3 step approach sounds familiar.
Dealer finance – If you require new car lease when buying your motor vehicle
from a dealer, you might consider dealer finance to get an opportune as well as simple solution towards the
problem Unknown a quantity of sites viewed were, as an example, written in appallingly bad english, possibly by someone whose first
language is not english with interest levels charges challenging to find.