by Judith Curry
Climate change, once considered a problem for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Climate change is already affecting the American people. – U.S. NCADAC
The U.S. National Climate Assessment Report was published Tuesday [link]. I’ve read half of the chapters (at the beginning and end), skimming the ones in the middle.
My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been observed.
Some of the basic underlying climate science and impacts reported is contradictory to the recent IPCC AR5 reports. Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have written a 134 page critique of a draft of the NCADAC report [link].
Even in the efforts to spin extreme weather events as alarming and caused by humans, Roger Pielke Jr. has tweeted the following quotes from the Report:
- “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900”
- “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
- “lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
- “when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”
As a I wrote in a previous post on a draft of the report, the focus should be on the final Chapter 29: Research Agenda, which outlines what we DON’T know. Chapter 28 Adaptation is also pretty good. Chapter 27 Mitigation is also not bad, and can hardly be said to make a strong case for mitigation. Chapter 26 on Decision Support is also ok, with one exception: they assume the only scenarios of future climate are tied to CO2 emissions scenarios.
An interesting feature of the report is Traceable Accounts – for each major conclusion a Traceable Account is given that describes the Key Message Process, Description of evidence base, New information and remaining uncertainties, Assessment of confidence based on evidence. The entertainment value comes in reading the description of very substantial uncertainties, and then seeing ‘very high confidence’. This exercise, while in principle is a good one, in practice only serves to highlight the absurdity of the ‘very high confidence’ levels in this report.
White House
Apparently President Obama is embracing this Report, and the issue of climate change, in a big way, see this WaPo article For President Obama A Renewed Focus On Climate. Motherboard has an interesting article How extreme weather convinced Obama to fight climate change.
In an interesting move, Obama Taps TV Meteorologists to Roll Out New Climate Report, which describes how Obama is giving interviews to some TV weathermen. It will be interesting to see how this strategy plays out, since TV weathermen tend to be pretty skeptical of AGW.
The politics on this are interesting also, see especially these two articles
- White house set to lay out climate risks as it touts U.S. energy boom
- Podesta: Congress can’t stop Obama on global warming
JC reflections
While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW. Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration. The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.
The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises (see my recent presentation on this Generating possibility distributions of scenarios for regional climate change). As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes: presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.
The big question is whether the big push by the White House on climate change will be able to compete with this new interview with Monica Lewinsky :)
Cato? You’re quoting Cato?? How much money do they get every year to deny climate change, from their big-money vested interests?
No real scientist should be quoting Cato on anything.
Based on the tweet by Roger Pielke Jr. no warmist should be quoting the NCA either. There is no there there.
When are we going to see some hard data instead of pretty pictures, histrionics and fluff?
Deny climate change?
Where?
In his imagination.
“For decades, scientists have attempted to model the behavior of our atmosphere as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are added above the base levels established before human prehistory. The results are interesting but are highly dependent upon the amount of carbon dioxide that resides in the atmosphere, something that is very difficult to predict long into the future with any confidence. It is safe to say that no one — no matter whether he or she works for the government, for industry, or in education — can tell what our technology will be 100 years from now. We can only say that if history is to be any guide, it will be radically different from what we use today and that therefore projecting greenhouse gas emissions so far into the future is, to choose a word carefully, useless.”
– Patrick J Michaels, 11/17/2010
http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/testimony-patrick-j-michaels-climate-change
“There has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”
Cato Institute on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 in a political advertisement.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/
“There has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”
IT IS LONGER THAN A DECADE.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to
IT IS LONGER THAN A DECADE.
That is simply a lie — one that ignorantly claims all global warming occurs on the planet’s surface, and which willfully ignores the large amount of ocean warming taking place, which this blog recently argued was the best metric of climate change.
So to appell, data is a lie. Strange world he occupies.
Appell is a hiatus denier. Too funny! ROFL
From that Koch funded member of the vast right wing conspiracy, the UK Met Office:
“Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF
Oh, and let’s not forget that radical right winger Phil Jones:
“Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’”
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16-year-pause-in-global-warming
GaryM: If you don’t know about the Cowtan & Way dataset, and why it is superior to HadCRUT4, now is your time to learn.
If you don’t know there is far more to *global* warming than surface warming, now it your time to learn.
So go learn.
Appell does not know the difference between data and model output. Cowtan and Way is not data. it is model output. Whether it is accurate or not remains to be seen. garyM knows the difference. Besides, he was merely QUOTING others.
The appell world – where data is a lie and lies are facts.
And two can play at your game, GaryM: UAH LT temperatures at a 5-yr record high:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/uah-temperatures-continue-to-soar.html
David none of those deny that climate changes.
Both of them deny climate change. Q.E.D.
David micheals first quote is about technology and
Not climate change.
The second is about air temps and not climate change.moreover its largely correct.
You cant misread them into being deniers
“Cato? You’re quoting Cato?? ” – David
Judith does like her info to come with a strong political twist…..GWPF, Cato, tabloids and dodgy gutter-‘journalists’, all seem to be highly regarded sources.
David Appell,
I have known there was more to globalclimatewarmingchange thah just surface temperatures since I first started following the debate. It is your icons in the “climate science consensus” community that pushed supposedly global surface air temperatures (occasionally combined with supposedly global sea surface temps) as “Global Average Temperature.”
The only time you and your heroes started admitting that GAT wasn’t G, wasn’t really A, and T wasn’t really the best measure, was when their own reported temperature records had essentially flat lined for about 15 years.
I don’t care what massaged, krigged, guestimated, in filled temperature report you refer to. Neither you nor anyone else on the planet knows what the global average temperature, or better yet heat content, is with enough precision to tell whether there is a decadal trend, within tenths of a degree, in either direction.
I only commented here because I think it’s funny that you quote skeptics with derision while conveniently pretending you are unaware that your consensus can’t even reach a consensus on whether there is a “pause” in their own temperature products.
David, UAH looks pretty flat to me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
Try this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1994/mean:24/plot/uah/from:1994/trend
Or this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1994/mean:48/plot/uah/from:1994/trend
Or this http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:48/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Pierre-Normand,
You are trespassing on Jim D’s cherry picking turf. 1994?
I had chosen exactly 20 years because it constitutes two full decades and I didn’t remember offhand when the UAH record began. You can use the whole record, or 1990, and get a very similar results. The 1984 UAH temperature actually is midway between the 1983 cooling and the following recovery. If I had wanted to cherry pick, I would have chosen 1983. It’s funny when people cherry pick very short data spans and then accuse *you* of cherry picking when you show the wider bucket that their cherries were picked from.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:24/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1984/trend/plot/uah/from:1990/trend
It was also right after Pinatubo. Convenient.
To be fair, it’s sunshinehours, and not you, who initially picked cherries. It didn’t seem to bother you, though.
David neither is about climate change.
Climate does not exist. It is not an entity.
Climate is a long term weather stastitic.
If you need references you can read my papers
Or others if you like.
Climate change is a change in these stats.
Now very few skeptics argue that there is no climate change. Some idiots yes deny that it hasnt warmed.
The first quote refered to the residence time of co2..this
Would be physics and chemistry. Not climate change.
It also referred to technology change. That is not climate change.
When you misuse terms you are no better than the skeptics
You try to mock.
The second quote is about the pause. The pause is real.
The pause is a wonderful opportunity to improve our
Understanding. Denying the pause is pure silliness. Explaining the pause is very important. So please do not
Denegrate the good science being done by misconstruing
What people argue.
The cato guys are wrong about many things.
They are right about a few things
Here is a clue. When you find a quote where they argue that
The climate doesnt change..then you have evidence.
Until such time stick to criticizing individual arguments.
To Steven Mosher or Jim D (I think): Within the past month, you posted a bullet list (about 8 to 10?) of measurements other than land temperatures that illustrate GW (ocean temps, ect.). Could you re-post this list? Thanks.
David Appell wrote:
Dr. Michael Mann defines the central concept of this mature branch of science thus:
To claim that Dr. Mann has lied in his scientific papers would be outrageous, if not ridiculous. Yet I have recently seen many suggestions that this definition of global warming is ignorant or deceptive. A clarification might be in order. In fact it might be safest for you to withdraw the comment and apologize to Dr. Mann.
indeed! Mann is suit happy.
Pierre, this is more accurate.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/to:2002/plot/uah/to:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend
Cycles come to an end. The natural warming cycle ended. CO2 continued to rise.
Remember, the RATE of warming declined after 1945 despite man made CO2 increasing.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/could-co2-have-lowered-the-rate-of-natural-warming/
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/could-co2-have-lowered-the-rate-of-natural-warming-in-the-oceans/
If warming activists had real science they wouldn’t have to grasp at ancient left-wing conspiracy theories about “Cato” or “big oil” to sell their wares.
It’s all confirming what I and many have said for decades now, AGW is a political meme not “SCIENCE” at the core. It’s about expanding government authority and neo-Marxist in philosophy as are many of the academic supporters in lab coat disguise.
It’s generally positive what Dr. Curry states but she refuses to connect the obvious political I.D. of the warming activist culture and by doing so obfuscates what any logical observer can admit; AGW belief and culture, green and greenshirt alike, is based on political inclination and desire not “science”. It’s as true in climate academia as those wearing tie-dye “Che” tee-shirts at an Earth Day rally. At the core (core consensus science advocates) they are a social stereotype so why does Dr. Curry go on pretending otherwise after a lifetime of exposure?
So the big push of the Obama administration for more government and regulatory authority is on, it’s really a hand waving exercise to pump up the “Che” tee-shirt voting block and will likely crash after the impending disaster in the polls come November. Then Obama will approve the XL Pipeline and claim credit for the massive global carbon boom in the U.S. and North America in particular as part of his post presidency resume.
“Pierre, this is more accurate.”
It’s not more accurate. Trends over shorter periods just magnify the temporary effect of ENSO fluctuations. Trends over longer periods tend to average out the effect of ENSO and allow the effect from a cumulative increase in GHG forcing to stand out. So, they display different underlying causes.
Pierre, I showed you that the warming trend from 1900 to 1945 was higher than the warming trend after 1945 and I showed you that 1945 was when man-made CO2 started to really take off.
The climate record is full of short term trends up and down and they don’t correspond to CO2.
The long term trend suggest man-made CO2 has no effect on climate.
Little Miss Sunshine forgot that CO2 has a log sensitivity so that early increases prior to 1950 had a significant effect on global warming.
Or maybe Little Miss Sunshine intentionally ignored known physics.
That’s a big miss, Sunshine baby.
“Pierre, I showed you that the warming trend from 1900 to 1945 was higher than the warming trend after 1945 and I showed you that 1945 was when man-made CO2 started to really take off.”
This is easy to understand when you look at WHT’s CSALT model. The global average surface temperature is responsive to ENSO and to *all* the climate forcings, not just CO2 alone. CO2 just happens to be the dominant forcing right now, and has been over the recent decades.
Web404, are you suggesting MORE CO2 AFTER 1945 has less effect than the tiny pre-1945 amount of CO2.
I agree that the evidence shows more CO2 seems to slow the rate of warming.
Pierre, I don’t think you understand what the word dominant means.
The pause proves that natural cycles are the dominant force in climate and man-made CO2 is irrelevant.
I am not denying CO2 is a GHG. I am just presenting evidence that the small change in CO2 caused by man is irrelevant … and in fact may have caused a drop in the RATE of warming.
“The pause proves that natural cycles are the dominant force in climate and man-made CO2 is irrelevant.”
That pause may prove that natural variability can dominate the enhanced greenhouse effect over periods of 15 year. If the pause proves that, then it proves something that never has been controversial among climate scientists. That’s because ENSO events have long been known to cause excursions about +-0.15°C up and down around the long term temperature trend. Different effects can dominate over different time frames.
Pierre, you can go on and on about ENSO … but there are other longer cycles like the PDO and AMO. Don’t fall into the ENSO is the only important cycle trap.
Of course there *may* be other cycles that account for the pause and/or for the underlying warming trend. And CO2 may also account for the underlying trend. If it does so account, then ENSO is *sufficient* to account for the pause. The Sun and volcanoes may account a little bit, but ENSO alone accounts for most of the pause.
ENSO is more of a symptom of a change in PDO.
Cool PDO = more La Nina’s
Warm PDO = more El Nino’s
More man-made CO2 = Nada
“Cool PDO = more La Nina’s
Warm PDO = more El Nino’s
More man-made CO2 = Nada”
If the effect of CO2 is “nada” then why didn’t the surface temperature drop during the pause rather than merely increase at a reduced rate? Why are La Nina events that follow El Nino events powerless to produce a negative temperature trend over 15 year, even while the Sun has grown quiet? And why is there so little reduction of the warming over land during the pause?
Pierre, you are confusing the effect of “more man-made CO2” with whatever caused the pre-1945 warming.
According to the compilers of global temperature records, the earth was warming at about .11C per decade before 1945.
I would have expected that “more man-made CO2” to increase that rate of warming. Instead the rate of warming fell. Of course as the pause continues that post-1945 rate keeps falling all the time.
Pierre, don’t confuse “temperature increase” with “rate of temperature increase”.
The earth was warming before 1945. But the amount of CO2 produced annually by man is now 6X what it was in 1945.
And the rate of warming has dropped.
David Appell is paid to comment on websites like this. It is rich that he is criticizing people for taking money.
@ sunshinehours1
“According to the compilers of global temperature records, the earth was warming at about .11C per decade before 1945.”
According to the compilers and adjusters of global temperature records, the earth was warming at about .11C per decade before 1945.
There, fixed it.
“The earth was warming before 1945. But the amount of CO2 produced annually by man is now 6X what it was in 1945.”
I addressed this point already but you ignored my response. The climate system was responding to *all* the forcings, and to ENSO variability, back then, as it is now during the pause. According to our best assessments of TSI, aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations, and ENSO (with SOI as a proxy for the early period) the temperature curve over the whole 20th century is fully consistent with the variation in total forcing + ENSO variability. (WHT gets an even better correlation with the LOD as an additional significant factor, but the warming is consistent with the known forcings even without it.)
It would also be nice if you wouldn’t randomly jump jump back and forth from early 20th century to the recent pause while ignoring my points and questions to you regarding the pause. You haven’t explained why the cool phase of the PDO, following a warm phase including a monster El Nino, is powerless to produce a negative temperature trend leading up to the present, especially when the Sun also was favoring cooling.
The SORCE instrument is back on line I see.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
There has been no decline in TSI – merely sunspot number. What the sunspot number suggests for the future is a millennial decline in TSI. But not quite yet.
Multiple linear regression fits parameters to data. It by no means guarantees that the parameters are the right ones.
Here’s one from Lean and Rind.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LeanandRind20102_zpsa090fb72.png.html?sort=3&o=69
It by no means guarantees that the future is predictable.
Here’s an alternative using cumulative SOI to account for persistence of ENSO effects.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/StockwellandCox_zps816dd67a.png.html
None of it includes TOA radiant flux data.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-23.html
El Nino frequency – btw – is at a 1000 year high – where this goes is anyone’s guess but if it is linked to UV as many suspect down seems likely.
Oh – that’s right – actual data rather than silly little narrative.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=158
NO ONE DENIES YOUR LATEST STRAWMAN, CLIMATE CHANGE. Fact is you said GLOBAL WARMING.. you own it. The climate is never stable, always changing, its the nature of the design of the system. YOU OWN THE GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA. You said it, now live with it.
How does anyone in their right mind trust people who keep changing what they said, and especially to something that no one denies. Tell me, what answer don’t you own?. What do you need to see to say, you know what, I gotta slow down here, I might be wrong. I know that if the global temperature rise to where the models you bought into say, then my argument is wrong. If the GLOBAL sea ice ( now by the way threatening record high levels this summer since a now cold AMO means the above normal forecasted anomaly we are seeing and the southern hemisphere is threatening to break all its all time records) falls to levels not seen, then I say, I am wrong. But now you are claiming every answer is your answer. Who does that in real life? If I tell someone its going to snow a foot, and it rains, do I say..oh it just melted before it hit ground, I was right.
There are no trapping hot spots. Quite the contrary specific humidity over the tropics has DROPPED as the PDO cooled. There is no catastrophic warming.. after the atmosphere corrected to the input of the warmer PDO, now cooling ( though there will be the el nino spike followed by the bigger drop off which is plainly evident on the NCEP ( not Cato) temperatures since the PDO flip) there was a leveling off and now the drop off starts. Once the amo flips for good, we are going back to where we were in the late 70s at the end of the last cold PDO and the start of the satellite era. Do you simply ignore the evidence and the logical explanation, that the oceans with a 1000 times the heat capacity of air, of which co2, is POINT 04 PERCENT. control the global thermostat?
So tell me what do you need to see? There is no increase in severe weather, that is a political myth. How do you explain 8 MAJOR HURRICANES UP THE EAST COAST in 7 years in the 1950s, or the extremes of the weather in the 30s, 40s and 50s, that make today look like childs play. You simply are ignorant of the facts or deceptive.
I don’t work for Cato and I get paid for being right, otherwise I get fired in what I do. Judy doesnt work for Cato. But right is right and jibberish is jibbeish. Obvious where you come down
ITS GLOBAL WARMING. YOU SAID IT, YOU OWN IT.
Disgusting, cynical, politically motivated scare-mongering by one of the most worthless presidents this country has had. (But not as much as Chester Arthur or U.S.Grant.)
Except I think he really believes this stuff, AK. Which makes him if true, all the more pathetic.
I think it’s AK who believes what he wrote. Which makes hm, if true, all the more pathetic.
How dare a black man serve as president. You’ll show him, won’t you?
What a very racist bigoted thing to say. But I expect nothing less from a troll like you.
Cleanup on aisle 5. Race hustler knocked over a bottle of Baseless-ad-hom. Need a mop.
Hey, at least US Grant helped finish an awful war (no, He did not start it). So what if a few of his friends got rich. That’s they way the “spoils” system works in politics. Elections have consequences, and one of the consequences is that you get to spend like drunken sailors (with other peoples money). And at least he looked “dapper” in that uniform.
And Chester Arthur had a very difficult childhood, once he got left out in the full sunshine in his pram for 20 whole minutes, so let’s give him a break, OK.
Besides who would not believe someone promising that; “If you like your climate, You can keep your climate, PERIOD” (Just do exactly as we say and surrender all of your liberties to us, right away. Oh, if every third person could die by next Wednesday that would be really, really helpful, we are trying to save a planet after all).
Cheers, Kevin
Apple is a shameless little sucker. Makes joshie and mikey look like little pussycats.
If you notice, the only person in this thread who equated “worthless” with Obama;s race was David Appell. It has always been the progressives who are the true racists throughout US history. It’s just another manifestation of their inflated notions of their own superiority,
The only ones who hear dog whistles are the dogs.
@GaryM – Sadly true.
Actually, David Appell, getting elected as the US’s first black president was (IMO) one of the few worthwhile things he did. But other than that, he seems pretty much a sock-puppet for the radical left. As much as any president can be anyway.
David Appell: How dare a black man serve as president. You’ll show him, won’t you?
That’s silly.
For a while I wondered whether Obama was a worse president than Nixon. I kept a sort of running score. Eventually, Obama out-pointed Nixon: big deficits, high unemployment, low economic growth, support from and support for select big donors, perversion of IRS, etc. Why would you think it racist to criticize Obama’s beliefs about AGW? The proposed solutions fit with his other rhetoric about “spreading the wealth around” and such; it doesn’t take a racist to call the Solyndra debacle a policy mistake of the administration.
David Appell,
if Al Gore or John Kerry or Howard Dean were serving as POTUS, and serving up the same drivel, the criticisms would be the same…. but then people like you would not be able to play such a vile and shameless “race card” to smear opponents. Oh, perhaps I should have used Hillary Cinton and Elizabeth Warren in my example above…. except that then contemptible demagogues like you would claim it is sexist to criticize their substantive ideas and policies.
Why don’t you try sticking to the issues, and leave the smears to FOMT….
Appell, your comment, unfortunately for you, speaks for itself.
@appell
Obama is more a white man than black man. His mother was white and he was raised, educated, and surrounded by white people nearly his entire mostly white life.
The NCA does lack nuance, in a word YES it does, isn’t it?
Yikes, thanks for catching this
Had me worried there.
A report, clearly written to support a political agenda.
Can you imagine a similar report issued on the status of the air pollution caused by coal combustion that has blanketed China?
All the deniers would claim it was a communist plot.
Nothing to see here folks. Those nasty particulates you are breathing into your lungs are all in your imagination.
Where do they find these people?
A lot of China’s air pollution problem with coal comes from home burning of coal and from the particulates that come out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks … just like Paris’s recent air quality problems were caused by 50% or more cars running on diesel.
“One major contributing factor to China’s urban air pollution is emissions from dirty diesel vehicles, including trucks, locomotives and ships, as well as construction and agricultural equipment.
Studies suggest that vehicle emissions contribute more than 70% of NOx in downtown Beijing and are the dominant source of roadside PM2.5. ”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bfinamore/curbing_air_pollution_in_china.html
Web404, India’s air pollution problems are also primarily diesel problems.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/indias-diesel-fuel-subsidy-breeds-toxic-air-pollution
You are a wonder. Wrong about everything.
WEbHubTelescope: All the deniers would claim it was a communist plot.
You have really derailed with that one. A train wreck. Luckily, you never have any passengers aboard.
I guess Obama just Lewinskied the climate. ;-)
give the man a cigar!
that depends on what the meaning of is is
The real purpose of this political propaganda dressed up as science, is to give a sciency gloss to Obama’s actions over the next two years in seizing as much control over the energy economy as he can before they drag him kicking and screaming out of the White House.
Remember, his goal in office is not to run the federal government, it is to fundamentally transform the nation – by his own words. He could care less if the healthcare economy tanks, the energy economy falls into the abyss, and the economy as a whole grinds to a halt. These are features, not flaws in his policies. necessary steps along the path to a “social justice” economy.
His sole focus is realizing the dreams of his communist/socialist father. Check out the documentary 2016 Obama’s America.
http://www.amazon.com/2016-Obamas-America-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/B0094V8OXG
The movie which earned Dinesh D’Souza federal prosecution by the most politicized Justice Department in the nation’s history, under the guise of campaign finance violations.
Treating this manifesto as science would be a travesty.
should be “couldn’t care less,” of course
Strangely, it has now become accepted usage to say “could care less” to mean “couldn’t care less”. It’s a mistake that has caught on and now is idiomatic, though more so in the U.S. than in the U.K.
This is quite a large advertisement in the middle of a scientific blog. This climate debate has been going on for longer than Pres. Obama. I never had the impresssion that he knew anything about science, like most people in Congress. He has to rely on science advisers, just like he has to rely on mililtary advisors for defense. No president comes in with knowledge about everything. We can only hope that the person elected can think.
I am also not happy that climate change is being mixed up with environmental damage. Everyone acts as if we can’t do anything constructive unless it is caused by climate change. So, if there is no climate change, we should stop building dikes? Floods will never happen again? I don’t get it.
rmd, I’ve posted a longer response to your post on “a variety of energy sources” on the previous thread, briefly explaining some of the economics at work. FYI.
rmd, I would think that few who post here would “act as if we can’t do anything constructive unless it is caused by climate change.” On the contrary, many would think that a focus on alleged CAGW/climate change is a distraction from addressing real, short-term issues, both in the environment and in other fields. Many CAGW proponents seek to have everything subordinated to that issue, to see policy imperatives primarily through their particular prism, most here – whether or not they think that CAGW is real and must be addressed – see sense in addressing a broad range of issues of short-term significance rather than focussing efforts on prospective long-term problems. To me, one of the major problems with the CAGW is that has led to a lack of commonsense and proportion, a distortion of policy away from more pressing issues; and that this focus has reduced our capacity to deal with any adverse changes and has had net dis-benefits.
Monica Lewinsky? Really?
If you want to be an effective propagandist, you may wish not to draw attention to being a propagandist so blatantly.
Also, you may wish if you want to be an effective climate scientist, not to point to a single incident of weather, like the Great Lakes freeze of 2013-2014, as an example of climate; most especially, you might not want to point to an example of the most extreme Great Lakes weather on record as evidence that extreme weather due AGW isn’t happening.
For what it’s worth.
Bart E
We will count on you to remind your fellow warmists of this if there is a sizable El Nino in the coming year.
The 2001 IPCC said winters would be milder. When that didn’t work out, the new line is there will more severe winters. Can’t you get your stories straight?
It is after all, about telling good stories. Just like a good novelist.
Comparing this report to the Lewinsky situation aren’t we wondering which will take the higher spot in the news and hold the public’s attention longer?
I was wondering if the Great Lake freeze is trying to show us something? I’m just an accountant but is seems to me the Great Lakes reacted to our cold Minnesotan winter by retaining both heat and water level by building more ice. The winter was possibly an anomaly. But I think if it is, it shows us something about longer time scales. I think Lake Superior is a great asset to study.
WebHubTele had mentioned ice out dates in Minnesota I believe. Which is to say if we can gain understanding for our local lakes and the Great Lakes these are localized effects that we care about and can effect us and may provide insight of the big picture. Time may tell if the Great Lakes big freeze of 2014 signaled something important.
“We will count on you to remind your fellow warmists of this if there is a sizable El Nino in the coming year.”
The warming from a coming El Nino will have little climatological significance, for the same reason that the current pause has little climatological significance. It will, however, erase the pause. It will just be a matter of short term noise cancelling out over the long run. In 2011 there were many articles posted on WUWT discussing the pause, indeed reversal, of the trend in sea level rise. Over the next few months, the topic was just forgotten, except by Lord Monckton who still occasionally posts graphs of sea level rise ending in 2011. The same will happen with the current pause. It’s mainly a feature of ENSO noise that will disappear in the context of the relentless underlying trend.
Pierre-Normand,
You started so well, then you veered off course.
“It will, however, erase the pause.”
I agree that an el Nino will tell virtually nothing about climate. Which was kinda my point.
But it will not “erase” anything, any more than the “pause” erased the warming before it, or that warming erased the pause/cooling before it, or that cooling erased the warming….
I suspect you mean it would end the “pause.” But that is not necessarily true either. An el Nino is redistribution of heat/energy within the climate system. (The consensus claim that the clouds that result cause an increase in global heat content, but since they don’t really understand clouds by their own admission, I take that with a box of salt.)
El Ninos are localized, short term weather phenomena. If afterward reported temps continued measurably upward at a rate greater than during the “pause,” that would mean it had ended. If not, the “pause” could continue for years after even a strong el Nino.
The only thing that a strong el Nino would necessarily change with respect to climate would be that David Appell and his buddies would again fall in love with reported surface temps as the best proxy/evidence for globalclimatewarmingchange. (And you just know they are pining away for their beloved GA, which has heartlessly jilted them for 15+ years and counting.)
If there is a strong el NIno this year, Wood For Trees is going to have a melt down with all the scary new graphs being created by warmists to “prove” CAGW.
GaryM, I mean that an El Nino will “erase the pause” in the sense that the 30 year long warming trend running up to the last available surface temperature record will be back in line with (and likely above) the expectations from a transient climate sensitivity of 2°C/CO2 doubling. Of course it will still be possible for people to cherry pick the same short periods ending in 2014 and wonder about the slowdown, but it will be even more pointless to do so. ENSO (and known solar TSI varaitions) will fully explain why there was such a slowdown (as it does now) *and* will also explain why it didn’t last. You are correct that if — despite the occurrence of an El Nino, and in the absence of very large volcanoes — temperatures will remain below the projected trend, then this will provide strong evidence that transient climate sensitivity is lower than 2°C/CO2 doubling. In any case, it will be the multi-decadal trends (or running decades) that are climatologically significant.
@Pierre-Normand – actually regardless of what an El Nino will or will not do, the pause will remain. With no cherry picking. The rules were set by Santer. he said it was not possible and would be a refutation of the models. That temperatures will rise again in the future is a given. That they will fall again in the future is also a given. But the models will not be useful for telling us anything about what the temperature will or will not do.
GaryM | May 6, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
How many times do I have to repeat: I’m a Forcist, not a warmist.
Up, down, not my issue. Warmth, rise, melt, frequency not my issues.
There’s a Forcing, it’s from human activities, it engages a scarce, rivalrous, excludable, administrable resource, thereby it belongs on the Market.
I’m fine with you doing whatever you want to the climate; just freaking pay the price in cash, up front. Stop stealing Forcings, and we’ll be fine.
As for who’s hoping for El Nino most, if you look back a few topics you’ll see Dr. Curry praising (somewhat optimistically) the power of El Nino to lift drought. Californians are certainly hoping for drought to end. Texans. Pretty much the entire south and west of the USA is hoping for a change in the weather patterns this year, and it’s not like many expect any change could be for the worse. Which is also somewhat optimistic.
There’s no guarantee the next El Nino will not be an Ooblek-level departure from the past, in some unprecedented way. We’re way beyond counting only the interpolated surface global weather station temperature average as our only index of the Forcing human fossil fuel burning causes.
Oh, and ‘erase’ is going to happen with El Nino, or without it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:5/mean:7/from:1900/to:1999/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:193/mean:191/from:1900/to:1999/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:5/mean:7/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:180/trend
Counting every year in the last fifteen, the 30+ year running mean has only gotten progressively steeper. Were the next fifteen years only to continue to rise as fast as the last fifteen years, the 30+ year running mean would continue to be the most ferocious and undoubted rise in temperature on the instrumental record, and would go from over 67% likely to be the largest 30+ year rise in the last half of the Holocene to 95% likely, even if nothing about our knowledge of the past improves through paleoclimatology.
That’s the flat trendology of the matter. No ‘warmist’ need ‘hope for’ an El Nino to furnish more proof. To get a pause, the temperature would need to express a huge dip globally for at least a decade, one that would put the 90-year global LIA of the 18th century to shame for intensity.
Numbskullery trendology. The pause can be made sense of in terms of the timing of abrupt shifts between states of ENSO frequency and intensity. The mid 1940’s. 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 being the latest.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
The persistence of these modes in the long proxy records suggest that the Pacific is staying cooler for another decade to three with intense and frequent La Nina – and less intense and frequent El Nino – and enhanced global cloud cover.
You need an actual theory of dynamical complexity that explains real data. That let’s Bart out of the frame.
.
@bart – the “big” story in the media on May 6 was not the NCAR, but Lewinsky opening up.
Perhaps if you were more informed you would know that.
Bart with respect to Great Lakes ice the bizarre thing is the data/paper referenced in the report to show the ice decline in the Great Lakes comes from this paper
http://www.iwaponline.com/wqrjc/047/wqrjc0470421.htm
which largely attributes this 70 year trend to changes in PNA and NAO rather than external forcings
It would seem like a perfectly good example of what Judith is highlighting, ignoring the natural component. How will controlling carbon emission impact this particular metric when the data says it’s (possibly) natural?
Pierre-Normand
So I guess you are saying that a single year’s temperature increase (if it happens) is sufficient to refute a 15 year pause?
Are skeptics allowed to use this new single year rule of temperature trends when it suits their needs, or is it solely reserved to be used at the discretion of scientists, or yourself?
I was under the impression that we need at least 17 years to prove anything is happening. But since you have determined a method to divine truth with only a single year, the world awaits your proclamation annually. And feel free to change the methods at your whim, no one will find this to be inconsistent.
HR | May 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
Except your paper, so little time since publication, has already been shown suspect based on all of the events in the few years since the data it is based on was collected.
Now, I know a mere three years of data doesn’t furnish much evidence for climate scale claims, but the claims of extreme freeze conditions requiring a La Nina (this year wasn’t), and mild winter associated with El Nino (again, backwards), are pretty much a death knell.
Oh, and it has nothing to do with the question, either.
Tom Scharf | May 7, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
By weighted averages, if every year the global temperature is in the range and with the distribution of the global temperatures of the last ten years, then the cumulative 30-year running mean by 2024 will continue to accelerate upward in trend, as cooler years drop out of the mean replaced by warmer years.
If any year in the next ten exhibits the sort of spike over present temperatures that 1998 exhibited over the decade before it, we may not see all that much greater difference, if it’s just an annual spike. However, the odds are that another El Nino would not be just a spike, but herald yet more warming, as the last one did.
Only a substantial and sustained global drop in temperatures would turn the current extraordinary high trend into a pause, and Physics tells us to expect such only if a cataclysmic volcano, meteor, or solar event overtook us in such a way as to give us bigger fish to fry in the short term.
So pick your poison, but however you have it, there isn’t any pause yet, and anything that could cause one, you should be ashamed of yourself for hoping for.
Bart
PNA (or ENSO) and/or NAO was the conclusion of that paper. What’s NAO been doing recently? And yes I’m happy to accept the imperfect nature of attribution given where climate science is at ATM.
As far as I’m aware Judith is not an extreme event denier,,like the rest of us, she knows they exist. The interesting question is attribution. Bai and Wang suggest that’s a complex picture, The Climate Assessment Report (and you) seem to want to spin a much simpler narrative. Funny thing is in doing so you end up trashing the very scientific work that the report uses as it’s source material. Hilarious Bart as anti-science, Luddite denier!
Bart something that seems to stem from this scientific work
http://glisaclimate.org/media/summary.pdf
Suggesting the story is even more complex, but I think still plausible. Again how is emissions reduction going to affect all these different facets of the climate system to bring about a reversal in what has occurred over the past half century to the Great Lakes ice?
(just for clarity I do think it’s also plausible to think GHGs have played some role in changes in the climate over the Great Lakes.
Bart a little bit more of this science for you to deny.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/ftp/publications/tech_reports/glerl-157/tm-157.pdf
seems Bai and Wang are building on a bedrock of earlier supporting studies that come to a similar conclusion.
HR | May 7, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
That’s an awful lot of speculative thrashing around looking through Google Scholar for anything that contains keywords that might be somehow related to your garbled argument, in a very short time.
Boring.
Bart its NOAA’s “garbled argument” not mine. I’m not sufficiently educated in climate science to dream up my own theories so I try to educate myself by looking at different sources of information, NOAA seemed like a potentially reliable one maybe you know different. I admit there is an aspect of thrashing about to it but it’s well worth trying, I would recommend it.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/
“So I guess you are saying that a single year’s temperature increase (if it happens) is sufficient to refute a 15 year pause?”
What the potential warming from one single El Nino even will refute isn’t “the pause” but rather a candidate explanation of the pause. There are two competing hypotheses right now. We know that the pause is entirely a consequence of the fact that over the last few years (the last half of the pause) the temperature has lagged the long term trend. One hypothesis is that the climate response to CO2 forcing is less strong than we thought. The second hypothesis is that ENSO is responsible for the slowdown since it magnified the warming over the first half of the pause and reduced it over the last half. What one single El Nino will achieve, if it raises temperatures above the trend, is to corroborate the second hypothesis and pretty much obliterate the very little evidence that there was for the first one being correct.
HR | May 7, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
If you’re going to despair of personal knowledge (the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance) and surrender to the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, then you ought not appeal to an authority that has made clear statements entirely the opposite of your claim:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Task_rpts/2005/pepcroley05-1.html
NOAA doesn’t subscribe to your conclusion cherry-picked from part of one paper. You overstate your case, and pretend to support where there is none.
Here is a problem I have with this kind of report….. There is the assumption that the weather changes that they note would NOT have happened had the temps not risen in the last 30 years. How do you prove that also to be true???
I’m not sure if i phrased that in the clearest and most concise way…. But I’m out the door to have a beer with some friends, so I can’t dally.
Who expected anything else but party-lineism? I mean even the hardest rock-head Warmers here know this ain’t scientific.
Andrew
Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
To think the National Climate Assessment didn’t come in 3D!
http://craigm350.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/i-want-the-national-climate-assessment-to-come-in-3d/
“As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes: presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.”
So much for global warming and inaccurate models. Yes, some warming did occur in the 20th century, almost cancelled by later cooling then warmed again after 1970 delayed by the heat capacity of the oceans.
See my theoretical model underlined above.
The beauty of extreme weather is it can be anything you want it to be. What is scary is our president is driven to action by Sandy and the California drought both of which are well within the range of normal weather events. He truly is not a curious man
The data most certainly agrees and the inability to see it is a bit weird.
Judith Curry, with respect, why deploy the weasel-word “effectively” when it’s more fair to just quote the report directly? The report makes two key claims:
Let’s assess these two claims critically.
Claim 1 No farmer, sailor, hunter, fisher, naturalist, or mountaineer of my acquaintance doubts Claim 1. `Cuz the evidence of their own eyes is just too strong.
Claim 2 Of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers of my acquaintance, only a tiny minority doubts Claim 2. `Cuz the aggregate evidence from thermodynamical transport theory, global-scale observation, and in-depth computational simulation, as accumulated over many decades, is just too strong.
A Key Question For Skeptics
What is the probability that Claim 2 is wrong?
• 50% or more: climate-change is a major problem.
• far less than 50%: the domain of nutjobs.
• imponderable: the resort of quibblers.
Conclusion Folks who decline to assess climate-change probabilities belong to the ranks of quibblers, *not* scientists.
The oldest man in the world is 111 and lives in NY.
He was an adult during the dust bowl’s, so why not ask him about US temperature?
“Folks who decline to assess climate-change probabilities belong to the ranks of quibblers, *not* scientists”
Science, like Elvis, has long ago left building. In its place is a President of the United States beclowning himself. I weep for our country.
Most farmers in North Carolina don’t agree – the vast majority most in Australia certainly don’t.
http://ag-econ.ncsu.edu/sites/ag-econ.ncsu.edu/files/economist/2012/mar12_farmers_climate_change.pdf
Most recent warming was ENSO and cloud radiative effects. The world is not warming for decades hence – despite the progressive denials of mainstream freakin’ climate science.
Fan thoughtfully provides us with a test.
What is the probability that Claim 2 is wrong?
Claim 2
Global climate is changing and this change is apparent across a wide range of observations.
It changes. It’s always changing.
The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities.
Here is where I disagree. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to state this.
Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond.
I guess the other choice would be it doesn’t change.
The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to those emissions.
Why a few decades? Why not one year or five hundred? The statement above seems to be saying it depends on sensitivity. I am not sure if I agree with it because of that unknown or conditional.
Claim 2 is right twice, wrong once and the last sentence is confusing. 2-1-1.
“The world is not warming for decades hence…”
—-
So you keep insisting, yet the data don’t seem to agree as net energy the world climate system keeps right on rising. But your constant drumbeat to the contrary makes a predictable metronome.
The data most certainly agrees and the inability to see it is a bit weird.
R. Gates wrote:
“So you keep insisting, yet the data don’t seem to agree as net energy the world climate system keeps right on rising. But your constant drumbeat to the contrary makes a predictable metronome.”
Indeed, the repetition of this claim, by people of at least average intelligence, can only be called a lie — a willful ignorance of the global warming concept and of the data that determines it.
It’s no longer sustainable.
Hey, “FAN”;
“Claim 1 Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. ”
Sorry that is nonsense, I’ve been in the same area for 50 plus years, I remember snow up to my waist in the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1990’s and again this winter. I remember temperatures around 100 degrees in the 1970’s and the 1990’s.
I have not observed ANYTHING out of the ordinary in 50 years around these parts.
My residence survived AGNES (1973 ?) and SANDY (2013) with no flooding either time. That’s 40 years apart, how could my house survive AGNES AND SANDY ????????
Keep up the “spin”, you lost the common sense folks about ten years ago.
Cheers, Kevin.
My intelligence is Lisa Simpson level.
The decadal variability is due to climate shifts – and the decadal modes persist for 20 to 40 years. From the 1998/2001 climate shift.
e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1
This has been obvious for more than a decade. Missed it? Too bad.
ARGO is not very interesting at present.
‘Comparisons of global steric height 10 trends based on different gridded fields of Argo in situ measurements show a range of 0-1mm/yr which can be lead back to data handling and climatology uncertainties.
Our results show that GOIs derived from the Argo measurements are ideally suitable to monitor the state of the global ocean, especially after November 2007, i.e. when Argo sampling was 100% complete. They also show that there is significant interannual global variability at global scale, especially for global OFC. Before the end of 2007, error bars are too large to deliver robust short-term trends of GOIs and thus an interpretation in terms of long-term climate signals are still questionable, especially since uncertainties due to interannual fluctuations are not included in our error estimation.’ http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf
von Schuckmann and Le Troan (2011) are right in the middle of the range – but then you need to understand what the nature of the interannual fluctuations are – and how persistent they are likely to be -and not merely make assumptions.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=204
Better understanding of data would seem to be called for but equally seems a hopeless ask.
CERES is not showing any warming – there is no longer any missing energy in CERES.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=28
That seems pretty obvious.
KevinK wrote:
I have not observed ANYTHING out of the ordinary in 50 years around these parts.
Those silly meteorologists, spending all this time carefully gathering facts on daily temperature and precipitation, when all this time they could have just asked Kevin what he remembers.
Think of the waste of money!
@appell – but you said facts were lies. Why should he worry about lies then?
Why can’t you keep your story straight?
“Generalissimo Skippy | May 6, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
My intelligence is Lisa Simpson level.
—-
Agreed. She is a fictional character and your intelligence is fictional.
Skippy “Lisa” Chief Hydrologist thinks he knows more about the growth in ocean heat content then one if the world’s experts:
http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Levitus-Lamont-05.pdf
He states this is not interesting. Probably because it destroys his incessant contention the world is not warming.
“So you keep insisting, yet the data don’t seem to agree as net energy the world climate system keeps right on rising.”
So what is the figure of the net energy in the Earth’s climate system today? What was it last year? Ten years ago? What is the trend? And no using proxies of proxies of proxies. No Krigging. No In filling. Show your actual work.
Show the actual measurements.
Oh wait, no one even claims to be able to. Your absolute certainty is based on…wait…it’ll come to me…
OK, I know…Arrhenius and the famous back of an envelope calculations. No, that’s just a theory.
OK…it’s the GCMs
No, wait, they keep diverging ever more from reported temps.
OK…it’s Argo.
No wait, sparse coverage in both area and time.
OK…it’s paleo-climate.
Oh please.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ARGOGRACE_Leuliette2012_zps9386d419.png.html?sort=3&o=1
Steric sea level is the relevant bit. Louliette estimates it as 0.2mm +/- 0.8mm per year.
ARGO is not sufficiently resolved or have a long enough record – as von Schickmann and Le Troan explicitly say.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckannandLeTroan_zps45e82e5b.png.html?sort=3&o=13
Yet only one value has any meaning for gates – the one that supports his narrative. And he is not is not at all interested in why the variation or why OHC varies.
It is pretty much typical of the dishonesty of most so-called science discussions on this site.
BTW – just pointing out that my IQ is far from average. The juvenile banter however seems persistent and retarded.
According to Wikipedia: “The results show that not only is Maggie brilliant, but her IQ of 167 is higher than Lisa’s IQ of 159.”
You are only a Simpson tragic if you knew it without Googling.
Claim 1 No farmer, sailor, hunter, fisher, naturalist, or mountaineer of my acquaintance doubts Claim 1. `Cuz the evidence of their own eyes is just too strong.
Rubbish.
Stop making stuff up.
Fan, Ohio must be in a climate bubble. I have been gardening for 40 years. Weather has varied over the years but there has been no extension of the growing period. First and last frost dates have not changed. The last winter was harsh. We had a huge English Ivy die off due to harsh winter. The last time that happened was 1986. Local naturalists have noted a very late spring. Trilliums bloomed a month late. Local fishing guides claim that the fish are still acting like it is March. I know this is not science and it proves nothing. I am simply stating my disagreement with claim 1. My eyes see nothing unusual so far.
Ocean Heat Content
“There remain substantial issues over balancing the global energy budget: achieving closure (Kevin Trenberth)”
“We cannot draw any conclusions about “missing energy” in the system on the basis of differences between interannual variations in satellite net radiation and upper ocean heating rates from the current record. This is predominantly due to large uncertainties remaining, in both observing systems, and which needs to be understood, and reduced.”
Clivar/ESA Scientific Consultation Workshop July 3-4, 2013
Norman Loeb, Richard Allen, Gregory Johnson, Karina von Schuckmann,
Anny Cazenave, Josh Willis, Kevin Trenberth, Magdalena Balmaseda,
John Lyman
http://www.clivar.org/sites/default/files/GSOP/resops/DISCUSSION_II_LOEB.pdf
Apparently science is 95% certain that the human contribution is over 50%. Are you willing to bet me on 20:1 odds that this is true? How much would like to wager?
Fan,
How can anyone living in the PNW argue winters are shorter and milder and summers longer and hotter?
This year winter started out drier and milder. Sure didn’t stay that way. Last year we had a cool spring and late start to summer. So far, this spring is not quite as cool, but still below normal.
If you are going to look for someone to provide you with informed opinion from the PNW, I suggest Cliff Maas and no fan.
Gates,
Gates,
So the oceans are heat sinks. Why is that something we should worry about? Unless you can show how all that energy is going to come rushing back into the system.
As I understand planetary climate, we live on a planet with 100,000 year plus ice ages, separated by 10,000 year warm periods. The oceans seem like an excellent place to store energy. Perhaps that is why passive solar heating systems use water.
There was once a hostess called Curry
Whose website counseled, “Don’t worry
Just drill, baby, drill
Burn every coal hill
Pipe tar from far Fort McMurray.”
“Don’t heed those NCA guys
They have lefty political ties
They’re greenies and warmists
Sky’s falling alarmists
This website’s where the truth lies.”
“Those thousands of scientists’ claims
That the earth may go up in flames
Don’t heed their call
Conspirators all
They’ve got commie political aims.”
“We’re sorry your harvests have flopped
Once a lifetime floods can’t be stopped
That isn’t our fault
We can’t call a halt
To burn, baby, burn till we’ve dropped.”
“Don’t trust those scientist hordes
In Societies, bodies and boards
Not burn fossil fuel?
That would be cruel
To sport truckin’ Rebs in their Fords.”
“In this land of the free and the brave
They can’t tell us how to behave
Screw the NCA
There’s no effin way
We’ll curb the combustion we crave.”
So listen to JC, the doubter
Nothing political about her
CO2 is benign
+2C is fine
Koch’s Heartland can’t do without her.
Stupid comments that rhyme, are still stupid comments. Only more annoying. Try reading what she actually says. If you can for example, show me where she indicates that she genuinely believes CO2 emissions are not potentially dangerous, I’ll donate a hundred bucks to the charity of your choice.
Say, yer measuring instrument seems ter have
gone askew er qua-r-e-d-u-nt.
If you can for example, show me where she indicates that she genuinely believes CO2 emissions are not potentially dangerous….
She is all over the map, saying (it sure seems) whatever will get her the next interview on radio or the next Congressional testimony…. so who really knows what she believes? Something about natural variability, is all I can figure out…. but what that means, who knows?
“She is all over the map, saying (it sure seems) whatever will get her the next interview on radio or the next Congressional testimony”
Looks like we have a maleist on our hands.
Andrew
This quaredunce character is amusing. I bet it’s that little effete dr. eli rabette in another guise. Things must be slow these days, in the more esoteric branches of academia.
How dare a woman be a climate scientist. You’ll show her!
You write so much
My coffee cups rise
My eyes close
And I snore
There is the old saying about better to remain silent and let people assume you are stupid, than open your mouth and confirm it.
Guess who just proved the validity of that.
You need a med check quaredunt.
Now it’s explicitly political.
So it’s about what low information voters, aka soap opera women, the MSM audience, will buy.
Arguments about complexity will not sway them.
What’s important to them is that it seem to mean well.
Skepticism is the male failing, and foolishness the female. This will trade on the latter.
I’d like to add sports fans to your “low information” voters. You can’t be serious that men are better informed. (Keep in mind that any generalization of “men” and “women” is ridiculous)
docmartyn mentioned the world’s oldest man. by jove I think we’ve found him.
If you’re curious about actual differences between men and woman, the nicest essay is Vicki Hearne’s chapter “Beastly Behaviors” in _Bandit_..
Women can do anything men can do, but can’t sustain an obsessive interest in resolving things that men have, women being more content working with more complex partly-known things. That would be a quick summary. There’s no resolution urgency.
On sustaining interest, a very tangential observation. As a kid I used to think of my bicycle as a train, making stops around the neighborhood and so forth, as a regular way to pass time. A wondered a few years ago, being a bicyclist, whether I could still do that, I mean imagining I’m a train.
The answer is yes, but only for about five seconds. I can’t sustain an interest in it.
The idea has no future, I could put it. As a kid, it did.
Something like that for women.
Anyway the strike back has to aim at women, now that it’s gone purely political. There’s no point pointing out the science against it.
Jonah Goldberg addresses: Policing thought crime
continued, a Vicki Hearne excerpt on the men/women matter op cit
“The ultimate model of an activity that is at once unquestionably intelligent and intellectual and that also seems to divide the sexes is mathematics. The maleness of a mathematics department is explained either in terms of an allegedly greater male ability in mathematics, or in terms of sex-role steereotyping. You know the sort of things: “As boys learn their sex roles, they identify with the notion that they should excel in mathematics. Girls … learn that mathematical ability is unfeminine,” in the words of Diane F. Halpern’s _Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities_. (But the logician Ruth Marcus reports that there are feminists who argue that logic and physics are “phallic,” and that therefore women who go into those fields sell out, or buy out, or something. They used to be unfeminine, now they are unfeminist.)
“MIT mathematician Gian-Carlo Rota said to me one time that he thought both positions were ridiculous. “There are plenty of women with all the talent for math anyone could want,” he said. “But women leave math when they discover that you can’t do it without sustaining world-class illusions, such as the belief that grips one while one is working on a very difficult paper on a very obscure corner of a difficult subject, that here, at last, everything will be settled once and for all.” Interestingly, he doesn’t talk about the desire to excel, at math or anything else, as the point – he doesn’t mention competitiveness.
“..Rota identifies the illusions necessary to mathematics with the faith that sustains a friend of his who is a priest. Women refuse such illusions or, say, don’t care about them, are able to remain relatively calm in the face of the fact that there are issues that won’t be settled once and for all, such as the exact nature of the universe or exactly what Daffodil means when she cocks her head and sticks her tongue out at you. I do not mean that women working with animals are satisfied with oversimplified or partial theories of animals, only that their minds are complex enough to sustain their contact with what they do know while noting also where their knowledge of Daffodil leaves off”
“…I keep thinking: Men are afraid of horses. They are afraid of horses because neither their professional integrity nor logic will take them to a horse, and because they do not know how to turn, deflect, a horse’s fear or rage. If Dobbin says, “You’d better get off right now, because I am going to kill you, wrangler!” you don’t of course ignore this, but it is possible to say, “Oh, I don’t think you really want to do that. Why don’t we try something else?” (Just as Moses’ wife said to Yahweh when Yahweh was intent on killing Moses.) As it happens, a talented young male rider can be as formidably equipped with equestrian tact as anyone, but in the general run of things in the middle and upper classes in this country, it is the young women who are more likely than the young men to come up with a tactful rather than frightened response, and when they become foolish about this later – silliness is a feminine failing – they will say that they knew the horse had good intentions all along.
“For centuries, unable to prove Dobbin’s good intentions, men have instead proven their courage on horseback…”
Vicki Hearne, _Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog_ Harper-Collins, NY, 1991, p. 221, 219
Takes either a fool or a true idiot to think gender matters here or to assume women are the dumber, weaker sex.
Gender matters once it’s being decided politically.
An argument from science won’t work. An argument from meaning well will.
No, I think pretty much everyone agrees with the summary:
“There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″
“Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
“lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
“when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”
Cherry-pick by Eunice, SlashDot link by FOMD!
Remark The cherry-picking practices of climate-change denialism are grossly offensive to an ever-broadening common-sense sector of the electorate that includes farmers, fishers, sailors, mountaineers, naturalists, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, physicians, idealists, and the devout of every religion.
Analysis Hmmm … that leaves the frightened, the ignorant, the timid, the selfish, and the nutjobs, as a core constituency coordinated by anti-science ideologues and Big Carbon’s paid operatives.
Question Can Big Carbon’s paid operatives glue-together a denialist coalition of frightened / ignorant / timid / selfish / nutjob voters … sufficient to win elections … against a ever-deepening pool of science-respecting common-sense voters?
The world wonders!
Speaking of left-wing conspiracy theorists, “big carbon”, “Koch Brothers”?
Right, we have nothing to lose but our chains?
Fan you are “anti-science” in every way possible.
Reasonable queries by cwon14, astonishing legal proceedings by FOMD!
Can Fannie of *MORE* disdain ever compose a message without a link or italics?
That interview is fascinating, Judith Curry!
Yet perhaps the attention of Climate Etc readers in general — and young female scientists in particular — might more productively be directed toward the closing-session lectures of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy workshop, Sustainable Humanity Sustainable Nature Our Responsibility (May 6,2014).
A highlight of the Vatican lectures is Naomi Oreskes’ “The Role of Scientists: What Is Our Responsibility?“ (Oreskes’ 15-minute talk begins at 8:07:00).
Conclusion Scientifically, historically, economically, pedagogically, and morally, Naomi Oreskes provides an outstanding role model, sustained over many years of work, for students, scientists and citizens alike.
Surely for students especially, Naomi Oreskes’ lecture is well-worth watching … because she is an admirably multi-dimensional role model.
It’s especially nice that Oreskes’ lecture is admirably civil and good-humored … and calls our attention to historic episodes that are among the most outstandingly successful in scientific history!
Ain’t that exactly right, Judith Curry?
Judith DIRECTS ATTENTION?
err not really.
“The big question is whether the big push by the White House on climate change will be able to compete with this new interview with Monica Lewinsky :)”
1. It’s a question, not a command or direction.
2. The question is about which story will dominate.
3. It’s a joke.
Of course you venerate murderous tobacco farmers and those who enable them. I dont expect much from you.
CDC: “There are approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.”
Why are tobacco farmers “murderous” and hops and grain farmers just fine?
Car, boat, motorcycle and home manufacturers are “murderous” too.
Pool installers.
Road pavers.
This is where Warmers have decided to dwell.
Andrew
Don’t forget Ben and Jerry’s.
To boil it down without the back-story:
1. Wendell Berry is the author of fomd’s pseudo-conscience.
2. Mosher has sent a probe into fomds universe to search for signs of humanity. So far, nothing.
Or perhaps we should judge.
Dubious jokes by Judith Curry and Steven Mosher; science-respecting links by FOMD!
I suspect that few here ever bother chasing links by the ever tedious Fan of More Trolling. I learned long ago that his links rarely approach even the pretense of substantiating whatever his current rant may be.
Despite providing much (unintentional) humor this guy is a gaseous humorless troll.
Yeah! Whereas denialists just *LOVE* clicking on the “Monica” links that Judith so carefully provides!
Seriously, hasn’t anyone noted the same-day overlap of the White House release of the NCAR and the closing-day summaries of the Vatican’s Sustainable Humanity; Sustainable Nature; Our Responsibility?
Whereas denialists (and dismayingly, Judith Curry too?) are countering with a same-day release of … links to Monica Lewinsky’s amorous adventures?
WUWT, the world wonders?
Conclusion Climate-change denialism ain’t got much to offer in the way of science, economics, history, rationality, or morality.
That’s obvious to everyone, eh Climate Etc readers?
Fan
I commented on several of the Vatican lectures on the other thread.
In particular I was intrigued at the very small number of crops grown and that we neded plans to allow for weather related food disasters that should include planning for cooling as well as warming
Tonyb
no, I didn’t care to click on the Monica link either, but while Judith was obviously offering a light joking aside in passing, the Fan of More Trolling carries a crushing burden of earnest, self-important bombastic Rectitude.
Get a clue and get a life, FOMT.
Fan, are you incapable of seeing how ludicrous your comparison is ahove??
The fact that the White House and the Vatican may coincide with propaganda releases on the same day in no way implies that any critic(s) must be prepared with a comparable release on the same day. In fact, it would be remarkable, even astonishing, if out of 365 days of the year critics should happen to be prepared with some hefty report on the same day as the White House and the Vatican. Far from your assumption that there is a failure on the part of critics, this comparison says nothing at all….. unless something can be inferred about the White House coinciding with the Vatican in a blast of climate propaganda…. but I will leave it to your chaotic mind to mull over whether the WH and Vatican efforts were in any way coordinated, or not. I truly don’t care about such ephemera.
btw, the words you put in quotation marks above, supposedly attributed to me, are obviously not an exact quote, as anyone can see from comparison with my remark above. You don’t seem to grasp what every high school student is expected to know, that quotation marks indicate an exact quote of the words enclosed. This slovenly practice of making up quotes is what we have come to expect from the likes of FOMD.
You are entirely right skiphil!
The White House release of the NCAR appears every four years (as regular as clockwork).
The closing-day schedule of the Vatican’s Sustainable Humanity; Sustainable Nature; Our Responsibility has been on-line for at least the last six months (including speaker names and talk-titles).
Leading Denialist Forums are responding with a toxic blend of abuse, scandal, cherry-picking, and nutjobbery.
Conclusion Climate-change denialism is dead-as-a-dinosaur … for the common-sense reason that it has no rational basis in science, economics, history, or morality.
Denialism’s utter bankruptcy is plainly evident to *EVERYONE*, eh skiphil?
don’t know why this comment appeared out of sequence but I will try again:
FOMT,
NCARbreports “as regular as clockwork” ???
Do you ever bother to read material at the links you splatter here like drips in a Jackson Pollack painting?
Aside from the fact that there have been only three of the “every four years” national reports, published at widely varying times of year, just consider all the “coming soon” regional items still promised since the Clinton/Gore era:
http://www.globalchange.gov/engage/activities-products/NCA1
sorry fan, you continue to appeal to Berry. a murderous tobacco farmer and merchant of death. Yes, along the way you post about some science.
Now, ask yourself if you think I am fair to focus on the berry issue when you want to discuss the science.
Now ask yourself if you think you are fair to focus on the blue dress when you know it was only a joke.
I enjoy giving you a taste of your own medicine.
to wit. If you want to discuss the science. discuss the science.
If you want to get moralistic and personalize the fight, then expect to get the same.
… then you are joining the good company of much-honored 20th century scientists like Bethe, Einstein, Bohr, Szilard, Pauling … and nowadays James Hansen too!
Appreciation is extended to Steven Mosher for reminding Climate Etc readers of this great-minded scientific practice, and applause too, to Naomi Oreskes for so scrupulously documenting this time-honored practice (at minute 8:007:00, for example).
As for those who oppose this practice, there is no substitute for careful reading of Chris Monckton, Anthony Watts, Mark Steyn, David Rose, Bob Tisdale, Joe Bast, [he who must not be named], pretty much any Koch-subsidized astroturfer … and even Judith Curry herself!
We know these people as … ““the giants!”
Thank you for clarifying these alternatives, Steven Mosher!
AFOMD,
Am I correct in thinking that the sum total of James Hansen’s climate science breakthroughs or achievements is a number indistinguishable from zero?
It would certainly seem so. Involvement with climate models with no demonstrated predictive power whatsoever does not comprise a breakthrough. Providing no measurable benefit to mankind from any supposed climate science forecasts does not indicate achievement.
Lysenko was showered with honours, so honours bestowed upon Hansen are meaningless, merely showing collective popular hysteria which proved to be unwarranted.
Carry on with your denialism, it brings a smile to the faces of many! If you can manage to communicate without links to religious tracts, I would be amazed! Good luck with trying to find an association between Hansen and benefit to humanity through so called climate science.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Your example invites reflections upon duality, Mike Flynn!
• Trofim Lysenko was richly supported by Soviet political interests … and staunchly opposed by his fellow scientists.
• James Hansen is opposed by Big Carbon political interests … and staunchly supported by his fellow scientists.
Conclusion Lysenko-duality teaches that Big Carbon/denialist opposition to James Hansen is meaningless.
That’s the plain evidence of scientific history *AND* common sense, eh Mike Flynn?
AFOMD,
Not at all. As usual, you have been unable or unwilling to provide any answer, supported by a shred of evidence, to the questions I posed.
Like many Warmists, you may live in a state of perpetual denialism, hoping that your pious behaviour and religious fervour will lead to the realists perishing as the world warms. The fanatic adherents to the Warmist message will no doubt be saved and go straight to a nice cool Climate Heaven.
Good luck with that. I wish you well – I really do.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Assessment Mike Flynn, your post was evaluated for elements of reason and/or verifiable citation and/or civic manners; in regard to mathematics, science, history, economics, morality … and humor.
Result No trace of any of these elements was detected.
Thank you, Mike Flynn, for showing Climate Etc readers, plainly and simply, why climate-change denialism is bankrupt and dying.
AFOMD,
You’re most welcome. I always try to be of assistance.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Dubious Jokes? You hero has grown and does grow tobacco with intent to cause cancer, for money.
“Naomi Oreskes provides an outstanding role model, ”
Yes, for those bound and determined to renounce open-minded, rational discussion. I can absolutely see why you find her so appealing, Fan.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/23/open-mindedness-is-the-wrong-approach/
Naomi Oreskes’ “The Role of Scientists: What Is Our Responsibility?“
OUR?
BSc degree in mining geology
Ph.D. in a ‘special’ program in ‘Geological Research and History of Science’
She received a National Science Foundation’s Young Investigator Award in 1994 at age 44.
She is not a scientist.
TINSTAAFL – I commented in another thread on the impressive achievement of “Fan”. His garbled, awkard formatting matches the incoherence of his thoughts to a remarkable degree.
Which part of those do you disagree with?
Is it a cherry pick or the report decorating nothing to worry about with a bunch of scary graphics?
The effects of climate are change supposed to vary by region.
Just like the MWP, then?
I’ve got a friend who grew up in Indiana.
He left his troubled family at 18 to move to the California coast.
He left California for Alaska and ran a fishing boat there for decades.
He then retired to Phoenix.
Tell me again, in which climate was he supposed to have gone extinct?
Tim Palmer understands.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Bart not so much as a freakin’ clue.
I would say it is a good time to take a better look at those who produce these climate models. Who are they?
Would they make a good neighbor?
Should we trust them?
They are the most powerful people in the world right now.
Like it or not, they have directly facilitated current and past energy policy.
Who are they again?
Think about it. , , ,
Wegman’s testimony based on an in-depth statistical analysis of relationships showed that they mostly are sycophants of Michael Mann and their findings are based on the same fraudulent, manipulated, misrepresented, and statistically edited data.
Careful, Wag, Mann is in an “Everybody must get Steyned!” mode.
There is no conspiracy. The development of climate models has followed the development of computers. The faster the computers, the more details of the model. They are tools for understanding. I do not understand the confidence that some have in their results. But we are not talking mad scientist in a labcoat here.
Best I met was Tim Palmer.
Wonderful human being. Honest humble forthright. wicked smart.
ossqss | May 6, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
Y’know, if people spent half the energy as they do peeking into scientist’s windows, gossiping and rumormongering, instead doing the math, then the most powerful people in the world right now wouldn’t be the scientists (as if); they’d be everyone who’d actually looked directly at the evidence, actually done the math, actually stared the logical conclusion in the face, and.. oh, wait.. that’s kinda like asking you to be your own scientist, instead of just a nosy peeper who makes decisions by how much they like people instead of based on evidence.
The backgrounds of the people who develop computer models does not matter. All that matters is how accurately the models represent the characteristics they were designed to simulate over different time periods. If a model developer is unwilling to share that data, users should view the model skeptically. If a developer claims that a model may be inaccurate in the short term but should be reliable over decades…view the claim skeptically
Rob Starkey | May 7, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
Or if claims are made that are contrary to fact or contrary to logic, those claims ought be greeted with skepticism.
There’s no reason any of the models ought be considered accurate as predictors of the future of temperature. They can at best be accurate as models of processes for given inputs and parameters. In the short, and long, term to date GCM’s for example get frequency, duration, amplitude, direction, inflection, and changes for given unpredictable conditions pretty much right, taking into account their low resolution.
For specific regions or special-purposes GCMs with higher resolution, we see outcomes are even more accurate in these specific ways. Sure, there are obvious issues, even discounting resolution, even discounting unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions. However, the handwaved dismissal of GCMs far overstate these problems, and do not weaken the evidence of simulation.
Airplanes are developed and designed using not very different simulation software. Who was the last person you met who refused to get on a plane because it’d been designed using models?
Who do you know who’d take a trans-pacific flight on a newly designed and constructed aircraft that had never flown before?
Aircraft are extensively tested, in the air not in computer models, before commercial certification. You’re so stupid it’s amazing you learned to write.
Tim Palmer understands.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Bart not so much as a freakin’ clue.
Bart R,
The comparison of GCMs with the use of models in the development of aircraft breaks down quickly and completely. Aircraft are not put into service based upon models. Aircraft can be (and are) extensively real-world flight tested during development, after much testing of component materials and parts. New aircraft can be reality-tested to endurance and failure points well beyond the demands of normal flight. There is not any model-to-reality leap as the comparison with GCMs seems to imply.
Bart
The process for the use of models in airplane design is not similar.
In aircraft design a model’s outputs are compared and recompared to observed conditions until it is known (or at least believed) that the model is providing outputs for a specific characteristic(s) within a known margin of error.
Rob Starkey | May 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
So let us know when you get around to detailing the dissimilarities.
Airplanes and developed and designed using two-dimensional numerical models to simulate conditions whereas modern day numerical climate models are three-dimensional simulations.
Wagathon | May 7, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
Not even close. Perhaps if you READ HARDER.
Skiphil | May 7, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
Climate goes into service around the clock, every hour of every day, rain or shine. Your objection is spurious.
The tires of GCMs have been kicked, your Pilot has been stress testing them against a record intensity of volcanoes and some of the most extreme solar conditions we know of.
Bart R,
climate models exhaustively stress tested, tires well kicked?
hmmm…. those airplanes are crashing all over the place:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1125.jpg
Skiphil | May 8, 2014 at 1:04 am |
Pilot error.
quaredunt,
You have talent. Your poetry is old “modern.” Your science, however, is post modern. Do you feel the tension?
Stored energy saved serfs
from the burden of slaving
for food twenty-seven.
Now we even live longer …
no longer fear famine …
a serf’s view of heaven.
But elites wish to make us
return to the status
of beasts in the field,
with green shamen above us,
our betters to govern us
shame, shame on them shamen
who tell us what’s good fer us
from within their stone-walled hive.
The road to serfdom is paved with green intentions.
moso, almost kimesque.
Wow.
If Obama really was inspired by Sandy, he has even less of a knowledge of history than I thought
Oh my God! Panic. Run for the hills!
The climate continues to vary in the US! Maybe moving to Moldova will help. They have passed a law to stop the climate changing – or maybe they are thinking about it. Who cares?
As long as legislators have to think up reasons to justify their existence, in the absence of anything useful, climate change is a convenient excuse.
Undefined, flexible, all encompassing, can be blamed for anything and everything – a legislator’s dream!
Citizens who support this buffoonery deserve everything they get. Just leave me out of the game, if you please.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Dr. Judith Curry writes:
Perhaps it always was! And perhaps (notwithstanding the IPCC’s firmly closed deliberations doors, and obviously unbeknownst to the movers and shakers behind this report) this is why – according to Olav Kjørven, Assistant Secretary General and Director of the Bureau for Development Policy at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – ‘the era of making decisions about global issues behind closed doors with little citizen involvement was coming to an end.’
Well, that era has not exactly ended, has it?! Nonetheless, when presented with an opportunity to rate 6 priorities (out of a possible 16 choices), of slightly over 2 million people who presumably cast ballots, a mere 431,377 thought that “Action taken on climate change” was even worth voting for.
Consequently, as I had noted in a post last June:
NEWSFLASH! Action on climate change voted bottom of world’s priority heap
and as I confirmed yesterday:
NEWSFLASH: Climate change still at bottom of world’s priority heap
Even in North America, where “Action taken on climate change” ranked somewhat higher (10th out of 16), it’s still a far cry from the must-act-now, doom-and-gloom hullabaloo we’re likely to hear in the days and months ahead, don’t you think?!
Perhaps someone should pass this on to the powers that be in the USA – particularly to the authors of The U.S. National Climate Assessment Report.
I wonder if there was a survey on whether action should be taken on coastal flooding, or droughts in the southwest, or desolation of tropical rain forests. I agree that the word “climate change” has no meaning. But we still have problems.
And then you need to be sure that anything man does or stops doing will make any difference. Natural variability is a real bummer. When someone can demonstrate that coastal flooding or droughts or desolation of rain forests can be eliminated then you may have a point. Until then you will just be blowin’ in Lady Gaga’s ear.
But that’s the point. Natural disasters have always been with us. Why not build better infrastructure to reduce damage? Why blame it on climate change first? The “alarmists” believe that people will not do anything until forced to and therefore they believe that they have to push this threat. The sad thing is that they are probably right.
Rmd,
” … Believe people will not do anything until forced to.”
And therein lies the problem. There are several terms in political science and history which describe this. Freedom, liberty, choice are not among them.
Before there were rockets that sent satellites beeping and spying on earth, there were little boys standing on the shores of Great Lakes, observing the room size blocks of ice, piled one upon another, dazzling in the sunlight, having pushed all man made docks, made of steel and concrete, crumbling and twisted upon the sands. The power and inevitability of that ice was immense and clearly evident.
Today there remains the image of what was assuredly a bygone era, again, room size ice blocks piled one upon another, on another Great Lakes shore, this time, a grown man reflecting upon what once was, and is now.
I do not “believe” in cycles or other such efforts to make sense of a chaotic system. I do know that the winters in my neck of the woods have been colder, not warmer; longer, not shorter; with more precipitation than that recorded in decades.
Ascribing the observed winter weather behavior to a slight uptick to a atmospherically well mixed trace gas, seems the height of lunacy. It is clear to me, that the variance observed from region to region behave other than the influence of a well mixed gas; rather, the warm and cold spots reflect powerful forces, moving through gigantic masses governed by laws of mixing by eddies and turbulence not even remotely captured by program code. And then, there are the sudden shifts, as the wind shifts and move these gigantic ice block, creaking and groaning, splashing and bumping into new shapes and dimensions. What once was a pile is now a series of table tops, bobbing for a distance far beyond what the eye can see. And this is supposed to be because of a trace gas? acting in a winter landscape, that has a prognosis for the future? Only of course, if we knew the forces involved and not us withdrawn, making conjectures of what should be.
“governed by laws of mixing by eddies and turbulence not even remotely captured by program code”
But they ARE captured by the code (Navier Stokes on a 3-d grid). Have you looked at the NOAA or Met Office websites? What the GCMs can produce is very interesting. I feel it is worth trying to explore what might happen by using these models. But should it drive US policy? World policy?
“But they ARE captured by the code (Navier Stokes on a 3-d grid).”
Just like the man who predicted that English children would no longer know what snow was like, there are those engrossed in Navier Stokes equations and their program codes predicting the future with tools not fit for purpose. We have a President, taking the role of Court Jester, providing entertainment with his predictions of catastrophes of Biblical proportions.
Like the boy and now man standing on the winter Great Lakes shores, I have seen all of this before yet I can not, nor will I say if or when this will happen again.
I am intrigued that the maximum water level height of the Great Lakes was in 1986 yet the lowest levels were in 1964, a four foot variance in 22 years in an instrument record since 1835. I see no cycles in this data.
If NOAA and the MET office are purposed for entertainment, then yes, we should indulge them their quirky interests. But please please do not take their utterances as truth or knowledgable guesses. Rather, just as the Court Jester with bells on his hat, motley clothes, funny pointy shoes, arm gestures and verbal “zingers”, we have been entertained, and just like any form of entertainment, its repetitive value diminishes over time; or, as now revealed in the art world, good fake copies of the real thing populated museums and collections previously held in high esteem.
I would rather assume good intentions if I didn’t know otherwise.
Chapter 26 on Decision Support is also ok, with one exception: they assume the only scenarios of future climate are tied to CO2 emissions scenarios.
That’s a pretty big exception.
The biggest way to subvert the decision process is to restrict the domain of action.
I doubt 97% of scientists would agree that climate change depends only upon CO2 emission scenarios.
After the Obamacare lies, after the unusually cold winter the record ice conditions on the great lakes, this report will have the performance of a lead balloon.
Might be useful as an ice-breaker.
“My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. ”
well not really climate change officially now means human caused climate change due to the extra CO2 put in the air from among other things humans burning coal and oil in order to stay alive and live effectively.
The problem is that the temperature of the real world we live in has not changed for the last 12 years at a minimum despite CO2 going up.
The cause lacks a trigger, a direction, a proof.
Climate sensitivity, and here I bow to Lucia’s superior to Willis arguments for the moment cannot be negative.
But if there is no change officially climate sensitivity is exactly 0.00 for the last 12 years.
If there is no climate sensitivity to C02 then there is no human induced climate change.
Back to square 1 with Obama and EPA bombing America for non existent weapons of climate change by destroying the very economy that keeps her going. Best of luck USA..
The role of ENSO in the coming year will certainly make a dent in the average global temperature — like it always does, either up or down.
Yet, ENSO also reverts to a mean of zero over the long term, so that the secular forcing is what matter in the end.
A deeper understanding of the quasi-periodic oscillations of ENSO is explained here:
http://contextearth.com/2014/05/02/the-soim-substantiating-the-chandler-wobble-and-tidal-connection-to-enso/
Committee reports such as US NCAR are interesting enough, but they do not replace ongoing research, Climate science is a mature field, but there is always room for simplification and new analysis approaches.
Remember that climate science is fun, and not boring.
‘Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
What webby does can’t be science then – because it is very boring.
The question really comes down to whether ENSO is deterministic and predictable, or chaotic and largely unpredictable.
A sinusoidally perturbed wave equation (the Mathieu equation) models the seemingly chaotic ENSO as a quasi-periodic waveform:
http://contextearth.com/2014/05/02/the-soim-substantiating-the-chandler-wobble-and-tidal-connection-to-enso/
This is one of those phenomenon that should exist if ENSO is being described as a “sloshing” of the Pacific ocean’s waters. So its not surprising that it matches the experimental observations so well given the known inertial changes in the earth’s rotation.
I’m pretty sure this has reached a stage where it’s publication worthy. Impressive work. I’d like to see how the model extends over the next few years.
Thanks, P-N.
Like everything else, it has to go through the minefield of critical analysis. If it survives that, who knows what the next step is.
Well – who seems more authoritative. Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer or webby’s conceptual bathtub model? At the end of the day just a poorly fitted curve. It is about as credible as any of the mad blogospheric science proposed on CE. That is – not at all.
Funny – not boring.
WebHubTelescope,
Generalissimo Skippy has the right idea about your supposed climate science – funny.
That is, funny peculiar as opposed to funny ha-ha.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Flynn reminds me of the students that failed physics classes. It’s been awhile but he does remind me of those types.
On the other hand, chief Skippy reminds me of those students that failed physics classes.
Oops, I guess that isn’t much of a contrast … I have always had problems separating one loser from another.
Bombastic irrelevancies as usual. Webby applies fantasy physics and fractured math to systems he barely understands and complains when he is called on it.
ENSO is part of a complex system – the entire Earth system – that is chaotic in the sense of complexity theory. This is of course not the same thing at all as the dictionary meaning of chaotic. ENSO is variable over millennia as Julia Slingo – head of the British Met Office – and Tim Palmer – head of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts – suggest.
Simplistic notions based on opportunistic use of an analytical solution for vibration in an elliptical drumhead – ‘sloshing’ in a conceptual bathtub model – will not change that. That is – comparing the Pacific to an elliptical bathtub is at the same level of sophistication as HAP’s warming and cooling or Stefan’s expansion and contraction. What there is at the end of the day is a very poorly fitted curve supported by incorrect ideas that there is no decadal to millennial variability. It is simply silly and so far outside of the field of sensible ENSO investigation that it is and will remain mad blogosphertic unscience on a loser blog site – despite the prattling and preening and endless self promotion.
I hope you guys know what’s coming. It’s obvious. ENSO is controlled by carbon. You heard it here first.
I have asked this question before but not had a satisfactory answer so here it is again.
What mechanism has occurred-and when did it begin- that has changed the apparent long term warming of the surface AND the oceans, to one where apparently ONLY the oceans are now being warmed?
tonyb
First, it’s not true that only the oceans are now being warmed since the slowdown in the rate of global surface temperature increase (which people call a “pause”) very much is a sea surface temperature phenomenon. There is much less of a slowdown over land.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1955/mean:24/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1955/mean:24/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1995/trend
Secondly, the main mechanism that explains the increase in the rate of heat intake by oceans simply is La Nina. Upwelling cold water in the tropical Pacific results in an immediate increase of the top of atmosphere imbalance. Cold water simply radiates less heat to space and hence retains more of the incoming heat from the Sun, while it also lowers the global surface temperature *average* mainly through lowering the average surface sea temperature.
Same trends, better smooth.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1955/mean:12/mean:64/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1955/mean:12/mean:64/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1995/trend
The current absence of surface warming has now lasted over a decade…maybe the phenomenom is broad scale and much longer lasting than La Niña? I never read references to La Niña lasting over 10 years.
I wonder, does the increase in ocean heat content, as reported by buoys in the last decade, match the excess forcing estimated by climate models? What do the satellite outgoing long wave radiation measurements show over that period of time? Are they decreasing?
Fernando Leanme,
“The current absence of surface warming has now lasted over a decade…maybe the phenomenom is broad scale and much longer lasting than La Niña? I never read references to La Niña lasting over 10 years.”
If some impossibly resilient La Niña would last over 10 or 15 years then it would have no effect at all on the underlying trend over that whole period. What cause a temporary lowering of the trend during the “pause” mainly is the occurrence of more El Niño events during the first half of the period and more La Niña events at the end of the period.
“I wonder, does the increase in ocean heat content, as reported by buoys in the last decade, match the excess forcing estimated by climate models?”
It would seem so, according to the method, if not the results, of R. Pielke Sr, J. Christy and R. McNider:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/#comment-542031
“What do the satellite outgoing long wave radiation measurements show over that period of time? Are they decreasing?”
Good question. I don’t know. But the energy that causes the sea levels to rise and the ice-sheets and sea ice to melt must come from somewhere. Reduced OLR and/or decreasing albedo (clouds, snow and ice) are the only two candidates.
Pierre-Normand
You wrote –
““What do the satellite outgoing long wave radiation measurements show over that period of time? Are they decreasing?”
Good question. I don’t know. But the energy that causes the sea levels to rise and the ice-sheets and sea ice to melt must come from somewhere. Reduced OLR and/or decreasing albedo (clouds, snow and ice) are the only two candidates.”
Your statement that you don’t know implies to me that you don’t know – unless in Warmese it really means that you do know, but you don’t want anybody to know that you know, so you are only pretending you don’t know.
I just assume that you mean what you say.
Now if you don’t know, proceeding to say there are only two options seems bizarre, logically. Your assumption that sea level rise can only be due to warming, and your implication that all ice around the world melts at the same time would seem to be open to question.
You make a couple of assumptions which range from absurd to true but misleading. I will deal with the absurd – the other is true but misleading. You say reduced OLR – whatever that is – will cause energy to be accumulated in the system, if I understand you correctly. Unfortunately, your physics is in error. Energy of all wavelengths leaving the Earth is at most very slightly impeded by the insulating effect of the atmosphere, and the large amount of crud held aloft by Brownian motion, including clouds. It may take an extra 5 milliseconds or so, overall, to reach outer space, if that.
In any case, a slight reduction in the rate of cooling is not warming. It is cooling. Standing in the middle of an arid tropical desert as the sun sets, will rapidly apprise you of the fact that cooling is not the same as warming. I point out that the tropopause is actually much higher in the tropics than the polar regions, so that the radiation has further to travel before leaving the atmosphere. The surface temperature still drops.
I can think of a reason or two for ice melting here and there, and for sea levels to vary, and they have nothing to do with the non existent greenhouse effect.
I salute you for admitting you don’t know. Why not leave it at that?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“You say reduced OLR – whatever that is – will cause energy to be accumulated in the system, if I understand you correctly. Unfortunately, your physics is in error.”
The energy that enters the climate system is mainly solar radiation. (There is a bit from the core and from tidal forces but that amounts for just about 50 or 100 milliwatts/m^2). The energy that that goes out is OLR — outgoing longwave radiation. There is no other way for energy to exit the climate system. (There are endothermic and exothermic processes, but that also is negligible compared to the big climate heat fluxes). When the average OLR flux is smaller than the incoming net solar flux (after albedo) then the excess must accumulate somewhere. That’s because of the law of conservation of energy. It doesn’t matter in the least how long it takes for a photon to exit the climate system. This is strictly a question of energy conservation. Flux in minus flux out equals rate of energy gain.
Pierre-Normand, is it possible the surface temperature significance of radiative flux in the lower atmosphere has been overestimated?
Entropy never decreases, it is the measure of a system’s progression to equilibrium. Maximum entropy is equilibrium. IMHO the CO2 bite on OLR is likely bypassed by the convection/evaporation control system that ensures equilibrium where incoming short-wave equals outgoing long-wave.
I think its possible the man-made global warming as a crisis concept fails to properly address convection and evaporation. Molecules trapping Outgoing Long-wave infrared Radiation is in practice simply reducing the Earth’s surface emissitivity. Convection is in no way impeded and entropy states if a reduction in emissitivity does increase surface temps, then the rate of convection will increase.
For the climate debate to continue this group of funding dependant academic numerical modelers promoting CO2 alarm to need to fully address convection and evaporation as (IMHO) variable air mass density and gravity play a far superior role in cooling the Earth’s surface than does radiation.
Phil Brisley wrote: “IMHO the CO2 bite on OLR is likely bypassed by the convection/evaporation control system that ensures equilibrium where incoming short-wave equals outgoing long-wave.”
The non-radiative fluxes at the surface can’t bypass the reduction in the outgoing longwave radiation. The troposphere has a limited heat capacity and the heat must eventually escape to space. There is no possible bypassing of the top of the atmosphere. When the greenhouse effect is enhanced, the effective radiation level is raised to a colder altitude, and the stratosphere cools, this creates a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. The non-radiadive flux (sensible + latent) at the surface can increase as a result, but it is not possible that the total net upward flux (sensible + latent + radiative(net)) would increase. Again, that’s because the heat from the surface would have nowhere to go. The only route of escape to space is radiative. So, in order to restore the balance, the surface has to eventually warm until it radiates enough longwave energy through the IR atmospheric window to balance the reduction in OLR in the parts of the spectrum that are opaque.
You may be thinking that the increased back radiation to the surface would cause an enhancement of evaporation and convection that will lead to a warming of the upper troposphere and hence to some increase of the amount of IR (mainly from water vapor) that makes it to space from the warmer upper troposphere. That’s indeed what occurs, mainly in the tropics, though it is accompanied by a warming of the surface and troposphere. You can view it as a negative feedback to the warming though it’s already simulated in the climate models as an emergent property (the moist adiabatic amplification of upper tropospheric warming). Climate scientists haven’t forgotten to add it. It’s built in into the physics of the models.
Pierre-Normand,
It doesn’t matter what sort of radiation it is. It proceeds to space at very slightly less than the speed of light (which of course it is, regardless of wavelength), depending on the transmission properties of the medium through which it passes.
You will no doubt agree with me that it is impossible to measure the total amount of radiation reaching the Earth, let alone the amount absorbed, at any given time. Similarly, it is is impossible to measure the total energy emitted by the Earth.
It is therefore impossible to determine the net energy surplus or deficit instantaneously or over an arbitrary time period. If you have any measurements backed up by instrument readings, covering the total radiation spectrum, please provide them. It is obvious what my next question will be.
I refer back to my questions on a previous thread which are relevant. You declined to support your assertions then, so I wonder what your excuse is this time. Please enlighten me, if you would be so good.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“You will no doubt agree with me that it is impossible to measure the total amount of radiation reaching the Earth, let alone the amount absorbed, at any given time. Similarly, it is is impossible to measure the total energy emitted by the Earth.”
All you need to know to demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect, is to compare the rate of energy received from the Sun and compare this to the amount of energy that must be upwelling from the surface to compensate it.
The upwelling radiant energy, together with the sensible and latent heat fluxes must balance the incoming solar radiation *plus* the back radiation from the warm atmosphere. This back radiation is enormous. It averages 333W/m^2 and is easily measurable. It accounts for the greenhouse effect since in order to compensate for it the surface must warm until it is cancelled.
So, the surface has to be warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent to IR radiation. And it is.
“This back radiation is enormous. It averages 333W/m^2 and is easily measurable. It accounts for the greenhouse effect since in order to compensate for it the surface must warm until it is cancelled.
The problem is that is that It is not easy to measure because no one has. We had some Infrared experiments showing backradiations. It turned out to be back radiations from the instrument itself. When the instrument’s housing is cooled close to zero absolute, no backradiations are detected. For instant, Infrared astronomy, which based on detecting minute IR from the cosmos, can never exist in the presence of 333 w/m2 of back radiations that you are talking about. Either infrared astronomy is fiction or the backradiations of the greenhouse gas effect are fiction. The answer is clear.
Nabil Swedan – …Infrared astronomy…can never exist in the presence of 333 w/m2 of back radiations…
Yes it can. Think IR spectral windows, high altitude aircraft observatories, IR telescopes on satellites far above the atmosphere. That’s how IR astronomy is done, even in the presence of atmospheric back radiation.
Pat, thanks for your note. I meant Infrared observatories at surface. The thing is that we have had published papers measuring backradiations from the atmosphere at night. When I talked to the user and maker of the instrument, their housings were at ambient temperature and the infrared thermometer was measuring background radiation. When these instruments are cooled down by cryogenic liquids such as they do for infrared telescopes, they would detect none. Infrared telescopes do not detect 333 w/m2 of backradiations at night. If you are an astronomer and am missing something, please educate me .
Pierre-Normand,
You wrote –
“All you need to know to demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect, is to compare the rate of energy received from the Sun and compare this to the amount of energy that must be upwelling from the surface to compensate it.
The upwelling radiant energy, together with the sensible and latent heat fluxes must balance the incoming solar radiation *plus* the back radiation from the warm atmosphere. This back radiation is enormous. It averages 333W/m^2 and is easily measurable. It accounts for the greenhouse effect since in order to compensate for it the surface must warm until it is cancelled.”
If you don’t know the rate of energy received from the Sun and absorbed by the surface at a point in time or over a period, then the rest of your argument is just so much airy persiflage – and so it is.
Unlike a StarTrek script writer, you cannot just say “Make it so”, and expect it to be so.
You cannot measure the total amount of radiation from the Sun. You then say that upwelling energy must compensate for the unknown energy from the Sun. This is obviously incorrect. Any body that is increasing in temperature so receiving more energy than it emits. There is no balance. The converse applies to cooling body. Equilibrium is characteristic of a body mantaining a constant temperature. In other words, at the balance point there is no global warming, nor is there global cooling.
You then confuse the issue by talking about back radiation. Another pointless Warmist term, it is meaningless. You cannot measure total incident or emitted radiation with any instrument known to man. The spectrum is simply too great – infinite, in fact – for any instrument to cope with.
If you can provide any experimental evidence to support your assertions, I will change my mind. The whole thing is about as silly as Lord Kelvin believing in the caloric theory of heat, in part because Carnot’s work used that theory, wrong though it turned out to be.
You are making unfounded assertions, but at least you are in good company. Mann, Schmidt, Jones, Hansen, Pierrehumbert, and all the rest are similarly deluded. An object on the surface of the Earth warms during the day for until the Sun reaches its zenith. It starts cooling after that point. It continues to cool until exposed to the influence of the Sun again, ceteris paribus.
You may talk until you are blue in the face, but the laws of physics are unlikely to change to accommodate your desire for the globe to warm.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Nabil – Not sure what your experimental problem was; so-called back radiation has been measured successfully for decades. See
this paper from 1954
and more recent developments here.
Of course, Mike Flynn knows that such measurements are impossible in principle…
Pat Cassen,
You wrote –
“Nabil – Not sure what your experimental problem was; so-called back radiation has been measured successfully for decades. See
this paper from 1954
and more recent developments here.
Of course, Mike Flynn knows that such measurements are impossible in principle…”
If you took care to read what I wrote, you might understand why I get the impression that Warmists comprehend what they think was written, rather than that which was actually written. You may choose to blame me for your lack of comprehension, but it won’t change the facts.
If you wish to point out that I am mistaken in something I have written, please do so. It is preferable if you cut and paste the comment with which you disagree, but Warmists tend to denigrate rather than educate, in the first instance. What mistake of fact are you concerned about?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The papers are behind pay walls.
Hi Mike –
Please forgive my facetiousness. Of course I take full responsibility for any lack of comprehension on my part.
What mistake of fact are you concerned about?
I suppose it is this one:
“If you can provide any experimental evidence to support your assertions, I will change my mind.”
:-)
Part Cassen,
I wrote –
“You cannot measure the total amount of radiation from the Sun.”
Your assertion that this is possible, or even more bizarrely, that somebody has done this, is ludicrous. However, in a spirit of believing the unbelievable, you might like to demonstrate your belief by stating the the total amount of energy radiated from the Sun at a date and time of your choosing. Of course you will need to include all frequencies from arbitrarily close to zero, to those whose photons have energies in excess of 100GeV.
There is no equipment in existence capable of performing this task at a coordinated moment in time. Warmists simply deny the existence of inconvenient facts. Keep at it. Wish hard enough, and the globe may stop its cooling and start warming. Or maybe not. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else can see the future with any clarity.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“You then confuse the issue by talking about back radiation. Another pointless Warmist term, it is meaningless. You cannot measure total incident or emitted radiation with any instrument known to man. The spectrum is simply too great – infinite, in fact – for any instrument to cope with.”
Back radiation averages 333W/m^2 over the Earth surface. This is larger than the post albedo incoming solar radiation reaching the surface. In fact, it’s more than twice larger. (It’s also 8 times larger than the amount of incident solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere). This back radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect. It only has to be larger than *zero* for there to be a greenhouse effect at all. You are skeptical that we have measure this radiation accurately because you think that we may have overlooked some part of its “infinite” spectrum. If that is so, that means that the greenhouse effect is stronger than we thought.
The next major “climate change” is surely going to be the eruption of a large volcano, I wonder if that is covered by this report.
The writing of this report seems highly dodgy to me, politicians making adjustments before release. Sadly, junior scientists will want their name on it more than wanting to avoid errors and distortions.
Pingback: Wednesday | WOODTV.com Blogs
Reblogged this on pdx transport.
The report is written in Orwellian and very painful to read.
“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.”
Nonsense!
Again, they repeat the consensus attribution claim that slightly over 100% of the warming over the past 50 years (roughly the AGW period) is caused by humans.
“In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually
have cooled slightly over the past 50 years.”
Good to know.
For this geologist, it is like we are watching the TOTAL collapse of rational thought (Theater Of The Absurd Libations)……
Why is it we cannot seem to get our collective minds wrapped around the fact that 7 of the last 8 warmings to interglacial stage have each lasted about half a precession cycle?
The precession cycle varies between 19 and 23kyrs and we are at the 23 kyr part now, making 11,500 half. The Holocene Epoch is presently 11,717 years old http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf.
For reasons attributable to just not keeping up (aka ignorance) the answer continues to be rooted in Loutre and Berger’s (2002/3) (ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Berger-02.pdf) astronomical modeling exercise from which Crucifix and Rougier (2009) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.3625.pdf opine:
“In this paper we consider the problem of the timing of the next glacial inception, about which there is on-going debate……
“….We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterized by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.
“On one side, Professor Bill Ruddiman carefully inspected and compared palaeo-environmental information about the di erent interglacial periods. This comparison let him to conclude that glacial inception is largely overdue [4, 5]. According to him, the Holocene was not supposed to be this long, but the natural glacial inception process was stopped by an anthropogenic perturbation that began as early as 8,000 years ago (rice plantations and land management by antique civilisations). On the other side, Professor Andre Berger and colleagues developed a mathematical model of the climate system, rated today as a `model of intermediate complexity’ [6, 7] to solve the dynamics of the atmosphere and ice sheets on a spatial grid of 19×5 elements, with a reasonably extensive treatment of the shortwave and longwave radiative transfers in the atmosphere. Simulations with this model led Berger and Loutre to conclude that glacial inception is not due for another 50,000 years, as long as the CO2 atmospheric concentration stays above 220 ppmv [8]. Who is right? Perhaps both, Cruci x and Berger argued that the two statements are not
strictly incompatible [9]. But perhaps neither.”
Which, of course, brings us to Ruddiman’s Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis…of which much has been written. Perhaps best summed up by Tzedakis (2010):
“On balance, what emerges is that projections on the natural duration of the current interglacial depend on the choice of analogue, while corroboration or refutation of the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” on the basis of comparisons with earlier interglacials remains irritatingly inconclusive.”
The MIS 11 – MIS 1 analogy, southern European vegetation,
atmospheric methane and the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf
Loutre and Berger’s 2002/3 papers were soon followed by another landmark paper by Lisieki and Raymo (Paleoceanography, 2005), an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores (paywalled here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004PA001071/full) :
“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”
And therein lies the rub……”without human influence.”
Loutre and Berger’s 2002/3 “An exceptionally long interglacial ahead….” (paywalled here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818102001868) modeling exercise was deposed by observational data from “57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores”.
And that’s the “fly” in the climate-change “ointment” (assuming no anthropogenic influence):
“Here we focus on the final events of substage 5e. After the building of reef crests up to circa +2 m, sea level rose rapidly to at least +6 m toward the end of the interglaciation, cutting coastal notches and flooding interior areas (Neumann and Hearty, 1996). During the fall of sea level from the 5e maximum, large areas of the Bahamas were reshaped by sedimentary processes. As lagoons shallowed and beaches widened, dunes grew so rapidly that standing trees became entombed in sand (Neumann and Hearty, 1996). Along cliffed coasts during the same interval, giant boulders were catapulted landward as far as 0.5 km by the action of large waves (Hearty, 1997). On low-lying areas of the Bahamas, extensive V-shaped stormbeach ridges (“chevrons” in this paper) were emplaced by similar, high-energy events. The origin of these storm ridges, associated run-up features, and boulder deposits, plus the implications for climate history at the close of the last interglaciation, are the subjects of this paper.”
https://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow014952.pdf
“Whereas large single waves or wave sets could explain the runup and the giant boulders of northern Eleuthera, it is more probable that all of these features are related to the same cause or set of associated causes. We consider extreme storms and attendant waves as the probable agents that formed these features, because of the northeastern orientation of the chevrons, the continuous and multiple bedding sets they contain, and the nature of the megaboulder deposition.
“LARGE NORTHEASTERN STORMS AT THE CLOSE OF SUBSTAGE 5e?
“In the Bahamas, the SW–NE orientation of the chevron ridges and runup deposits, and the restricted wave access to the megaboulder deposits of northern Eleuthera (Hearty, 1997) favor formation from long-period waves generated from a distant northeastern source. The orientation of these features at the Bahamas and Bermuda points to a very large and extremely energetic and weather systems in the North Atlantic Ocean at this critical time of abrupt climate change. A comparison of the size of wave-deposited boulders between the late Pleistocene and Holocene along the northern Eleuthera coastline supports this hypothesis, with the size of the Pleistocene boulders averaging an order of magnitude greater than the size of their Holocene counterparts (Hearty, 1997).
“There are global indications of abrupt climate shifts at the end of substage 5e. The rapid expansion of polar ice and concomitant compression of mid-latitude atmospheric cells may have greatly amplified storms in the North Atlantic. Among the many implications of these findings, the most significant is that present global warming and climate change could hasten an apparently abrupt and extreme destabilization which, from geologic evidence, characterized the transition from last interglaciation to glacial conditions of the globe.”
We also had this from Hearty (1997):
“Neumann and Hearty (1996) considered the transition from warmer-than-present ‘‘greenhouse’’ conditions during sub-stage 5e to mid-glacial ‘‘icehouse’’ conditions of 5d to be a climatic ‘‘madhouse’’ in the Bahamas on the basis of geologic evidence of rapid sea-level changes, dune building, and intense storms at that time.”
http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow014953.pdf
So, you see, as Fred Hoyle (originator of the now disfavored Astronomical Steady State Hypothesis) opined in 1999:
“This is why the past million years has been essentially a continuing ice-age, broken occasionally by short-lived interglacials. It is also why those who have engaged in lurid talk over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth’s temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both demented and dangerous. The problem for the present swollen human species is of a drift back into an ice-age, not away from an ice-age.”
If William Ruddiman is correct, and some thousands of years ago we reset the Holocene’s “clock” via GHGs leading us into Loutre and Berger’s (2002) “An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?” ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Berger-02.pdf……….
then just like that you find yourself not only confronting an enormous signal to noise ratio problem http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/ but the desultory possibility that if you do not keep generating GHGs, here at the likely end-Holocene, or for at least the next 4,000 years or so (http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf), the alternative might be glacial inception.
““Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..
““The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, Demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf
From a geologist’s perspective there were only really two issues in the climate change debate:
1) When will the Holocene end?
2) What do you propose to do about that*?
———————————————
* = removal of late Holocene CO2 concentration to any 350.org concentration might ultimately satisfy the Precautionary Principle, but not necessarily straightforwardly. If the GHG hypothesis is correct, then removing GHGs from the late-Holocene atmosphere should favor not only glacial inception but hominid speciation. However this presumption is not favored in the anthropogenic record. Hominid speciation events would seem to be more closely associated with periods of eccentricity maxima:
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.” http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396841_Trends_rhythms_and_events_in_Plio-Pleistocene_African_climate/file/9c96051a83a42b7ed0.pdf
And we are now at an eccentricity minima.
——————————————————————
But that’s OK. Who is to say that by the most accurate pretzel logic we can muster (so far) that we might actually opt to remove the most likely irritant to glacial inception modern men/women ever conceived of?
On Speciation? (well done!}
On Preservation of the Species (meaning H. sapiens)? (Maybe not so well done.)
At the possible end of the most recent interglacial, the Holocene, the question more or less asks itself, how wise will the next “wise wise wise one” be (i.e. H.sapiens sapiens is considered to be the “wise wise one”, presumably the next iteration will be at least “wise”r et al etc.)?
Extend the present interglacial, and the natural selection of H. sapiens sapiens somehow through the next glacial and the best you can hope for is that 2 glacial/interglacial cycles from now (200kyrs) the genus Homo will be due to receive its next potential hardware upgrade. And that probably won’t be pretty.
The end-Holocene. It will be interesting to say the least :-)
With all due late-Holocene hominid respect,
William
P.S. Does anyone know when the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle is up for review?
P.P.S. Or is such even subject to further H. sapiens sapiens review?
P.P.P.S. Just askin~~~~~
Interesting informative posting.
Thanks for that, a different perspective which (confirmation bias at play) reinforces my reaction of caution towards CAGW claims and costly GHG-emissions reduction policies.
Climate change is a problem for the present. Just ask the unemployed coal miners. It is affecting them.
Coal seems to be a problem. Just ask the millions of Chinese that can barely breathe.
Web, it has gotten so warm in China that they can’t breathe? Or are you off on some irrelevant tangent?
Must not be paying attention to the news. Typical unaware denier mentality. Ignore the intense pollution caused by coal combustion in China because it doesn’t fit into your agenda.
So what do you plea, ignorance or deceit?
I plead that it was obvious you were out on a tangent. I can’t say I am suprised you fail to understand why.
You either don’t know that Chinese pollution has nothing to do with CO₂ emissions or you do. It is hard to tell which case is worse.
Web404, the primary cause of Chinese air pollution is diesel exhaust from cars trucks etc.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bfinamore/curbing_air_pollution_in_china.html
You can also ask Florida homeowners about their wind damage insurance rates. Climate models in 2005 estimated a 30% increase in wind damage from hurricanes, and more/larger hurricanes. Rates doubled.
Climate change is definitely being felt economically in Florida.
Damage in the decade 2000-2010 was right at historical averages. 2010 to current is well below historical averages. But you can bet there will be a lot of hyperventilating when the next hurricane does hit Florida.
Web,
how does particulate pollution equate to CO2?
or are you one of those folks who believes “carbon pollution” has a technical or scientific meaning?
Turned on my tv last night to watch my local weather on the ones and the meterologist was highlighting this report.
Pingback: Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise | Right Wing News
Pingback: Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise » Pirate's Cove
Pingback: NewsSprocket | Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise
From SlashDot’s comments on the US NCAR:
Comments by SlashDot …
• John Connor: We’re not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean.
• The Terminator: It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves.
• John Connor: Yeah. Major drag, huh?
… T2 quote by FOMD!
Fan referring to a science fiction movie is appropriate. For fan.
The whole meme of “it’s about science” can be maintained at low volumes in small groups with special interests in the topic. When it gets to the front page or real policy actions it becomes more truthful and emotional as this thread indicates.
AGW was always a political meme and slight of hand pseudoscience backed by a third rate group from the “environmental studies” departments with similar green ideology and funding desires across the globe. That it has gotten this far is tragic for the millions of poor who can add colonialist carbon rationing to their list of problems. It’s a racist policy as well that has been pandered to as “doing good” since most of this is European academically supported with the usual Marxist promises that always fail the poor in particular.
When do we get the peer reviewed study of the voting patterns of the climate consensus?
That will pretty much confirm what I and many have understood for decades.
I doubt it’s much different than the Washington Press core which is 90% plus democratic. Climate science is at the consensus level a left-wing activist political enclave to the point of disqualification. This report is further evidence.
I consider myself a Progressive but I don’t understand the obsession of Progressives with this topic. There are much bigger fish to fry.
There is almost no way Progressive are going to win on this topic and it isn’t even clear anything of benefit would come from “winning”, whatever that would look like.
I am almost 65 and I have been through a lot of weather. Cold summers, warm winters, cold winters, hot summers, snowy winters, dry summers, wet springs, dry springs, etc. Year to year, sometimes day to day, variations in temperature and precipitation are much greater than the changes predicted by the IPCC.
Let me be clear that I am not saying that disproves global warming or even is anything of scientific value. Ultimately the problem is that human experience of weather, particularly as one gets older (and in a position to influence the politics of this), naturally leads most people to dismiss the more alarmist claims. They say “summers will be drier.” Oh, yeah I remember that multi-year drought we had in Georgia. A year later we had floods. They say “we will have more hurricanes.” Yeah, we had some real bad hurricanes not long ago, haven’t seen much recently.
So the more alarmist the claims become the more likely people will be turned off to it.
I’m glad that you get it James. You might be interested in this report posted today on GWPF. http://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-urges-cost-effective-adaptation-to-sea-level-change/
Amen. The older you get, the more immune you are to science by means of the power of suggestion. Population bomb. Y2K. Acid Rain. The Ozone Hole. Nuclear war (actually that was a real threat for a while). End of the world du jour. Not saying these posed zero risk, but saying proponents with an agenda way over-stated the potential risk.
Since climate “science” is “opinion science” we really need a mirror of the linked report on “journalists” in WP today;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
Right, 7% belong to the dissenting party. Are people trying to say it doesn’t show in the general product they are exposed to?
I suspect it’s even a lower number in the climate “consensus” in the U.S.. Another enclave that can’t police its bias and agenda. Entire sectors of academia must be totally intolerable to even moderately conservative participants. It’s a lock-step orthodox that produces and supports a report like this.
Hi Judy Excellent analysis of the NCA. Your text
“The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change”
“The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises”
succinctly shows the major failure of their report.
With respect to their equivalence of climate change to just that driven by CO2 emissions, this issue was clearly refuted in
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
and
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf
The failings of the models with respect to multi-decadal climate predictions (projections) is documented, for example, in
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf
and the Preface to
Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition. J. Adegoke, F. Hossain, G. Kallos, D. Niyoki, T. Seastedt, K. Suding, C. Wright, Eds., Academic Press, 1570 pp. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/b-18preface.pdf
That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naive or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal.
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
I owe thanks to the host for making me aware of Monica Lewinsky breaking her silence on her affair with Bill Clinton. (I know, out of touch doesn’t begin to do the situation here justice.) Call me naive but I found the final paragraphs of that article, about the battle with suicide, both convincing and moving. I judge I’m highly unlikely to feel the same way about the US NCAR. Self-fulfilling sample of one. :)
This is off-topic and inappropriate here.
If so, was Dr Curry’s reference to the Lewinsky piece off-topic? I had a semi-serious intent here. For one thing what I reported about my reaction to that article was genuine and of a piece with wider concerns I have about cyber-bullying. For another, by now I wouldn’t have the slightest interest even in opening the latest alarmist report from the US government. I doubt I’m alone in that, even among those, unlike myself, with the honour of living in the country. Judy’s question at the end of her own commentary was obviously meant lightheartedly but it was surely making the same point: most people have other things to worry about (or provide interest) in their lives. Likewise I now see that Years of Living Dangerously has tanked in the ratings. As some wag said on that WUWT thread the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is one thing, flogging a dead horse is another. Climate alarm is in its declining years. Wasteful and ruinous climate policies may be harder to shift.
Pingback: Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months - ALIPAC
A great report was published today on Sea Level changes on GWPF
http://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-urges-cost-effective-adaptation-to-sea-level-change/
If this was supposed to be used to rally the left “base” who have been disappointed that more has not been done, it will backfire badly in this years election cycle. Just like the Keystone punt is backfiring in several key Senate races. The report is simply too absurd and full of self contradictions, and the naked political spin already put on it is derisory.
really, I should be part of that base, I’m not, and i don’t know how big it is.
This whole thing has much more to do with the 2014 elections than anything else. What other issue do they have to rally the troops? “Inequality,” the War on Women, the minimum wage, all have proven to be abysmal failures and they are facing a deluge in November as things now stand. Obamacare? Don’t make me laugh.
The presentation of the report is transparently fractious– fresh, raw meat for climate carnivores like David Appell. It’s no small coincidence that political manipulator Podesta is engineering it.
Obama did NOTHING to curb the REAL dangers of today which are the financial institutes and it’s powers, worse he, and his financial stooges who are all from the same financial institutes, accomodate them all he can from the very beginning. Instead of that he attacks the AGW fata morgana. His legacy is next to nothing.
I see that character Appell is contaminating this thread yet again, guess he’s feeling lonely at his scruffy little website far, far away in cyberspace…
Pingback: The National Climate “Assessment” | Transterrestrial Musings
Methane is not a potent greenhouse gas, 20-80 times that of carbon dioxide. Because its molecular weight, 18, is smaller than that of air, 28.8. In fact it is not a greenhouse gas at all. If burned, then it becomes equal to carbon dioxide. Computer experiments only finds methane a potent greenhouse gas. The conclusion is based on “virtual” observation and not based on hard or experimental data.
Yes, isn’t it sad that no scientist of engineer in the world ever thought of shining a IR light through a container of methane and looking at the spectrum of the transmitted light?
“Methane is not a potent greenhouse gas.”
____
This ignorance makes the rest of your comments unreadable.
R Gates, This is not ignorance on my part, it is the ignorance of those who accept computer experiments and virtual observations as basis for regulating methane. Show me the real experiment and hard data of the greenhouse nature of methane?
R. Gates
In the Appendix 3, Climate Science, of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, Tyndall (1861) experiment and heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases are referenced as basis of the climate science. Tyndale never mentioned heat trapping properties of CO2, only absorption and radiations. He never tested the real scenario of air with and without o.o4% CO2. In the experiment, which was for pure gases and vapors, the absorbed and radiated infrared radiations came from sources of heat which included heated oil to 250 °C and heated copper ball to low redness. Radiations were observed from very hot pure gases over a copper ball heated by argand burner. The experiment at low and ambient temperature showed nothing. So what good is this experiment for the real scenario where carbon dioxide temperature is at ambient temperature or cooler and infrared radiation is coming from surface at ambient temperature? Clearly, Svante Arrhenius (1896) was correct when he said that the greenhouse gas effect was not tested.
“Tyndale never mentioned heat trapping properties of CO2, only absorption and radiations. He never tested the real scenario of air with and without o.o4% CO2.”
The “real scenario” also involves a vertical gas column that is several kilometers thick, and has a temperature profile up to the tropopause constrained by a convective lapse rate. Without a convective lapse rate you don’t get a greenhouse effect. You might as well argue that Newton and his followers didn’t explain the tides because they didn’t prove the “real scenario” with little samples of the Earth, Sun and Moon in the laboratory.
But this real secenario of yours is not the basis of the ecience, it is Tyndall’s experiment.
Does the lapse rate equation account for the greenhouse gase effect? The answer is no. If you add the effect to the equation then it will give you wrong numbers. Try to add 320 w/m2 to the lapse rate equation and show me how you will get the observed lapse rate. The point is that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist in the real scenario and in Tyndall’s experiments, which Svante Arrhenius (1896) stated so as well.
“Does the lapse rate equation account for the greenhouse gase effect? The answer is no. If you add the effect to the equation then it will give you wrong numbers. Try to add 320 w/m2 to the lapse rate equation and show me how you will get the observed lapse rate.”
Sorry, but I can’t begin to make sense of this word salad. You don’t add anything to the lapse rate. The lapse rate is a gradient of temperature and it is a precondition for the greenhouse effect to operate. When the effective opacity of the atmosphere rises to a higher colder level, an imbalance is created at the top of the atmosphere. To expect to see this in the laboratory just is like expecting to measure lunar tides in your coffee cup.
I cannot explain what I cannot understand, but I will do my best. After the conditions are met, then the greenhouse gas effect kicks in, is that right? If so, after it kicks in, 320 w/m2 should be added to any air parcel, at least for those located close to the surface. Do we see 320 w/m2 in the lapse rate equation close to the surface? The answer is no. Therefore, the greenhouse gas effect does not exist based on our observations, period.
Pierre-Normand,
Let us cut the word salad, and get to the core of the physics.
When a gas absorbs energy, does its temperature rise, fall, or remain the same? If you do not like the phrasing of my question, please raise your objections now, and I will rephrase it to suit. It is not a trick question.
I am happy enough to proceed one step at a time. You probably won’t be.
I await your response.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“Do we see 320 w/m2 in the lapse rate equation close to the surface? The answer is no.”
The lapse rate is driven by convection and describes the temperature gradient within the troposphere. It says nothing whatsoever about the energy fluxes at the surface/atmosphere boundary.
“When a gas absorbs energy, does its temperature rise, fall, or remain the same?”
It’s temperature will rise. It will rise even more (together with pressure) if it isn’t allowed to expand. It will not rise at all if the absorption is balanced by an equal amount of emission (as would occur if its emissivity would be increased from a change in its molecular composition — e.g. the formation of ozone from UV radiation or mixing a little CO2 within it).
Pierre-Normand,
Possibly the cat has got your tongue, as some say.
Providing simple answers to simple questions removes the use of Warmist evasion, obstruction, obfuscation and diversion tactics. When facts are introduced, the Warmist fantasy evaporates into nothingness.
Not even a good effort. It appears you have gone to water. All form and no substance, possibly?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“When facts are introduced, the Warmist fantasy evaporates into nothingness.”
You didn’t introduce any fact. You asked a question and I answered.
CO2 molecule interact with IR photons in one of two ways. Kinetic energy – or temperature – is changed or potential energy – the energy states of electron orbits – changes. Both occur all the time. There are many chemical reactions involving carbon and energy – but the basics assume CO2 remains CO2.
If you are going to talk baby physics here – at the very least define it precisely.
Pierre-Normand,
It appears that your reply was a little delayed.
Anyway, thank you for your response. Now having accepted that a gas will rise in temperature when it absorbs energy, what happens when the gas is above the temperature of the gas with which it is intimately mixed?
Will the temperature of the gas then rise, fall, or remain the same? Or can you just accept that molecules of gas which have absorbed energy at a greater rate than the surrounding molecules of gas with which they are intimately mixed and thus risen in temperature, will re emit that energy until they are in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the gas?
If not, then I must proceed slowly, step by simple step.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
The mean free path of an IR photon in the troposphere is 33m odd. Kinetic energy – and therefore heat – is transferred to adjacent molecules by collisions.
The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the lower will be the mean free photon path and the higher the kinetic energy (temperature) of any particular volume of air.
I we insist on talking baby physics – Flynn seems the least likely candidate to get it right.
Mike Flynn,
This is common ground. This is the mechanism for establishing the convective lapse rate — the stable vertical temperature profile of the troposphere. When a heated parcel of air expands, it may or may not become unstable relative to the air layers above it. That’s because if it starts rising, then its pressure will diminish and it will cool a little. If the result of this “adiabatic expansion” cooling isn’t sufficient to cool it as much as the already cooler air in the layer above, then there will be no instability. Convection will stop. If not, then it will rise some more. The atmosphere will become convectively unstable. Convection will proceed until the temperature gradient (the rate of temperature decrease as a function of altitude) has been reduced enough to restore convective stability.
When the system is subjected to a steady heat input from below (the solar warming of the surface) then convection ensures that the temperature gradient will be brought down until convective stability is restored. The stability condition is dictated by the idea gas law and the height dependence of pressure (gravity). It’s the lapse rate. The existence of this lapse rate makes the greenhouse effect possible because it means that the IR-opaque atmosphere radiates to space from a cooler level, and hence less effectively, than it would without it.
“by the idea[l] gas law… “
Oops: “If the result of this “adiabatic expansion” cooling [is] sufficient to cool it [at least] as much as the already cooler air in the layer above, then there will be no instability. Convection will stop. If not, then it will rise some more.”
You presume that the processes – kinetic and potential – are not fast enough in the troposphere to preserve local thermodynamic equilibrium and therefore convective stability. This is not remotely obvious.
Pierre- Normand,
I assume your statement about this being common ground was the a Warmist non answer to a simple question.
Fair enough. I’ll not pursue the matter further. I wish you well in your desire to force reality to conform with Warmist desires. If it doesn’t, you can always delude yourself into thinking that I am part of a conspiracy to turn Nature agains you – only joking of course. There is no conspiracy as far as I am aware, only Nature.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Generalissimo Skippy.,
I assume you are attempting to gratuitously insult me yet again. I’m bemused. Why would you think it would be any more effective this time, than it has been in the past?
On to some more important matters. You wrote –
“CO2 molecule interact with IR photons in one of two ways. Kinetic energy – or temperature – is changed or potential energy – the energy states of electron orbits – changes. Both occur all the time. There are many chemical reactions involving carbon and energy – but the basics assume CO2 remains CO2.
If you are going to talk baby physics here – at the very least define it precisely.”
Whilst I appreciate your unsolicited bluster and bombast, before continuing may I ask that you demonstrate a least basic understanding of Albert Einstein’s work for which he received a Nobel prize, relating to photo electric emission.
Your understanding appears to reflect, in some ways, that of pre Einsteinian physics, which was seductive, intuitive, logical and wrong. Experimental results did not support the physics that you appear to espouse. Einstein’s theoretical basis explained the experimental results, and more besides. I can do no more than refer you to Einstein’s work, and later work by Feynman, and you will get an appreciation of why physicists who have not subscribed to the popular hysteria that is CO2 induced global warming, have nothing but contempt for the whole silly hypothesis.
What do you wish to define precisely, and then discuss? I’m guessing it’s nothing at all. Warmists change definitions to suit themselves – reduction in the rate of cooling becomes warming, the surface of the Earth is not actually the surface, the temperature is not actually the temperature, the top of the atmosphere is not the top of the atmosphere, and so on.
So pardon me if I don’t get too adulatory about your fanciful ideas. You keep trying to introduce fantasy into a discussion of fact – I am not interested in playing that game at present.
If you believe the globe is warming in line with increases in atmospheric CO2 – good for you! I’m not quite sure how you intend to measure the amount of warming. Maybe you can just agree with yourself on a definition which gives you the result you desire.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I assume you are attempting to gratuitously insult me yet again. I’m bemused. Why would you think it would be any more effective this time, than it has been in the past?
I don’t why you think a gross understatement of the breathtaking scope of your gargantuan misconceptions is gratuitous.
On to some more important matters. You wrote –
As if.
Whilst I appreciate your unsolicited bluster and bombast, before continuing may I ask that you demonstrate a least basic understanding of Albert Einstein’s work for which he received a Nobel prize, relating to photo electric emission.
What I said was that if you were going to talk baby physics here – at least define it precisely. The photoelectric effect has no relevance for CO2 interaction with IR photons in the atmosphere.
Your understanding appears to reflect, in some ways, that of pre Einsteinian physics, which was seductive, intuitive, logical and wrong. Experimental results did not support the physics that you appear to espouse. Einstein’s theoretical basis explained the experimental results, and more besides. I can do no more than refer you to Einstein’s work, and later work by Feynman, and you will get an appreciation of why physicists who have not subscribed to the popular hysteria that is CO2 induced global warming, have nothing but contempt for the whole silly hypothesis.
While Planck’s quantum effect predated and formed the basis for Einstein’s photoelectric work – it remains the fundamental mechanism for radiative adsorption and emission in discrete quanta. It was the basis for the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom that eventually gave way to the valence shell model. Silly handwaving about Einstein and Feynman notwithstanding.
The only silly hypothesis around here is the one that insists that CO2 doesn’t interact with IR photons with changes in both kinetic and potential energies. No one – not even the most strident of sceptics or most especially any decent physicist – has problems with this.
e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
Only skydragons have any problem with this at all. Flynn is simply pissing in the wind.
‘What do you wish to define precisely, and then discuss? I’m guessing it’s nothing at all. Warmists change definitions to suit themselves – reduction in the rate of cooling becomes warming, the surface of the Earth is not actually the surface, the temperature is not actually the temperature, the top of the atmosphere is not the top of the atmosphere, and so on.
So pardon me if I don’t get too adulatory about your fanciful ideas. You keep trying to introduce fantasy into a discussion of fact – I am not interested in playing that game at present.
I couldn’t really see myself clear to describing your astonishingly ill considered ideas as fact.
Baby physics is what I was defining. When a CO2 molecule interacts with an IR photon kinetic or potential energies change.
If you believe the globe is warming in line with increases in atmospheric CO2 – good for you! I’m not quite sure how you intend to measure the amount of warming. Maybe you can just agree with yourself on a definition which gives you the result you desire.
When a CO2 molecule interacts with an IR photon kinetic or potential energies change. If you average the 2 most recent period of decadal variation – the residual rate of warming is 0.07 degrees C/decade. This against a background of potential centennial cooling. But small changes drive nonlinearity in a chaotic system. Do with it what you will. I am just amusing myself.
Generalissimo Skippy posted:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
Yes, this post by Ira Glickstein, and all the other posts in her series Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect”, are very good. They are highly recommended for anyone struggling to understand the planetary greenhouse effect, or who are skeptical about it.
“The lapse rate is driven by convection and describes the temperature gradient within the troposphere. It says nothing whatsoever about the energy fluxes at the surface/atmosphere boundary.”
Pierre, the lapse rate equation is the energy balance of a rising air parcel and includes all of the energy terms. It is an adiabatic expansion, or the net heat exchanged is zero, which in other words means that the 330 w/m2 of back radiations do not exist. Why is the climate science so different than atmospheric science or engineering? Air is the same, is not so?
“Pierre, the lapse rate equation is the energy balance of a rising air parcel and includes all of the energy terms.”
It merely is a function of gravity and the idea gas law. It defines the gradient — that is the slope of the temperature curve as a function of altitude. (Though latent energy release must be accounted for in the less steep moist adiabatic lapse rate.) It is independent of the radiative fluxes at the surface or tropopause (or through the troposphere). The condition of convective stability completely dominate the effects of the radiative flux in the troposphere (or else the lapse rate wouldn’t be maintained). It is the surface temperature that determine not only the slope of the temperature curve but the boundary condition at the surface. If the lapse rate were sufficient to determine the full temperature profile that means that the lower troposphere temperature close to sea level would be the same at all latitudes and longitudes, over land and sea, and all year long, as long as it is dry.
Long post! “Lapse ‘rate'” is a restatement of the “Barometric formula,” but contains the both the “kinetic” portion and a “potential” (latent heat) portion as well.
Yes, which is why I mentioned: “Though latent energy release must be accounted for in the less steep moist adiabatic lapse rate…” and then qualified “…as long as it is dry.” But the issue was the lack of an effect of the back radiation on the convective lapse rate (either moist or dry).
Mike Flynn, you asked: “Now having accepted that a gas will rise in temperature when it absorbs energy, what happens when the gas is above the temperature of the gas with which it is intimately mixed?”
And the response is that convection may occur. Whether or not it will occur depends on the actual vertical temperature gradient and how this gradient compares to the lapse rate. This is the condition of convective stability. As usual you ask questions and complain when I answer or provide any explanation (and you complain even more when I don’t answer within three hours). It just seems like you have a phobia of learning anything.
Mike Flynn, by the way, the place where I first learned about convective equilibrium in the atmosphere is in Feynman’s Lectures on Physics some 15-20 years ago. I now see it’s available online. The relevant section is 9-4 but the whole lecture if very enjoyable and instructive. It’s also entirely descriptive, and doesn’t contain a single mathematical equation.
I forgot to supply the link:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html#Ch9-S4
Pierre-Normand,
Yes. Feynman was a very bright lad.
You referred to a part of one of his lectures relating to thunderstorms. You may have overlooked Feynman’s words about what happens normally –
” Thus there is no reason for the hot air below to rise; if it were to rise, it would cool to a lower temperature than the air already there, would be heavier than the air there, and would just want to come down again. On a good, bright day with very little humidity there is a certain rate at which the temperature in the atmosphere falls, and this rate is, in general, lower than the “maximum stable gradient,” which is represented by curve (b). The air is in stable mechanical equilibrium.”
No mention of convective equilibrium, or whatever you happen to believe Feynman said, whether he did or not. I know you will say he meant something different, but I accept that if he meant to say convective equilibrium, he would have said it. As I have mentioned once or twice before, and Feynman happens to agree, warm air in general does not rise. That is why the atmospheric temperature falls with height. The warm air is below progressively colder air. If you choose not to believe this, well and good.
You may learn from the totality of Feynman’s lectures, or you may not. Either way, I will leave you to your fairy tale warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere. Good luck.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“No mention of convective equilibrium, or whatever you happen to believe Feynman said, whether he did or not.”
He says “mechanical equilibrium”, which means the same thing. It’s the conditions for the initial rise of the warm parcel of air to stop. Now, you mean to suggest that this paragraph implies that there never is any convective transport of warm air from the surface higher up when there is no condensation. But this interpretation is ridiculous. Feynman just is discussing what happens when the gradient is lower than the stable lapse rate (which he calls the “maximum stable gradient”), as it often is since it seldom exceeds it (as Feynman mentions) and the input from the Sun varies diurnally, and the gradient changes after rainfalls.
But I can’t figure out what point you might be trying to make. Are you really trying to convince me that there is no convection in the troposphere unless the dew point is reached? That means all the energy input from the Sun remains close to the ground or is only transported radiatively higher up?
“It merely is a function of gravity and the idea gas law. It defines the gradient.”
“If the lapse rate were sufficient to determine the full temperature profile that means that the lower troposphere temperature close to sea level would be the same at all latitudes and longitudes, over land and sea, and all year long, as long as it is dry.”
Pierre, the potential temperature is the same. In fact, if you know surface temperature and absolute humidity you will be able to determine the temperature profile of the atmosphere at any elevation.
The lapse rate equation is an energy equation and expresses equality between changes of the enthalpy of the atmosphere and potential energy. In the troposphere, you do not see solar energy absorbed and latent heat because they are equal and cancel out in the equation. As you go up in the upper atmosphere, the latent heat is released and temperature profile starts to increase. Yes, there is convection in the atmosphere and that is why carbon dioxide is reasonably mixed.
“Pierre, the potential temperature is the same. In fact, if you know surface temperature and absolute humidity you will be able to determine the temperature profile of the atmosphere at any elevation.”
Indeed. You need to know both the lapse rate and the surface temperature. Hence the back radiation term doesn’t enter into the equation. The back radiation is consistent with very many different values for the surface temperature. The back radiation is a function both of the full temperature profile and of the emissivity of the layers.
We agree on one thing-to disagree.
Robert Brown of Duke highlights uncertainties due to The Global Climate Model clique feedback loop
That results in major – but unacknowledged – Type B errors.Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware!
Must be big when Drudge gives 8 col-lines to climate:
Reid: Kochs ‘main causes’ of climate change
(For Reid to say that the Koch brothers are “Not a cause, one of the main causes” shows major political desperation and and ignorance of climate and its major drivers.)
’600 page litany of doom’: Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’
White House: Americans ‘literally destroying the Earth’
Good news. There is nothing to worry about, after all.
Bad news. Not that “Climate Change” deteriorates Health and Welfare of the American People, but that it is flatly contradicted by statements above, found in the very same report. Now, from a self contradictory logical system anything follows and its opposite. As the current U.S. NCADAC Report is clearly one of those systems, no unique truth value can be assigned to any proposition in it, which makes it impossible to establish a correspondence between its content and any conceivable state of affairs in the real world. That is, it’s nothing but pure fiction.
Any place that is having it’s 100 year flood/drought will be having a “more intense extreme event” in that region. Different places have these all the time. Maybe we should instead examine the trends over time with larger areas and larger numbers and see what we find. Or we could ignore this data and pretend it doesn’t exist.
Taking sparse and sporadic data that shows little evidence of a trend and then partitioning the data into subsets will normally make the data more sporadic and chaotic. For every region of increasing trend, there will be a balancing region with a decreasing trend. Selectively identifying only the increasing ones as a significant event for a global CO2 effect is not good science.
We saw this method used with “cancer clusters” in the 1970’s. First locate an incidence of higher cancer rates, then look for a plausible cause, usually the business with the deepest pockets. Trot out the local 12 year girl with leukemia and get your payday.
Pingback: Commentary on the salesmanship of uncertain science in the National Climate Assessment report | Watts Up With That?
The President is not naive.
President Clinton was responsible for the US sustainability push involving 13 federal agencies and Hillary is about to run.
All Obama is doing is setting the stage for Hilary and future campaign contributions.
What taxpayer wants to pay more for everything to accomplish nothing?
We should thank Obama as his stance will result in major changes to the “do nothing” Senate.
The president is not naive, when it comes to his agenda of fundamentally transforming America, politically, economically and culturally.
Nor does he have any intention of leaving the scene just because the Constitution requires him to give up power. Three days after his election, he transformed his campaign apparatus into a “grass roots organizing” agency – Organizing for America. It keeps morphing depending on whether Obama is campaigning or not. But it keeps essentially the same staff, and more importantly, keeps the campaign contribution lists and contacts with big money donors.
If anyone thinks Obama gives a rat’s a** about Hillary Clinton or her chances for election, they are dreaming. His only goal is himself, and his dream of implementing the communist/socialist dreams of his father.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/06/Obama-s-Last-Shot-Climate-Change-And-Why-It-s-Doomed-To-Fail
A likely analysis.
Nope, Rolling Stone, the gamble has nothing to do with the future of the planet and everything to do with the Obama administration’s credibility. It’s a question of how much longer – using all its muscle and money and MSM alliances – the Obama administration can carry on persuading an increasingly skeptical public to go on believing in something that their eyes tell them isn’t happening, that their wallets tell them is economically damaging, and that a growing body of hard science tell them is non-existent.
Thanks!
Newport_Mac,
Close, but not quite. His goal is providing propaganda cover for his imperial decrees, sorry, executive orders and regulations. Obama doesn’t need the voters any more so doesn’t give a damn about them. But he does need congressional Democrats to stop Republicans n congress from stopping his assertion of unconstitutional executive power. And those Dem p[ols DO need the voters.
He doesn’t need to convince anyone of anything. He just has to prevent a revolt among his poodle press corps, which could in turn frighten his lap dog legislators.
“Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans.”
What are these “natural” factors that are driving sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, precipitation rates, etc. And what natural factors will drive them in the future other than AGW?
What’s especially difficult even to discuss is a conspiracy theory that makes no sense economically at all. Even Marx acknowledged “supply and demand” in transactions so the idea that “big oil” has somehow suffered from greenshirt policy and AGW in particular is well……off the wall to begin with. Any artificial restriction in supply, like government mismanagement of resources (greenshirt policy of high energy, Obama policy), is going to INCREASE PRICES and thereby PROFITS of particulars in the supply chain.
AGW radicalism is good, short-term, for established interests such as the Koch Brothers and Exxon.
Please, at least make up a conspiracy theory that makes some sense before it’s posted.
Little Miss Sunshine,
It’s between you and the Steven Goddard fellow who has the web site more full of lies via manipulation of data.
Congratulations on being an impediment to science.
Web404, by lies do you mean graphing HADCRUT4 and showing CO2 graphs from CDIAC?
You are such a denier.
Web
I’m not a follower of Steve Goddard myself so perhaps you can point to a couple of his recent articles that are full of lies due to manipulation of data? Thanks in advance
tonyb
Pierre-Normand 12:51am
or this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend
Most of the overall trend comes from the jump after the !998 El Nino. The trend before and after are approximately the same 0.36deg/century before; 0.48 after.
Be interesting to see if the next El Nino is big enough to cause such a step change again or not.
“There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″
“Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
“lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
“when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”
Nothing to see here – the gummit sez so.
“We need to end the ignorant consensus that atmospheric CO2 is the prime mover of weather and climate. The acceptance of that one-dimensional, narrow view of meteorology and climatology by governments, scientific societies, educational institutions and the media in general, constitutes scientific and journalistic malfeasance on a grand scale.
Our common experience with hurricanes, tornadoes thunderstorms, blizzards, floods, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions should lead to the common sense conclusion that weather and climate are controlled by natural laws on an enormous scale that dwarfs human activity. Those laws engender forces and motions in our atmosphere and oceans that are beyond human control. Weather and climate existed long before humans appeared on Earth, and will continue to exist in the same way long after we are gone.
Those forces and motions are driven by the following: First, the motions of the Earth relative to the Sun: the periodic changes in its elliptical orbit, its rotation about its polar axis, changes in the tilt of that axis, and the precession of that axis. Second, the variation in solar activity that influences the radiant energy reaching the Earth and modulates cosmic ray activity which controls cloudiness. Third, the distribution of land and water on the Earth’s surface; which controls its temperature distribution, moisture availability, monsoon effects, hurricanes, and other storm tracks. Fourth, the topography of the Earth’s surface which causes copious precipitation on the windward side of mountains and aridity on the leeward side. Fifth, the fluid motions within the Earth’s oceans that determine moisture availability and ocean surface temperatures (El Nino and La Nina cycles). Sixth, volcanic eruptions that throw large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, increasing the Earth’s albedo and periodically blocking portions of solar radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface.
Water in all of its forms is a main agent through which those forces operate. It provides vapor in the atmosphere, heat transport by evaporation and condensation, and the enormous, circulating mass of the ocean whose heat capacity dominates. And finally it provides the cloud, snow, and ice cover that control the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free space.
While the presence of 0.04 % of CO2 in our atmosphere is essential for life in the biosphere, the notion that such a minor constituent of the atmosphere can control the above forces and motions, is absurd. There is, in fact, not one iota of reliable evidence that it does.”
Sincerely,
Dr. Martin Hertzberg
http://www.explosionexpert.com
coauthor of “Slaying the Sky Dragon–“, Stairway press, 2011
This whole thing is a joke. Politicians have taken over the asylum. Sorry, CO2 is not a cause of warming – its an effect. I’m a geologist and I wrote my PhD thesis 30 years ago partially about climate change. Why has that phrase been hijacked by politicians and eco thugs is beyond me. There is no debate – in politics people don’t debate they swing verbal sticks at each other. The geological record doesn’t support CO2 as a cause of warming. Full stop.
“Sorry, CO2 is not a cause of warming – its an effect.”
_____
This ignorance makes the rest of your comments unreadable.
When I contemplate the response of the ‘progressive_politician/climate_science/green_religion_hierarchy self-licking ice cream cone and their acolytes on sites like this one to what empirical data indicates is perfectly normal weather, and the fact that a good part of the American populace has apparently jumped on the ‘Destroy our standard of living immediately to save Mother Gaia or we’ll riot in the streets!’ bandwagon–and means it–the one word description that seems most appropriate to the entire phenomenon is ‘surreal’.
If the US were an individual it would be locked up for its own protection. Anyone needing additional confirmation need only read the national headlines for a couple of months and observe its ongoing response to Anthropogenic Climate Change (nee Anthropogenic Global Warming).
In the Appendix 3, Climate Science, of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, Tyndall experiment and heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases are referenced as basis of the climate science. Tyndale never mentioned heat trapping properties of CO2, only absorption and radiations. He never tested the real scenario of air with and without o.o4% CO2. In the experiment, which was for pure gases and vapors, the absorbed and radiated infrared radiations came from sources of heat which included heated oil to 250 °C and heated copper ball to low redness. Radiations were observed from very hot pure gases over a copper ball heated by argand burner. The experiment at low and ambient temperature showed nothing. So what good is this experiment for the real scenario where carbon dioxide temperature is at ambient temperature or cooler and infrared radiations is coming from surface at ambient temperature? Clearly, Svante Arrhenius (1896) was correct when he said that the greenhouse gas effect was not tested.
Tonyb, people with answers to just about everything do keep ducking your question:
“What mechanism has occurred-and when did it begin- that has changed the apparent long term warming of the surface AND the oceans, to one where apparently ONLY the oceans are now being warmed?” tonyb
Sure can’t help you with the “what” part of the question but the “when” part can be narrowed down: It MUST be AFTER 2007. Clearly the “mystery mechanism” wasn’t in play at the time AR4 was published – had it been, surely the IPCC would never have made this prediction with such a high level of confidence:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
Hope that helps!
Who is Monica Lewinsky?
Even BC asserted, “I did not link to that woman”
These comments are all over the show – what’s up?
Nice thing about fond is that she facilitates scrolling past her posts by putting the smiley faces and hearts thing highlighted in blue at the bottom of her post. Responding to her is really a waste of space and facilitates her goal of sidetracking threads.
Fomd not fond
Not fond of fomd?
FOMT,
NCARbreports “as regular as clockwork” ???
Do you ever bother to read material at the links you splatter here like drips in a Jackson Pollack painting?
Aside from the fact that there have been only three of the “every four years” national reports, published at widely varying times of year, just consider all the “coming soon” regional items still promised since the Clinton/Gore era:
http://www.globalchange.gov/engage/activities-products/NCA1
I am not a republican. And I realy like Obama: he is the first interracial US president and an excellent communicator. But politics is not only about communication. Politicians need to be honest, need to be appropriately assessed and need to act responsibly.
So far, the six degrees of separation theory doesn’t work for me. I have been trying to show my scientific view in:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/
to the appropriate politicians in Europe and the US, but there is no shift in them: they keep acting as if the CO2 emission scenarios had any type of predictive capacity.
No matter what continent we are dealing with; in my opinion, climate change is becoming an excellent red herring where to hide: corruption, incompetence and banal ideologies. That is why, while the “roman” empire keeps falling, here we are: reading Vanity Fair.
Antonio
With regards to your final paragraph you must surely be aware of menckens famous quote which sums up the position succinctly?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
Tonyb
Calvin Coolidge claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry.
Ida Elizabeth Stover Eisenhower, Ike’s mother, was a Creole.
Hey. Bill Clinton was the first black president. The New Yorker told us so.
@Antonio
Actually not true. There were many before him, but they did not use their race as he does:
http://fookembug.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/the-seven-black-presidents-before-barack-obama/
And if you are worried about a blog, try this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/black-presidents-6-united-states-obama_n_2711887.html
And TOTUS is a great communicator.
“The “roman” empire keeps falling” was an euphemism to express the decreasing relevance of the US super-power in the world.
“here we are: reading Vanity Fair” was another euphemism: although we know that our politicians must honestly serve us, american (and european) people prefer to behave like sheeps.
Pingback: Judith Curry: U.S. National Climate Assessment Report | Atlas Monitor
Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus take on the UN goal wish list, ranking them from Phenomenal to Poor. Preliminary Benefit-Cost Assessment for 11th Session OWG Goals
Note rankings on: Focus Area 12 Climate Change
Build a climate change goal based on the outcome of COP21 of the UNFCCC
POOR
a) hold the increase in global average temperature below an x°C
rise in accordance with international agreements
PHENOMENAL
b) build resilience and adaptive capacity to climate induced
hazards in all vulnerable countries
FAIR
c) integrate climate adaptation and emissions reductions into
development plans and poverty reduction strategies
UNCERTAIN
d) introduce instruments and incentives for investments in
low-carbon solutions in infrastructure, industry and other
sectors111
e) improve education and awareness raising on climate change
I’m somewhat astonished that anyone deciphers the Fan comments. If for no other reason that the formating is atrocious.
Judith, I’m sure Fan is free to say what he wants, but I think it would be fair to ask Fan to write in a proper format. His smatterings screw up the comment thread and make the site less readable, and that isn’t fair to the others.
It looks like the US Government has gone to a great deal of time, effort, and trouble, and been quite generous with taxpayers’ funds, in order to inform citizens that weather changes. More than 800 pages? Really?
In the words of the Warmists – wow. Just wow.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mke Flyyn,
You are looking at it all wrong. Preparing and publishing the report transferred funds from stupid tax payers to enlightened Democrat supporters. It now will provide years of propaganda in support of the Democrat Party platform. And it will not improve the lives of the tax payers one iota.
This is a resounding progressive success.
They once commissioned a study, at the cost of a few million dollars, to find out what happens when you fall off a bike.
Results? You are likely to get hurt.
Something to ponder is that the people who produced the NCA control the $2 billion a year US Global Change Research budget. They are the research program officers. No wonder the research assumes AGW. It is written into the program. This is not science.
Pingback: Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus' | Riverside Daily Digest
Pingback: Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus' | Orange County Daily Digest
Pingback: Pastor Mikes Report | Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’
Well in addition to the other data of no-change the temperature of the US48 is not above that of the 30’s either.
But is this just another summary that doesn’t reflect the body of the report or are these 250 authors really delusional?
Well, looks like Tom Steyer is getting his money’s worth for his $100 million “donation”. Thanks Tom.
Now who is going to read 641 pages of propaganda literature? Among other things, it is full of falsified temperature curves as anyone who compares it to satellite data will discover. Not to mention imaginary volcanic coolings. But you don’t have to go beyond page one to find out what their agenda is. There you find the following statement: “…our society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have had, not the rapidly changing climate that we now have…” That is simply a bald-faced lie because we do not have a “rapidly changing climate” now. As professionals they have an obligation to know the basic facts of their subject. It is known to all who work in the field that there is no climate change today and there has been none for the last 17 years according to both Met Office and IPCC temperature records. All those who signed it must take personal responsibility for what the report they signed says and what it says is utter nonsense. This is made worse by the fact that all their predictions are based upon the belief that this imaginary warming is due to the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. Nothing could be further from the truth. They think that it exists because James Hansen said so to the Senate in 1988. Hansen showed a rising temperature curve to the Senate that went from a low in 1880 to a high in 1988. This high point, he said, was the “…warmest point within the last 100 years.” According to him there was only a one percent chance that it could have happened by accident. Hence, there was a 99 percent probability that this warming was greenhouse warming and the greenhouse effect was thereby confirmed. But checking the Congressional Record you find that he includes as part of his 100 year warming a non-greenhouse warming that starts in 1910 and stops in 1940. Radiation laws of physics demand that if you are going to start an enhanced greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This did not happen in 1910. Hence, this warming is not greenhouse warming. The same conclusion follows from its sudden cessation because a greenhouse warming cannot be stopped without removing the absorbing molecules from air. It follows from this that the 1910 to 1940 period must be subtracted from his 100 year warming. And doing this lops off everything below 1940. What is left of his original 100 year warming after this amputation is a see-saw temperature curve, 25 years of cooling followed by 23 years of warming. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that no way can this prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. Hansen’s claim that he has observed the greenhouse effect is simply false. But nobody checked his science and he has been able to get away with this fiction for the last 24 years. Despite using supercomputers with up to a million lines of code today’s climate models are no better than Hansen’s were in 1988. This poor performance is not surprising since they use of a non-existent greenhouse effect in their million line code. Another failure is the fact that numerical calculations of temperature predict a non-existent hot spot at 10 to 12 kilometer height in the tropics. It is quite possible that using the non-existent greenhouse warming in that code they get their non-existent hot spot. As for CMIP5 output it is totally unable to simulate the existing twenty-first century temperature regime that is flat because their code is written to create a rising greenhouse warming. As a result, model output is simply atrocious. They have had 24 years to fine-tune their models since Hansen’s first models came out and the output is still worthless. I suggest shutting down the entire climate modeling operation because its contribution to understanding climate has been zero since day one.
In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on the explosive growth of U.S. coal exports to the EU, especially Britain and Germany. If the EU green- hairshirt crowd is ramping its uptake of Demon Coal then there is no possibility of global mitigation, urgently or otherwise. It looks like CO2 Fatalism is the appropriate stance to take, so the only question is whether you are an Optimistic Fatalist or a Pessimistic one.
Steve, I think that the major divide in views on this issue often comes down to those who are life-affirming, and recognise the history and capacity of our species to make the most of prevailing conditions and circumstances, and those who take a doomist view, that we are helpless before the malignant forces of nature (and/or because of our own malignant nature and ignorance). Of course, as a pragmatic optimist, I don’t see nature as malignant or providing insoluble problems.
The traditional British response to signs of impending doom is to put the kettle on and have a nice cup of tea. The virtue of this approach is that you don’t make hasty decisions in an atmosphere of fear and panic. You distance yourself from the immediacy of the problem, and give yourself a chance to reflect onit, and to calmly decide on a course of action.
What a pity that the warmist camp didn’t follow such a tradition. Could it be because they saw opportunity (for themselves) in claiming doom for all?
Well they had been getting most of their imported coal from Russia so it’s not ramping up so much as switching supplier.
And why has this particular blog been hijacked by the insufferable troll, David Appell.
I’m not going speculate on that, but I do see an interesting and unsupported quote from Judith
While there is some useful analysis in the report …
and it would be interesting to find out what that might be.
On second thought, maybe not.
This “climate assessment report” is a conglomerate of the absolute worst promotional literature from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and a number of other questionable entities; it is an ineffable disgrace.
I have never seen anything this bad from a public report in my life, not even the propaganda of former totalitarian states.
Pingback: Clima e politica 2.0 | Climatemonitor
Liberal Democrats have a marvelously simple view of everything
– Every behavioral observable can be traced to racism
– Every physical observable can be traced to global warming
And it’s always your parents to blame for it :)
You get what you pay for!
The phrase and chant or incantation that
“Climate Change is Real”
has always struck me with similar significance and deep meaning
(/sarc ) as the chanting of :
“Allahu Akbar”
Apparently I wasn’t too far off : )
Abdullah calls for consolidated efforts to address climate change
Shaikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Foreign Minister, has highlighted the need to consolidate efforts and work as a team to address the challenges of climate change.
snip
“Another national goal is to extract 24 per cent of electricity from sources that are completely free from carbon emissions by 2021.
“We have achieved great developments in the field of solar energy through Masdar, which includes the Shams 1 solar power station with 100 megawatts of power. As well as operating Phase One of the His Highness Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Power Compound project which will generate 1,000 megawatts when complete.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/nationgeneral/2014/May/nationgeneral_May35.xml§ion=nationgeneral
His Highness Sheikh Abdullah and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Open High Level Climate Talks in Abu Dhabi
In a keynote address, at today’s opening ceremony, His Highness Sheikh Abdullah urged leaders and policy makers to foster meaningful discussion, enabling concrete and immediate action to avoid irreversible climate change.
http://www.zawya.com/story/His_Highness_Sheikh_Abdullah_and_UN_Secretary_General_Ban_Kimoon_Open_High_Level_Climate_Talks_in_Abu_Dhabi-ZAWYA20140504132417/
Years of Living Dangerously: TV Review
In its first episode, religion also plays a large part in the story, because in the U.S, of course, religion and politics are inextricably linked. It has become, as Farley suggests, a mess.
Just like Hayhoe believes science and faith do not have to be at odds, Republican and former Calif. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger believes politics and climate change can be reconciled across the aisle. He also narrates a segment in the second episode about Hot Shot firefighters in Montana, where wildfires have gone from having a season to being a year-long event. Years of Living Dangerously uses the recognizable names and faces of actors like Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle and Ian Somerhalder, as well as journalists like the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, to bring attention to its message.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/years-living-dangerously-tv-review-695043
How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real
Millions of Americans are evangelical Christians. Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe is persuading them that our planet is in peril.
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian, has had quite the run lately. A few weeks back, she was featured in the first episode of the Showtime series The Years of Living Dangerously, meeting with actor Don Cheadle in her home state of Texas to explain to him why faith and a warming planet aren’t in conflict. (You can watch that episode for free on YouTube; Hayhoe is a science adviser for the show.) Then, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of 2014; Cheadle wrote the entry. “There’s something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype,” Cheadle observed.
Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians, and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. “I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to,” explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-katharine-hayhoe-faith-climate
It’s time religious leaders take a stand against fossil fuels
With the moral issues in mind, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate, called upon all religious leaders to take a public stand against fossil fuels, whose high emissions of greenhouse gases are said to increase the rate of climate change.
“It is time for faith groups and religious institutions to find their voice and set their moral compass on one of the great humanitarian issues of our time. Overcoming poverty, caring for the sick and the infirm, feeding the hungry and a whole range of other faith-based concerns will only get harder in a climate challenged world,” she said.
She cited a few examples of how faith leaders from across denominations are beginning to extract their support of fossil fuels
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-katharine-hayhoe-faith-climate
Global Warming as Faith
It should not seem impossible, or even remarkable, that governmental organizations and highly educated scientists have become fanatical followers of a global warming ideology. Similar movements and ideologies have captured the fancy of intellectuals, scientists, and governments many times previously.
http://www.americanthinker.com/article/2013/08/global_warming_as_faith.html.
corrected link:
It’s time religious leaders take a stand against fossil fuels
http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201405/its-time-religious-leaders-take-stand-against-fossil-fuels-28873
By the way, the attacks on Dr Curry are predictable. Given her actual verified achievements, its predictable that her ideas are dangerous to the closed minded
And this just in: http://player.640toronto.com/
“It isn’t going to be a Christmas in July event, but a warning is being put out to Ontarians that the upcoming summer months will be colder than normal.
AccuWeather has released their summer outlook, and for Ontario (and most of eastern Canada), cooler than average air is set to settle over the region, particularly through June and July.
The agency claims the large amount of ice still present on the Great Lakes will delay the normal warming, and leave for colder winds to blow across Southern Ontario.
Through August and beyond warm spells will become more prominent.”
BTW: We’re still waiting for spring to arrive . . . yes, I know! It’s all because of increased CO2 . . .
Pingback: Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus' - ALIPAC
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of great abundance and peace for the world.
The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone dashes the anthropogenic global warming argument.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative,” http://adrianvance.blogspot.com and When you speak fine ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.
Adrian Vance | May 9, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
CO2 is the trace gas that 100% of all living things obtain 100% of their carbon from. That makes all life insignificant, by your definition.
Radiative Transfer Physics does not depend entirely on the simple absorbtivity of CO2, which by the way is effectively permanent in air when added by burning fossil fuels, compared to water which saturates and precipitates out depending on climate conditions, such as warming due the GHE, as a marginal shift in the dynamic equilibrium through feedbacks. So the more you seek to minimize CO2 by inflating H2O in air, the more your argument backfires.
As for destruction of the economy, tell me, what should a fiscal conservative believe more harmful to the economy: obsolete technology propped up by corrupt governments, subsidies and tax gifts while a scarce private resource goes to whatever wastrel wants it for free; or, applying the Law of Supply and Demand to the scarce, capitalizable, rivalrous, excludable, marketable carbon cycle to let the democracy of Free Enterprise decide the right level of its exploitation? Scaremongering and alarmism ill befits a rational debate.
Not only Michael Mann’s, but some dozen and more other studies independently have made the Medieval Warming Period (so beloved by Hubert Lamb that he altered his data to make it appear on a cartoon based on perhaps one one thousandth the paleo record we have today) fit into the tiny region appropriate to its actual merits. Likewise, the late-styled LIA has gone from everything since the Holocene Optimum to just nine decades ending about the time of Malthus.
And what the freak do you mean that the period was peaceful? Are you forgetting 1066 fell in that period? The Crudades? The Hundred Year War? The last fall of Rome? The Wars of the Roses? And that’s just the parts of the world actually regionally affected by the warming. You mythologize a fable based on a suspicion derived from a wiggle on a piece of bad chartsmanship.
High resolution re-analyses of Vostok (eg http://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/9755.short) show the CO2 rise is likely largely contemporaneous with warming plus a feedback component lasting decades. How is this a comfort to your argument, when it means CO2 rise from any source begets CO2 rise from other sources by the GHE?
It doesn’t “dash” the AGW argument, any more than the existence of car crashes by people who have a drink after the collision disproves drunk driving is a problem. Or are you one of those soft on crime guys who likes a drink before taking the wheel?
Carbon combustion generated 80% of someone’s energy, but it sure as heck doesn’t constitute much of the energy of people who can take advantage of cheaper geothermal, hydro or natural gas (which is largely hydrogen combustion); and as the price of solar and wind plummet and the practicality of extracting fossil other than gas drops like a stone in lock step with the advances of competing technologies, what sort of backwards knuckle-dragger actually wants the choking and fumes and leaks and inconvenience and dust and soot and sulfates?
Pricing carbon and turning over the revenues of its sales at prices set by the Law of Supply and Demand would give individual consumers more power over governments and special interests than at any time since Hamurabi.
Accusing scientists of cooking the books to serve the interest of government reveals abject ignorance of just how little scientists in general are aware of the wider world outside their workspace. It’s a silly contrivance, requiring a globe-spanning conspiracy of psychic mass media manipulators of sovereign skill. Have you never talked to a scientist?
Google “Techniques of Propaganda” before wasting a second of your next two minutes.
“CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition.
Valid arguments concerning CAGW and ruinously expensive policies to mitigate same, are like low hanging fruit. But that is not one of them. It sounds good, but it’s lazy and ignores well established physics.
Bart R | May 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
CO2 is the trace gas that 100% of all living things obtain 100% of their carbon from.
We agree.
Creation: 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + light → C6 H12 O6 + 6 O2
Use: C6 H12 O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O (energy is released)
It seems with CO2 and H2O we can store energy. We can have life. Is there too much a good thing? Possibly. We are trying like heck to find out.
In the part named “About this report” we find the following sentence:
“While the report demonstrates the importance of mitigation
as an essential part of the nation’s climate change strategy, it
does not evaluate mitigation technologies or policies or undertake
an analysis of the effectiveness of various approaches.”
They actually say: “it is urgent that we do more mitigation”, but they don’t say what to do exactly.
Why don’t they “evaluate mitigation technologies or policies” ?
Why don’t they “undertake an analysis of the effectiveness of various approaches” ?
Are they afraid of the possible result of such analysis? Are they afraid that they will be forced to concede that the building of hundreds of thousands wind turbines and millions of solar panels has resulted in zero emission reduction? This is a plain, simple, uncomplicated, undeniable fact, not model result or prophecy or uncertain theory.
Why do all alarmist preachers find it imperative to maintain the pious lie that more of the same useless contraptions will achieve more than those already erected at an enormous cost of 360 billion (with B) dollars annually?
Do they want a carbon tax? This is snake oil too, but they can have it as long as this insane spending on windmills stops, and also the burning of our food (a.k.a. ethanol mandates) and of our forests (a.k.a. biomass) is stopped.
A carbon tax, too, would be totally useless for emission reduction but less harmful than what is being done.
No one trusts Washington on climate change
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/31320b68-d6ae-11e3-b251-00144feabdc0.html
The Insiders: Five reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/08/the-insiders-five-reasons-voters-dont-believe-the-white-house-about-global-warming/?tid=pm_pop
New York Magazine reviewed Fox’s “All-Star” panel on the NCA report here
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/krauthammer-george-will-attack-climate-science.html
and concluded with this
“To watch Will and Krauthammer grasp for rationales to cast doubt on an established scientific field merely because its findings pose a challenge to their ideological priors is a depressing, and even harrowing, study in the poisonous effects of dogma upon a once-healthy brain. They have amassed an impressive array of sound bites and factoids, and can render them with convincing gravitas, and yet their underlying reasoning is absolutely bonkers.”
Pingback: National Climate Assessment Report = science fiction and politics | wryheat
Climate change has occurred over the history of planet Earth.
“Tinkering Around with Nonsense Doesn’t Work” is a climate video by Piers Corbyn that I recommend for AGW skeptics and believers alike:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/tinkering-around-with-nonsense-doesnt-work/
As an expression of appreciation for Professor Curry’s courage in allowing me to post factual information that is also unwelcome by AGW skeptics and believers alike –
Here are nine pages of precise experimental data (pages 19-27) that falsify post-1945 Standard Models of nuclei, stars, Earth’s climate and the cosmos:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
In summary,
FEAR that Earth’s atmosphere might be ignited accidentally in the chaos of August 1945 when:
1. Allied atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
2. Japan exploded an atomic bomb off the east coast of Konan, Korea;
3. Stalin’s USSR troops captured Japan’s facility and took scientists and technicians to Russia; and
4. A young nuclear geochemist took possession of Japan’s atomic bomb plans . . .
FRIGHTENED world leaders into taking totalitarian control of humans by:
5. Uniting Nations on 24 Oct 1945; and
6. Hiding the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies; and
SOWED the seeds of worldwide totalitarian science that surfaced in Climategate emails and documents in late November 2009!
With precise experimental data on one side and all the world’s political power on the other, statesmanship is the only viable solution to the current stand-off: It cannot be resolved by a win-lose ending !
If you are wondering about how bad climate communication is, I present for your reading pleasure one of the most amazing analyses of climate (Appel, this one any relation to you or just a student of yours?)
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/it-seems-the-end-is-to-come/
Choice bits:
” These feedback loops have already started, are now unstoppable and life on earth is already on its way to extinction. No technology can stop this – especially since male technology is part of the problem and their use and fabrication will only emit more greenhouse gases. Even if men’s system collapsed now, if all men died and we returned back to stone age, it is unstoppable. “
Pingback: USA Reports Climate Damage - Page 2
Pingback: NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT REPORT = SCIENCE FICTION AND POLITICS | Cafe Con Leche RepublicansCafe Con Leche Republicans
Pingback: U.S. National Climate Assessment Report | ajmarciniak
Show me scientific evidence that man induced CO2 is raising the temperature of the earth. The earth stopped warming in 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise. End of theory.