by Judith Curry
So, was 2014 the ‘warmest year’? Drum roll . . .
NASA has just issued its press release NASA, NOAA find 2014 hottest year in record. Nothing in the way of technical details, such as warmest by ‘how much’ and ‘is it statistically significant?’
NYTimes ‘breaking news’: 2014 was hottest year on record surpassing 2010 interviews Gavin Schmidt:
With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records.
No word yet from HadCRUT4, I heard we can expect their report next week. Somewhere I read that Cowtan and Way did NOT expect 2014 to be warmest in their data set?
Berkeley Earth has published a nice analysis of their 2014 data [link]. Summary of their main findings:
1. The global surface temperature average for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of’error, it’s tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.
2. For the land, 2014 was nominally the 4th warmest year since 1753
3. For the sea, 2014 was the warmest year on record since 1850
4. For the contiguous United States, 2014 ranked nominally as the 38th warmest year on record since 1850.
Some other statements of interest:
Several European countries set all time records for high annual average temperature, as did the continent of Europe as a whole
The margin of uncertainty we achieved was remarkably small (0.05C with 95% confidence).This was achieved, in part, by the inclusion of data from over 30,000 temperature stations, and by the use of optimized statistical methods. Even so, the highest year could not be distinguished. That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.
Meanwhile, the ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures. Roy Spencer reports that 2014 was third warmest year since 1979, but just barely.
Roz Pidcock has penned an article Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature, that discusses differences among the analyses.
Capitol Weather Gang has reactions from 20 scientists [link], including a few sensible ones (such as moi).
El Nino?
One of the key aspects of the hype about the ‘warmest year in 2014’ was that 2014 was not even an El Nino year. Well, there has been a great deal of discussion about this issue on the Tropical ListServ. Here is what I have taken away from that discussion:
A global circulation response pattern to Pacific convection with many similarities to El Niño has in fact been present since at least June. Convection to the east of New Guinea is influencing zonal winds in the upper troposphere across the Pacific and Atlantic, looking similar to an El Nino circulation response.
So, is it El Niño? Not quite, according to some conventional indices, but a broader physical definition might be needed to capture the different flavors of El Nino. A number of scientists are calling for modernizing the ENSO identification system. So I’m not sure how this event might eventually be identified, but for many practical purposes (i.e. weather forecasting), this event is behaving in many ways like an El Nino.
What does this mean for interpreting the ‘almost warmest year’? Well not much; I think it is erroneous to infer that ‘it must be AGW since 2014 wasn’t even an El Nino year’ is useful reasoning here.
That said, there is definitely some unusual events on the North Pacific, including extreme warm anomalies in the mid-high latitudes, and positive value of the PDO.
Bottom line
Berkeley Earth sums it up well with this statement:
That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.
The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger.
Speculation about ‘warmest year’ and end of ‘pause’ implies a near term prediction of surface temperatures – that they will be warmer. I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade. However, I’m not willing to place much $$ on that bet, since I suspect that Mother Nature will manage to surprise us. (I will be particularly surprised if the rate of warming in the next decade is at the levels expected by the IPCC.)
Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Ted Cruz is (R-Texas) was just named to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. The folks at Slate are not happy: Yup, a Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? They are particularly up in arms over this statement from Ted Cruz:
The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that—that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.
Here is what Slate has to say:
This is, to put it mildly, what comes out of the south end of a north-facing bull. Yes, the Earth has warmed over the past 15 years, and the science is incredibly, unequivocally clear about that. Anyone making this claim either doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or is trying to sell you something (or, to be more accurate, has been bought).
So, what is wrong with Cruz’s statement? Well, assuming that by ‘recorded warming’, he means the satellite-derived lower atmospheric temperatures his statement is absolutely correct. If he is referring to globally averaged surface temperatures since 2000, there is only a very small amount of warming; this small amount of warming is indeed contrary to the theory of AGW.
Without going into details here, I refer you to my previous post and my invited presentation given at the American Physical Society: Causes and Implications of the Pause.
Bottom line: There is nothing irrational or particularly incorrect about Senator Cruz’s statement. Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) who wrote the Slate piece made more incorrect statements than did Cruz.
I just spotted this article from Science2.0 re Cruz and NASA, worth reading [link]
We have a situation now where perception is more important than reality… where a political agenda is more important than facts… where some scientists now have a Messiah complex. Just how accurately were ocean temperatures recorded in 1850??? I would love to see the data. Exactly who was keeping accurate/detailed records of the oceans temperatures in 1850???
By continuing to support AGW claims without experimental evidence, NASA has exposed the bias that kept the Standard Solar Model of H-filled stars alive despite decades of precise data that show the Sun and other ordinary stars generate and discard H to interstellar space!
“Solar energy,” Adv. Astronomy (submitted for on-line review, 6 Jan 2015)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
There can be no “experimental” evidence for AGW — other than the basics like GHG absorption spectrums and the quantum laws of radiation — because you can’t reset the Earth to the same initial conditions and do your experiment again. There is no control-Earth. Climate science is an observational science, not an experimental science.
Thanks, Apple, for admitting that there is no “experimental” evidence of AGW.
Is a temperature pause, during this period of increasing CO2, evidence against CO2-induced global warming?
David Appell : “Climate science is an observational science, not an experimental science.”
Yes, we know.
It’s the only one in all the history of science that when the theory doesn’t match the observational data, you alter the observational data to fit the theory.
I believe it’s called “Post-Normal” science, isn’t it?
The problem was not Michael Mann nor Phil Jones, but https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/policy-based-evidence-tampering-at-nasa/#comment-482449
Presto! Here is one dataset for SSTs, with uncertainties:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/
RE “Climate science is an observational science, not an experimental science.”
One where if the observational data doesn’t fit the theory, you can ignore it and make up your own observations with models.
David, can you once again explain how data output from a model can be considered as “observational” data?
Model data isn’t “observational data” — it is model data.
What observational data doesn’t fit the theory?
Rate of Sea Level Rise
Extinction of Species
Rate of “projected” temperature increase
Increase in “extreme” weather events
Observed number of climate refugees
That’s for starters.
ting56: Easy to claim, hard to prove. Start proving.
David,
Here is where honesty comes into play.
SLR by tidal gauge has averaged 1.7 mm yr over the past century. 3.3 mm yr using satellite data. Meaning there is no definitive evidence of sea levels rising at an accelerating rate.
I don’t do dueling graphs, but if you really believe measured temps are tracking with model projections, the burden of proof is on you.
A bright grade school student can find the data regarding hurricanes, tornados, flooding, wildfires, etc. Your side is the one making the claims regarding extreme weather. Therefore your side bears the burden of proving it. It isn’t up to me to disprove it.
Same holds for climate refugees. We were told there would be 50 million of them by 2010. It’s 5 years past that dead line and you couldn’t come up with 5 thousand.
Extinct species – how do I “prove” none have gone extinct? Again I am not the one making the claim. I would say that something like a species disappearing is the sort of thing you would expect we all would hear about. That we haven’t is telling.
So how about a little honest discourse David. You asked what observational data isn’t matching theory. I gave you several examples. Show me where I am in error.
> Your side is the one making the claims regarding extreme weather. Therefore your side bears the burden of proving it. It isn’t up to me to disprove it.
There goes hypothesis testing.
“Just how accurately were ocean temperatures recorded in 1850??? I would love to see the data.”
You can bet they weren’t pretending to be accurate to the hundredth of a degree, only to be adjusted 100 years later with a global replacement of raw data multiplied by some unexplained factor –e.g., corrected for the effect of taking the temperatures at different times of day such as when clocks were changed in places where daylight savings time was observed.
No one says 1850 SSTs were that accurate. Look at the data, for Christ’s sake, at least once in your life. Just once.
“In addition, we can evaluate climate over longer periods of observation. For example, in 2013, the global temperature was about 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the long-term average for the 20th century, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.”
You completely ignored the question. I’m not surprised.
Unfortunately, the convinced model-makers of climatism who have been beating the drums are so dedicated to the concept of an average global temperature that they no longer even care if their models are tested and fail in every possible way: regionally, seasonally, temporally and historically.
You’re still avoiding the question. Much easier to rant, than think.
There is no debate about whether mathematics is necessary in science. Mathematics is useful in helping us understand nature. Understanding climate change is not a matter of instinct. Science is not a matter of how we might feel about something. We can use mathematics to demonstrate why climatism’s fear of humanity and industrial man is really climatism’s detour to helplessness.
David Appell : “Look at the data, for Christ’s sake, at least once in your life. Just once.”
LOL!
2014 warmest year on record.
Please don’t choke on your peas the next time you say “global warming stopped in 1998” Morans?
Admit it. Judy doesn’t care if 2014 was the warmest year. She’s getting PAID, and besides her dogs will be dead before things get too toasty.
Well, the basic problem is that the global temperature index is basis on historically sparse data that mixes sea surface and land air temperatures (two different measurement). If we had Argos data and measurements from 20 feet deep land probes located in a well distributed manner back to 1880 or earlier the global temperature index would have some sort of value because we would be measuring the temperature of the globe.
Air is a heat exchange medium. Trying to determine if the planet is warming by measuring the air temperature is like trying to determine the temperature of a point in the engine block by measuring coolant temperature at the radiator. Further when the ocean is absorbing heat the air above it is cooler and when it is exhausting heat the air above it is warmer (a contraindication)
Global temperature index is a synthetic construction of dubious practical value.
The actual temperature records for global temperatures indicate a definite pause for at least the last 17 years. Climate change models do not predict this pause and their predictions do not match actual results.
See:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/518630-global-warming-or-not-something-has-to-change/
Climate models don’t do short-term (1-2 decades) predictions. They don’t do predictions at all — they do projections — but to do short-term projections you’d need to know the short-tem future — of ENSOs, PDO, AMO, volcanoes, solar irradiance…. Climate models don’t know those things, and can’t. (But they average out to zero (or are small) over many decades.)
“predictions/projections
How funny, the desperate attempts on the warmist side to somehow wiggle out of the implications of the failing models. If I’d approached you 15 years ago and offered you a bet David that any warming would be insignificant to non-existent, you’d have taken me for a sucker and eagerly reached for your wallet.
“…aiming at..2200”
Sad, that you genuinely believe you know what’s going to happen 200 years from now. The climate debate continues to remind us all of how spectacularly dumb smart people can be.
Pokerguy,
I, of anyone here, cannot comment on levels of intelligence (as I’m candidate for low man on that totem pole). But to follow on David’s question about the trend since Tuesday, I wonder what it will be like tomorrow!
What’s particularly poignant, pokerguy, is you and I feeling sorry for David over this. Sharp as an appleseed in many respects, mushy as babyfood applesauce in some.
The sadness is how easy it is to make fun of one of his core beliefs. I swore I’d get out before the schadenfreude, but where the Hell are the border markings?
=================
“(But they average out to zero (or are small) over many decades.)”
How many decades are enough for this averaging, now there’s the rub!
I would suggest that 100 is a good place to start – if that’s not enough, increase as required.
The pause is 16 days old, long live the pause!
What “failing models?”
What “failing models?”
Why the ones that are off by 0.1%
I wish my checkbook balance was within 0.1%
But I’ll admit I’m not good at arithmetic, but mathematics, I am less than stellar.
Given all the things that climate models ignore,.what processes would modellers suggest we adopt to demonstrate that they are quantitatively right?
> If I’d approached you 15 years ago
Counterfactual betting is illegal in some philosophy departments.
Heh!
“I say predictions, and you say projections, let’s call the whole thing off!”
Wasn’t that a line from a Sinatra song?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. They’ve projected too poorly for policy purposes, as the politicians who’ve depended upon them are finding out.
=====================
I disagree. Climate policy isn’t made for the sake of the next 10-20 years; it’s aiming at 2050 and 2100 and 2200….
Honey, projections are difficult, especially into the future, and the futurer you get, the futiler your projects.
===============
David Appell: I disagree. Climate policy isn’t made for the sake of the next 10-20 years; it’s aiming at 2050 and 2100 and 2200….
Where is the evidence that the model calculations are accurate for 2050, 2100 or 2200? Before the “pause”, it was asserted that the model results would be accurate for 2010, which they were not.
David Appell,
I work in an industry that most people think uses a rather long term planning window. Want to know what that term is? 10 – 20 years out. We tend to be the exception.
Care to provide examples of political entities who craft policy at that time frame, let alone at time frames of 50, 100 & 200 years?
Sorry, but I wouldn’t allow myself to resist and sent only in fun: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/wp-content/themes/tah-main/images/imported/convention/stearns.jpg
“Where is the evidence that the model calculations are accurate for 2050, 2100 or 2200?”
Done here. Who’s next?
ting: all climate policy is crafted for those time frames. All of it.
MRM has it exactly right. When 5-10 year projections proved ridiculously wrong, the alarmists merely stopped projecting short-term and started predicting catastrophe no nearer than 30 years (aka after retirement and grant money had been maximized for ea. individual predictor).
David,
Nice tap dancing to avoid answering the question.
harkin: can you read?
I explained why 10-20 year predictions can’t be made.
Did you understand what I wrote?
ting: How the f can anyone know if a model is correct for years that haven’t happened yet?
Mr. Appel, I am intrigued at your comment about policy being made on century-long bases. Well, amazed, actually. It’s a commonplace that policy windows don’t go past the next election. Can you refer me to a policy-making or influencing body that actually does have a longer window?
@MM: Before the “pause”, it was asserted that the model results would be accurate for 2010, which they were not.
By “2010” do you mean January 2010, July 2010, December 2010, or the average over the whole year?
The World Meteorological Organization defines “climate” at any given time as the global mean surface temperature averaged over a 30-year period. The IPCC implicitly uses the slightly shorter period of 20 years based on their definition of Transient Climate Response.
Do you claim that either the WMO or the IPCC is wrong in claiming that the climate has been climbing steadily for the past half century of climate?
Appell knows what to do today based on projections written by progressive activist scientists written in 1914. Everyone knows eugenics is popular today based on their work a century ago!
Pokerguy, I am a denier in one respect: I deny that Appell has any knowledge of or interest in the climate in 2100 or 2200. I believe he is willing to claim such knowledge or interest only in so far as it leads to policies he wants today and then only certain policies. If the scientific consensus was that the only solution to AGW was nuclear, he’d find s different hobby.
> If the scientific consensus was that the only solution to AGW was nuclear, he’d find another hobby.
Counterfactual sociology has yet to be established.
David Appell: “I explained why 10-20 year predictions can’t be made.
Did you understand what I wrote?”
Yes. and I agree completely, we have ample evidence of that from the abysmal performance of the computer
gamesmodels, don’t we?But you forgot to mention that when you’re dealing with an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, you can’t make mid or long term predictions/projections either.
“Counterfactual sociology has yet to be established.”
It’s not only established, it has a blog: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/
We should audit people’s ability to forecast 100 years away. I’ll even let you call the really bad ones “projections” for consistency’s sake.
I disagree. Climate policy isn’t made for the sake of the next 10-20 years; it’s aiming at 2050 and 2100 and 2200….
In 1900 they projected the depth of manure on the streets of NYC in the year 2000. Guess how that worked out?
Heh, there’s gotta be less than a one in twenty-seven million chance of being right at a hundred years.
Let history be your guide. Oh, that crapshoot.
=================
bob droege wrote:
“The pause is 16 days old, long live the pause!”
Soon it will be three weeks.
Your policies will just be five times more wrong at a century time frame. The pause is no aberration. It is a lesson you are unwilling to learn.
Plait, my plaint.
===========
If you look at the GHCN Meteorological Year (MetAnn), 2010 was the warmest globally, and 2014 was 2nd warmest. But the difference is 0.01°C.
Judith –
Since you’re commenting on what powerful Republicans have to say about climate change:
Chairman of the House subcommittee on environment,Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma):
Since you have testified to Congress at the request of Republicans in the past, and since Jim is in a powerful position, do you feel some sense of obligation towards correcting Jiim’s views?
Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe you could talk to them about uncertainty? You know, the problems of being certain about economic outcomes of doing something about ACO2 emissions?
Just introduce them to Mr. Monster (if he hasn’t just conveniently ducked out of the room as he often does when you’re writing blog posts).
At least when you fact check Ted Cruz tells the truth 16% of the time, nearly the same as the Follow Our Xenophobia channel. Way ahead of Jim Bridenstine.
I hope Judith replies to your (pertinent) questions.
David Appell: “Where is your proof that such a trace gas can’t be a control knob? Hard, quantatative proof.”
Where’s your hard, quantatative proof that it is?
Because a ~2 decade pause in warming despite a ~10% increase in atmospheric CO2 is clear evidence that it probably isn’t.
Or are you a pause denier too?
What’s to correct? The evidence does not exist to claim that co2 all by it’s lonesome has any meaningfuleffect on climate. The delusinal group is those who claim that a trace gas making up just .04% of the atmosphere, and of that .04%, human contribution from burning fossil fuels makes up maybe 3%, is somehow THE control knob for our climate systemd. You somehow think that if we can control co2, we can control climate and never experience any kind of climate change or severe weather again. So, tell me joshie, who are the fools?
Where is your proof that such a trace gas can’t be a control knob? Hard, quantatative proof.
BTW, the average concentration of ozone in the atmosphere is 0.6 ppm — 1/700th the level of CO2.
Do you know what you’d be without this trace gas?
David Appell : “BTW, the average concentration of ozone in the atmosphere is 0.6 ppm — 1/700th the level of CO2.”
Disingenuous – downright mendacious, in fact.
Now you’re making stuff up, that’s naughty.
About 90% of the ozone is concentrated in the ozone layer, about 20 kilometres above the Earth’s surface.
And you know that, don’t you?
catweazle
‘Averaging’ is a very dangerous tool as we can see in everything from ‘average’ global temperatures to ‘average’ sea level rises. The ‘average is rarely what has occurred anywhere
tonyb
It’s still a trace gas in the stratosphere at 2 to 10 ppm and blocks nearly all of the UV B radiation to the benefit of humans, plants and animals.
CO2 isn’t a trace gas if you are considering only the IR absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere.
Heh, ‘rarely’. Perhaps greater than 27 million to one. In fact, surely so. I can demonstrate it. Where’s the abacus?
=============
Barnes
==> “What’s to correct?”
Judith doesn’t listen to people who doubt that ACO2 impacts the climate.
So from her perspective, there’s a correction to be made.
–Since you have testified to Congress at the request of Republicans in the past, and since Jim is in a powerful position, do you feel some sense of obligation towards correcting Jiim’s views?–
There is no evidence that humans have caused global climate change, nor is there evidence that human are likely to have caused much of increase in global temperature in last century.
What one could call a global climate change is the Sahara Desert going from a wetter conditions to drier condition that it is today. There have been various ideas that do blame human activity for this climate change, but the evidence seems to indicate that this change in climate was natural variability in climate rather than something caused by human activity.
One could also point to the dust bowl in the US in 1930’s as example of an minor global climate change. One can make a case that human activity worsen the effect of this natural climate change, but you can’t argue [successfully] that the drought conditions were caused by human activity.
One also point to many decadic changes in regional climates, and these are also a result of natural variability.
Humans using irritation have transform regions- turning deserts into farmable regions- one can assume this climate change, but this is incorrect as one has not actually changed global climate. Likewise urban area can cause rainfall shadow- likewise this only has small regional effect and is not global climate change.
And changes in global climate which result century periods of warming and cooling are not caused by human activity.
So idea of human causing global climates changes is only a idea of what might happen in the future and is not something which has happened in the past- though have changed local conditions. Cut down trees, irritated dry [or desert] regions, built dams, built cities, and etc is not global climate change.
Science suggests that CO2 will tend to warm the climate, all else being equal. Of course, many elements of climate are ignored in that statement. The Devil is in those ignored details.
Which elements of climate are being ignored?
The element that is being ignored is surface tension. Surface tension cannot block radiation but it can block heat from a gas.
Surface tension of the ocean(?). What is your back-of-the-envelope calculation of its effect?
Before anyone can recommend anything, we have to get measurements good enough to use to determine how climate works. So, my recommendation is to set up more measuring systems with the necessary accuracy and precision. After we gathered thorough, good data for 30 or 40 more years, then we can answer your question.
Water feedback is not accounted for accurately. 97% of people who are somewhat associated with climate science agree.
In what way is water not being accounted for correctly? What is your recommendation on how it should be done?
Trying again …
Before anyone can recommend anything, we have to get measurements good enough to use to determine how climate works. So, my recommendation is to set up more measuring systems with the necessary accuracy and precision. After we gathered thorough, good data for 30 or 40 more years, then we can answer your question.
Has ‘the pause’ gone paws up already?
I am truly terrified knowing that Berkeley has shown an increase of .08 C since 1998. Most get what a tie means. Over a decade and all we see is a few hundredths of a degree. Puny by any measure.
picking 1998 as a start date doesn’t seem very sceptical to me.
No it hasn’t.
The pause lives, 16 days and counting.
:-)
damn ,that blows the models out of the water, proves the IPCC is a fraud….
…and Michael Mann is the moral and ethical equivalent of a terrorist.
But that’s just the yearly data, If you go with monthly data,
the pause is 108 days long.
Hey Kim, it’s been cooling since September.
For how long, even kim doesn’t know.
=============================
So, when is the right time to start worrying about the Left’s belief in a fearsome climate tempest in a teapot? After global warming has gone sideways for nearly 2 decades. We do not have to wonder about what mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell would say about the logic of who should bear burden of proof that humanity is cooking the globe, as follows:
current USA TODAY header
“Humans ‘cooking the planet’ scientists warn after hottest year”
complete with woman wiping her sweating brow
saw that and clicked to CE for sanity
I think I’ll start worrying today, IMO the Left is going a bit mad
They’ve got the Fevah!
============
Well, there does seem to be one climate catastrophe in evidence. It apparently causes some kind keyboard-turrets in people named Dave Appell.
Since the climate has statistical noise whose sources are known and understood by scientists, and the taking the noise into account there still is a warming trend, it is a mistake to claim that the trend has stopped.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/
Your claim that Russell’s orbiting teapot is a valid analogy for climate change is what is clearly nonsense. There is a statistically significant current warming trend. The 188 year old theory that atmospheric gases that absorb and emit IR radiation in the atmosphere cause the earths surface to be warmer than it would otherwise be has been verified by a large body of evidence, included observed IR radiation both at the surface of the earth and escaping into the atmosphere. Finally it is certain that humans have caused one of these gases CO2 to increase in atmospheric concentration.
So the evidence for AGW is strong. The question is how big an effect will it be ultimately. There is no such evidence for a teapot orbiting the sun.
Your post is total nonsense. You are clearly a wanker , when it comes to the issue of global warming.
… ad hom attacks from an Al Gore DVD on global warming propaganda techniques?
Taminos post about change points is interesting.
The way I understand p values he has nicely demonstrated that in most data sets there is about a 20% chance that the apparent pause has arisen as a result of random variation and there is no real change point or pause. This fails the statistical bar of less than 1 in 20 likelihood due to randomness we generally apply in medine or elsewhere in statistics to be confident about a finding. It does however imply an 80% percent likelihood that there was a change point not due to chance alone. While this is not convincing it is suggestive. Hasn’t tamino just demonstrated that while the data is noisy it is more likely than not that there was a change point?
Yes, 2014 *won’t* be the warmest year in Cowtan and Way’s record (it will likely be 2nd warmest). Some who’ve touted C&W as a superior dataset aren’t being consistent.
The warmest year has never been determined by C&W, so where is the inconsistency? I’ve never seen a claim by Cowtan or Way claiming their dataset should determine the warmest year.
Ahah, truth from Appell and guess what from JCH.
===========
Sent from my iPhone
>
The truth. The warmest year is determined by the NOAA dataset. All data sets will have a ranking of the warmest year.
Where the kooling, k-hole?
JCH: C&W is a monthly dataset of anomalies, just like GISS, NCDC, HadCRUT4… Why can’t it be used in the same way?
David – C&W could be used, but AFAIK the official ranking is now set by NOAA. Obviously each data set has its own ranking of warmest years. The more agreement, perhaps the more comfort. The scientist at RSS says the thermometer-based datasets are more accurate on the GMT, so they can safely be ignored. They’re practically useless for the GMT.
Oh, NOAA is the OFFICIAL data set. Appeal to Authority much? You are the Climate Goebbels of Climate Etc.
JCH: There are no “official” rankings. There are several groups doing their own analysis of the raw data, and none is the official dataset. (That’s a good thing.)
Sign of endtimes. Appell makes the kind of good sense on this subthread that JCH usually does.
==================
AFAIK the official ranking is now set by NOAA
K is approaching zero
It’s not an appeal to authority; it’s simply a fact. You don’t like facts because you are motivated strictly by politics.
JCH: If it’s a fact, prove it.
This is more like the Appell I first discovered.
As for JCH – I have no idea what’s happened. Perhaps his kid has locked him in the closest and is using his account.
Years ago they tried to present all of the datasets for the warmest year. In some one year would be ranked 4, and in another it might be ranked 5. It was a confusing mess. So for the last few years the NOAA’s rankings are presented 1 through 10, and then there will be a mention of what year is the warmest in the other thermometer years. Wikipedia, for instance, used to show the rankings of several datasets side by side. Now they show one: NOAA. In today’s news articles, almost all of the graphs are supplied by NOAA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/01/16/five-images-that-best-illustrate-earths-record-warmth/
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally
It’s simply the way they do it.
> The warmest year has never been determined by C&W, so where is the inconsistency?
In at least one of the possible worlds counterfactually entertained.
JCH: There is no “official” dataset. It doesn’t even have to be a US dataset. I expect more people on the planet will pay attention to HadCRUT4 than NOAA or GISS.
These are just datasets, by different groups. It’s getting stupid arguing which one is “official.” None of them is, clearly.
2nd warmest. That means that one of the 140 years (or whatever it is) was warmer. Every year has to warmer than the previous one, EVERY YEAR, or else global warming is a hoax-I say so. ME.
Besides, did you forget it was cold in my geographical area in 2014, Hmmm?
So there is no natural variation?
Global warming due to MAN’s activities could be a hoax. It’s entirely possible that the temperature variations we see are all natural.
It would appear that the 2014 ‘quasi-Nino’ has been responsible for maintaining global temperatures at their current high whilst setting a few regional temperature records in the process. CET, for instance, exceeded the previous 2006 record but again, only just, and within the margin of error. What I like to call a quasi-Nino may in fact be a “basin-wide El Nino” which was apparently predicted back in July 2014.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/could-this-years-el-nio-be-like-the-2009-one/article6170122.ece
Whatever the case, NASA/NOAA claiming unreservedly that 2014 was the ‘hottest year on record’ in the middle of an 10 to 18 year pause in global warming is disingenuous, to put it politely.
Surely the near-ENSO mattered — SSTs zoomed up this year — but the Sun is also at a cycle maximum. 2014 TSI was 0.57 W/m2 higher than 2010’s (LASP data). That could account for 0.01 C warmer….
By all accounts, the very pronounced 2nd peak of the current cycle exceeded expectations and only now is turning downwards.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
The warmest oceans on record and the peak solar cycle all are contributing factors that influence global surface temperatures, but underlying all these natural variability factors it must be kept in mind that ultimately we are talking about more net energy being retained by the climate system on a long-term basis, in a variety of forms and locations. The steady rise of anthropogenic GHG’s is matched by the steady accumulation of energy in the system, and this goes back many decades.
R.Gates,
“The steady rise of anthropogenic GHG’s is matched by the steady accumulation of energy in the system, and this goes back many decades.”
For starters, the rise in anthro GHGs has accelerated sharply since the 1950’s, even more so since about 1990, so it’s not really a steady increase over many decades. There is no really accurate way of measuring the energy in the system – which basically comes down to measuring ocean heat content – because of the of the huge uncertainties involved in measuring tiny increases in temperature across the vast expanses of the oceans,from depth of 0 to several hundred meters down. 3000 Argo floats, fully operational only since about 2006, is not going to give us the required accurate OHC profile for the modern era,let alone going back many decades. Indirect measurements involving TOA energy budget calculations also cannot be relied upon with any certainty.
So we cannot say for sure that energy is accumulating in the system and the lack of recent surface warming certainly does not support the contention that it is.
I want to thank Gates and JCH for providing a link to a study a few months ago that showed OHC was warmer during the MWP than during recent decades. A big shout out to Gates and JCH for being alert, although perhaps inadvertently.
Logic fail
‘There is no really accurate way of measuring the energy in the system – which basically comes down to measuring ocean heat content – because of the of the huge uncertainties involved in measuring tiny increases in temperature across the vast expanses of the oceans,from depth of 0 to several hundred meters down.”
1. There is a way of measuring. It’s called sampling.
2. All measurement/sampling approaches come with uncertainty.
3. Uncertainty is large or small in relation to
A) the decision you are making
B) the confidence you want to have.
In the practical world I make decisions every week based on low confidence ( > 50% ) and wide uncertainties. So long as my decisions
beat “chance” I am ahead of the game.
Oh boy.
Measurement vs. estimation?
Steven Mosher
“1. There is a way of measuring. It’s called sampling.
2. All measurement/sampling approaches come with uncertainty.
3. Uncertainty is large or small in relation to
A) the decision you are making
B) the confidence you want to have.
In the practical world I make decisions every week based on low confidence ( > 50% ) and wide uncertainties. So long as my decisions
beat “chance” I am ahead of the game.”
Science fail. The Argo sampling, even assuming that the errors they quote for their data are reasonable (doubtful), is woefully inadequate to construct a global ocean temp profile from 0-2000m. Furthermore, the ‘observed’ Argo trend in OHC 0-700m, with all its considerable uncertainties, is way short of what AGW climate models predicted. Hence the notion that the ‘observed’ global rise in deep ocean temperatures is ‘taking up the slack’ in the OHC rise necessary to keep AGW theory on a par with reality. One problem: explaining how more heat makes its way to the depths without commensurately warming the shallower 0-700m layer above. Simple: enhanced surface mixing has driven the heat downwards. Problem: mean global wind speeds have declined appreciably in the last decade or so.
I would say Judith Curry is a TOTAL joke except that she is letting me write that on here. That only makes her a 97% joke.
Doug, you are very borderline in your comments. Say something constructive, or at least avoid insulting other commenters
“So we cannot say for sure that energy is accumulating in the system.
—–
We can’t say anything “for sure” and be an honest rational skeptic. But we can say many things are far more likely than not, and the steady accumulation of energy in Earth’s climate system is one that we can say is likely going back many decades. Multiple lines of data support the ever accelerating changes going on in not just the climate, but the biosphere, atmosphere, cryopshere, hydrosphere, and even lithosphere. These are all being brought about by Homo sapiens. It’s the Anthropocene, and now the test will be to see how we shift from unintentional causes and effects to intentional management for long-term sustainability.
Rgates.
If you see this please acknowledge at the foot of last weeks ‘week in review’
I have a very good example of an SSW I experienced last week. Well, two actually, but the same one in different countries
tonyb
R.Gates,
“But we can say many things are far more likely than not, and the steady accumulation of energy in Earth’s climate system is one that we can say is likely going back many decades.”
Just how many decades are we talking about? How can you be so sure that it is not a continual (natural) climate forcing operating over this unspecified period, rather than a continual accumulation of energy, presumably due to your anthropogenic greenhouse gases? A climate forcing which has resulted in more energy entering into the atmosphere and upper levels of the oceans over a period stretching from the LIA until present which must certainly account for most or all of the warming pre-1950?
How can you be so sure that post 1950 global warming is predominantly man made? Only by singing from the hymn book of the IPCC.
“It’s the Anthropocene, and now the test will be to see how we shift from unintentional causes and effects to intentional management for long-term sustainability.”
You got me there. When did the Holocene end and the Anthropocene begin? These geological eras tend to sneak up on you don’t they?
ENSO has been on the south side of the zero line for the vast majority of the months leading up to 2014 being the warmest year. The big increase in SST happened elsewhere. Much of it in the PDO region during the cool phase of the PDO. Lol.
JJ wrote:
T”he Argo sampling, even assuming that the errors they quote for their data are reasonable (doubtful), is woefully inadequate to construct a global ocean temp profile from 0-2000m.”
Why?
“Furthermore, the ‘observed’ Argo trend in OHC 0-700m, with all its considerable uncertainties, is way short of what AGW climate models predicted.”
Proof?
Why?
Because 3 or 4000 Argo floats which spend most of their time at depth, then periodically rise to the surface, taking measurements, then sink back down again, seeking to take a representative temp profile over time of the entire world’s oceans from the surface down to 2km, doesn’t sound at all feasible and very probably isn’t. Do you have damning evidence to the contrary?
Proof?
Not sure what level of ‘proof’ you require but do you dispute this graph?
http://i51.tinypic.com/20k62yq.jpg
Jaime wrote:
“Because 3 or 4000 Argo floats which spend most of their time at depth, then periodically rise to the surface, taking measurements, then sink back down again, seeking to take a representative temp profile over time of the entire world’s oceans from the surface down to 2km, doesn’t sound at all feasible and very probably isn’t.”
Why?
Jaime: Your Bob Tisdale graph stops at 2011!
Get out of here until you’re ready to present truthful data.
Per AR5 WG1 Technical Summary, TS.6.1:
• Different global estimates of sub-surface ocean temperatures have
variations at different times and for different periods, suggesting
that sub-decadal variability in the temperature and upper heat
content (0 to to 700 m) is still poorly characterized in the historical
record. {3.2}
• Below ocean depths of 700 m the sampling in space and time is
too sparse to produce annual global ocean temperature and heat
content estimates prior to 2005. {3.2.4}
• Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still
limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global
ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quantification
of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level
rise. {3.2, 3.7, 3.8; Box 3.1}
“Jaime: Your Bob Tisdale graph stops at 2011!
Get out of here until you’re ready to present truthful data.”
Deary me, how terribly remiss of me to present data which the passing of 36 months has rendered a lie. Forgive me and accept the graph updated to 2013. If you have evidence that the 0-700m OHC has accelerated to keep up to speed with the modeled trend in the last 12 months, please do post.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif
Ocean surface approx. 360m sq km. 4000 Argo floats. Mean area of coverage = 90,000 sq km per float, from depths of 0-2km. Each float presumed to be able to measure a representative temperature over time of that entire volume of water. That’s why I find it unfeasible.
Saved you the effort. OHC 0-700m up to Sept 2014. Not a great amount of change since 2013 by the looks. Which means AGW theorists must rely upon demonstrating a huge increase in OHC below 700m and that data is even less reliable.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
Also,to be more precise, nearer 3600 Argo floats, therefore mean coverage 100,000 sq km, but location varies greatly – they are not evenly distributed around the globe. Some areas of the oceans get greater coverage, others even less, or none at all.
How do they combat, er, adjust, for the inevitable clustering?
==============
Statistical infilling I think it’s called.
OMG!!
” A number of scientists are calling for modernizing the ENSO identification system. So I’m not sure how this event might eventually be identified, but for many practical purposes (i.e. weather forecasting), this event is behaving in many ways like an El Nino”
But El Nino 3.4 has become a fixture in the armchair climate scientist lexicon. How will all the internet experts adjust?!
Oh, the Humanity.
The link to the Roz Pidcock article doesn’t work.
Steve Mosher says the data behind the PDF analysis should be up shortly when the rest of the stations report in.
I wonder why Capitol Weather Gang edited some comments for length, if they’re going to be published on a website ?
Interesting comment from David Karoly that 1911 was a record cold year globally, since that was well inside the ‘post-industrial’ period.
No interesting. Research why. Judy might even tell you the truth.
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com.
Pingback: ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that * The New World
Of course I’ve been talking about the high probability of 2014 being the warmest year on instrument record for many months, and am not surprised to see it officially announced. Despite all the rhetoric about this from both sides, the perspective on this should be one of a long-term perspective and how 2014 fits into that.
2003-2014 was the warmest decade on record (very significant)
2010-2014 was the warmest five year period on record (less significant)
2014 was the warmest year on record (least significant)
I take the completely opposite view of Judith, and think it more likely than not that the next decade 2015-2024 will be warmer still, and that there will be several years in that period that will be new warmest years on record.
Of course the 10 year period would be 2005-2014, but also, it is exceptionally significant that the 20 year period 1995-2014 is the warmest 20 year period in likely at many centuries. The fact that the global climate models cannot track the exact path of the inevitable long-term rise in temperatures is such a hollow argument as natural variability is the cause of these short-term wiggles while the long-term rise is almost certainly (never 100% certain) caused by anthropogenic forcing.
“while the long-term rise is almost certainly (never 100% certain) caused by anthropogenic forcing.” Ever since the Little Ice Age?
Hi R Gates
So it’s ‘exceptionally significant’ this period from 1995-2014. However the very same would very likely say the pause which is arguably of similar period is not at all significant. Please provide your proof of these seemingly dubious double standards or is it just a ‘short term wiggle’ as you describe.
And what is the magnitude of this “long term rise” ?
How do you know that the raise in temps isn’t the upward “leg” of such a “short term wiggle”, but a “long term rise”.
How do you tell between the “short term wiggle” and the “long term rise” ?
When temps rise – it’s “long term, anthropogenic forcing”, when they stall it’s “short term wiggle” – correct?
Shhh! Gatesy is about to show us his chart showing CO2, temperature, and water vapor increasing in lockstep to levels higher than EVAH seen before.
Hi Don Monfort
Like the ones that are conveniently truncated at year 2000 no doubt?
We already knew that they were going to announce it.. they announced it prior to the Lima shin dig… So it would have been a big surprise if they
had not backed that up.
Interestingly
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PBpOUD5X
“Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right
Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all ”
I liked JoNova’s comment (on her site)
“Does that mean 97% of climate experts are 62% sure they are wrong?”
Cheers
Jim
Thanks for those enlightening numbers.
Give us some enlightening numbers on the record high water vapor, davey. Clowns.
R.Gates,
Isn’t this the crux of the matter: “I take the completely opposite view of Judith, and think it more likely than not that the next decade 2015-2024 will be warmer still, and that there will be several years in that period that will be new warmest years on record.” More than likely? Can you quantify? New records? Can you quantify? Would you be more “right” if the 2014 trend indicator remains for the next decade? Would she? Who’d win that bet?
Didn’t Dr. Curry say she expects the pause to continue but would not bet much money on it?
If the scale from low to high is a year to a decade and it’s expanded outward for a longer term showing a “continuation” of a warming trend over a much long time frame (pre industrial from LIA) would be of even greater significance? Why would a prudent observer NOT need to rely more on the natural variability than the “theory” of CO2 (GHG’s) being something requiring substantial financial investment to address?
Not intending to put words in Dr. Curry’s mouth, but by not betting a lot of money on the pause continuing, would one not expect her to also not bet a ton of money to try to “fix” it based on our level of knowledge today? I will put the words in my mouth, however. (My impression is she’d be willing to bet maybe just a little bit :)
Danny: There have been pauses before. There will be pauses again — though less likely as GHG-forcing gets higher and higher.
Risbey and colleagues found five historical periods where the 15-year intervals saw negative trends and/or trends near the bottom of the range of climate model calculations: periods centered on 1890, 1905, 1945, 1970, and 2005.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html
There has been cooling before and there will be cooling again.
Jim2,
I don’t doubt that. It is, as it ever was?
Indeed, if I understand R. Gates “cooling” right now is “masking” the warming that’s actually going on. I, for one, have no idea. It’s why I’m here, there, and everywhere………..
Danny,
All great questions. The term I use, very specifically is “more likely than not” that 2015-2024 will be warmer than 2005-2014. How much more likely gets way too far away from what any model could tell us. For example, a few big Pinatubo sized volcanoes going off in the period of 2015-2024 would affect temperatures greatly. Volcanic activity of course falls into the category of forcings that can’t be predicted or accounted for in advance by global climate models.
While I am not a betting man, if someone forced me to bet on warming versus cooling versus “flat” over the next decade, I’d put my bet on warming, meaning that the decadal average of 2015-2024 will be the warmest on instrument record. The forcing from anthropogenic activity is the long-term nudge to temperatures continuing to go higher until such time as humans reduce their carbon emissions or commit to serious geoengineering efforts.
R. Gates,
As a (bit) of a betting man, I’d take the same bet as yours. But it would be for differing reasons (as it’s been warming for a long time). But if the bet was between .1C vs. say 1C I’d take the lower bet for more money and the higher for less.
Further, just for fun, I’d bet we’ll start to gain more understanding in the same time frame allowing me to make a different bet at that time. I prefer blackjack vs. roulette. :)
RGates has been clear for awhile. Basically, croupier here, he bets that the sun isn’t doing something unusual for our experience, AND that the natural oscillating of the oceanic cooling/warming phases will return to baseline this decade. A fool and his money are soon parted, but I see RGates puts not out his money.
Still, fooled about the catastrophic effect of AnthroCO2.
============
kim wrote:
“Basically, croupier here, he bets that the sun isn’t doing something unusual for our experience….”
What is the evidence the Sun is doing something “unusual?”
Over the last years or so it’s average irradiance has been on a slight downward trend. The TSI at this solar max is the lowest for a solar max in at least 35 years….
“…he bets that the sun isn’t doing something unusual for our experience.”
_______
I find the current sleepy sun behavior extremely interesting, and highly suspect that the both the Maunder and Dalton minimum of solar activity played a role in those cool periods as many have speculated. But in taking a “sum of all forcings” approach, I don’t see even a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity and related negative forcing overcoming the net positive forcings we are getting from the rising GH gas concentrations.
R. Gates: While I am not a betting man, if someone forced me to bet on warming versus cooling versus “flat” over the next decade, I’d put my bet on warming, meaning that the decadal average of 2015-2024 will be the warmest on instrument record.
Want to be a tiny bit more quantitative? What fraction of your annual income would you bet, and at what odds? Do you have a range for “flat”, or must the estimated change be 0.00000?
Policy-wise, the “developed” nations (excluding Brazil and China) are being asked to bet a few trillion dollars, with no counter from the “undeveloped” nations.
RGates, yes, I understand your position. I give lesser magnitude to the effect of AnthroCO2 than do you. Remember that the higher the sensitivity, the colder we would now be without man’s pusillanimous input.
=================
“Remember that the higher the sensitivity, the colder we would now be without man’s pusillanimous input.”
____
Please explain your logic to me. My perspective is exactly the opposite based on the multiple kinds of negative forcing that have been present over the hiatus period. If you take the “sum of all forcings” approach, and stack up GH gas forcing (including the increases in methane and N2O) over the hiatus, versus the potential negative forcings (increased aerosols, sleepy sun, negative IPO), it would seem that GH gas forcing is holding it’s own extremely well, meaning that the sensitivity of the climate is high to this forcing, otherwise the negative forcings would have brought us more cooling. Sensitivity would have to be high to changes in GH gas forcing or they could not so effectively counter the negative forcings present. Following this logic out, when these negative forcings, through natural variability “turn around” or lessen, we could get a period of rapid surface warming, perhaps even more intense than the 1990’s:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/
RGates pretends to know the forcings involved. Please, R.
And consider the attribution, sensitivity and temperature without man argument again. I thought you’d understand it before, and claimed it wouldn’t be much colder, which, of course is an argument for low sensitivity.
Thinking cap, RG.
===========
jim2 wrote:
“There has been cooling before and there will be cooling again.”
Not in your lifetime.
David Appell,
15 year pauses? Guess again: Try 45+ years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1983/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1936/to:1983/trend
It would have been even longer without all those sneaky adjustments.
SGW: You data stops at 1983. What happened in the next 31 years, and why did you leave them out?
Honestly any ten year old could look at the graphs of the temperature record and see the absurdity of claiming there is a pause. Any ten year old could identify that in about 3 seconds. But adults, ADULTS are pretending not to see that.
Doug,
Not sure if this was directed to me, but if one considers IPCC to be “adults” then:”In a presentation to the American Physical Society, William (Bill) Collins of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and lead author of the modeling Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR5 said “Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 20 years are vanishingly small”
Would “hiatus” be a preferred term?
Oort Minimum
The sun is most likely at it’s 1000 yr cycle (970). Not nearing a Maunder minimum nor a Dalton minimum (200 yr cycle) but rather nearing an Oort minimum. If this is true another maximum would follow in 50 or 100 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png
See Kern et al for solar cycles (find pdf on google)
Strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles on a late Miocene lake system revealed by biotic and abiotic proxies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617729/
Chart of cycles from Kern paper:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NuOJUXIC050/U9A9WuN2thl/AAAAAAAAAUg/o2nWMaYMBlY/s1600/KernMioHolo.png
> If someone forced me to bet on warming versus cooling versus “flat” over the next decade
Counterfactuals extortionists will be prosecuted.
Gates, for what time period counting backwards from 2014 were the data you’re quoting acquired using the exact same measurements from the exact same stations sampled the same number of times at the same time of day?
Oh, and Gates, for how many years prior to the periods your reference were the data collected in the same way? You know, the periods you claim were all cooler. Were they measured in the same way?
But, as we know, these temperaturedata are carefully selected by NOAA/NASA to keep the global warming swindle going.
The MSM will jump on this and hype it as really big news. No one is interested in small news – it doesn’t sell. Fortunately, only the true believers will care, everyone else will be more concerned with the more urgent matters of everyday life, like paying their taxes that fund all this stuff. Tax time! How do you like it?
How many press releases or articles will actually cite the hundredths of a degree that the increase is over previous records. I bet not many. They would risk being laughed at.
But given the plateau we are on, very likely even with a relatively flat trend, there will be record warm years in the years ahead. Any records, even 0.01 C every 10 years, will be milked for all its worth.
Part of the answer: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2014-the-worlds-hottest-year-record
Didn’t see a mention of the 38th for the US.
The unfortunate reality is that it’s not just the msm, it’s also the gollywood fools and fake media outlets like jon stewart and others, who shape much of the thinking, what little there is, of far too many.
True.
I suppose that mental mast….bation concerning warmest year is inevitable given the unceasing pursuit of the progressive green mafia’s agenda.
Why is it so difficult for the media to understand the point that what really matters is the lack of coherence between model projections and climate reality? By itself, global temperature anomaly means nothing.
I am glad to have a breath of fresh air and someone that seems able to think for themselves (Ted Cruz) overseeing NASA, NOAA etal. Hopefully he will read the recently published “Climate Change – The Facts” and Rud’s “Blowing Smoke”. I’d rather have Cruz focused on climate and energy policy than on social issues.
One of the risks that seldom gets mentioned (AFAIK) is that increasing the GHG content to a point not seen in millions of years might actually change how the whole “El Niño” thing works.
For example, changing the extent of the “greenhouse effect” in the upper atmosphere over the Andean Cordillera or the Himalayan/Tibetan plateau complex might change how regional pressure zones interact with the Pacific, especially the Equatorial Westerlies which, IIRC, usually don’t reach the surface but sometimes do during El Niño events.
Assuming, of course, that CO2 levels really are unprecedented. Which needs a thorough evaluation of Salby’s (etc.) claims to determine whether we’re all starting at shadows.
AK wrote:
“One of the risks that seldom gets mentioned (AFAIK) is that increasing the GHG content to a point not seen in millions of years might actually change how the whole “El Niño” thing works.”
In fact, this was talked about on today’s NOAA/NASA media teleconference. And there have been lots of papers about it.
I can’t find a link to this teleconference, at least now that it’s over. And the subject certainly hasn’t been discussed here, IIRC. Seems like a much more important issue than a couple degrees change in average temp in 2100, especially when most of it is northern hemisphere continental winter.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/advisories/011415-advisory-2014-global-climatehighlights.html
They said the audio recording wouldn’t be up for a couple of hours.
Thanks.
Judith wrote;
‘3. For the sea, 2014 was the warmest year on record since 1850.’
I have had this discussion with the met office many times. There is no such thing as a global SST record from 1850. The number of measurements gathered were tiny and the methodology in many cases was unscientific and those records that were gathered were from a tiny portion of the ocean through which the trade routes passed..
Richard (see week in review( rightly refused to calculate historic ph measurements of the ocean due to the small number of readings and their highly concentrated coverage. The met office ought to do the same.
Perhaps a global record of sorts can be said to have commenced in the 1950’s. Before that it was very patchy and back to 1850 spotty would be a better word to use.
tonyb
I think Tony is taking the right approach. If you don’t believe the computer-code-constructed global temperature data sets, you need to highlight the weaknesses or flaws in the methodology or code. Just bad mouthing it because you don’t like the result counts for very little, if any at all.
I agree, for what that’s worth.
When you look at the derivative of the daily change in max temp
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/1871094542-global.png
In general it has not changed much, and it has definitely not changed in a single direction. Min temp on the other hand has.
Going back to your spotty measurements comment, maybe a lot of what we’re seeing in the surface record is an increase in the coverage of the planet, but not really an increase in temps.
I’m starting to think the planet has about the same amount of energy (based on the fairly constant max temp derivative) swirling around (from the various sloshy movements of the oceans), and there are times when big masses of air get heated by some of those warm pools in the ocean, and downwind of this, are all of those pesky land based thermometers. All surface warming has to be is a change in wind direction, just some of the planets store of heat moving around on it’s way to being radiated into space (because that’s where it all ends up).
If this is true, the derivative of max temps will dither around zero, and what we’ve caused the pause will continue, as it could be the normal state, we just noticed more of the sloshy stuff.
“maybe a lot of what we’re seeing in the surface record is an increase in the coverage of the planet, but not really an increase in temps.”
Don’t you think scientists asked themselves that question about two hours after they started the first surface temperature project, and constructed a methodology to avoid it? (By calculating the average of all stations in a grid box, then averaging the values for each grid box?)
David Appell (@davidappell) commented
I’d be more impressed if more of the 1×1 grids of the planet actually had a thermometer measure it once period, let alone twice a day.
When say 80% of the planet has never been measured, not once, just how well sampled do you really think it has been measured?
“I’d be more impressed if more of the 1×1 grids of the planet actually had a thermometer measure it once period, let alone twice a day.”
Who wouldn’t? But you don’t always get what you want…. Budgets get cut, stations fail, people aren’t disciplined to read the thermometer every day at 6 am & 6 pm.
In climate science, you rarely get the data you want, you have to use the data you can get.
PS: Satellites measure the lower troposphere every day+
David Appell (@davidappell) commented
Then you can’t claim to know what the temp was! You can recite a value, but you don’t know what the real value was, and you never will, and with most of the planet not measured your value is a guess, sure it’s the best guess money can buy, but a guess.
And when did the first satellite accurately measure the surface temp?
“Then you can’t claim to know what the temp was! You can recite a value, but you don’t know what the real value was,”
Yeah. So what? These people try to make their data model as good as they can, as close to reality as they think they can get.
micro wrote:
“And when did the first satellite accurately measure the surface temp?”
Satellites don’t measure surface temperatures, they measure atmospheric temperatures.
David,
“These people try to make their data model as good as they can, as close to reality as they think they can get”
I have never believed otherwise. Nor am I against spending money on improving data collection. But that doesn’t change the simple fact that being as “close to reality as they think they can get” is not the same as being close to reality. And that’s the rub for some of us. Exactly what is the basis for confidence in the models when they only “might” represent the best we can do, and do not appear to be even close to being a good approximation of reality?
timg56 wrote:
“I have never believed otherwise. Nor am I against spending money on improving data collection. But that doesn’t change the simple fact that being as “close to reality as they think they can get” is not the same as being close to reality. And that’s the rub for some of us.”
Then please explain what calculation you think scientists OUGHT to be doing, to calculate “reality.” Please be specific.
Appell, you have dick move down pat. I am not getting paid to come up with better models. And doing so is not a prerequisite for pointing out how performance to date leaves much to be desired. That your stock reply is always the same when presented with such fact tells us all we really need to know about you on this topic.
David, how about we use the same data set, same sampling, etc for a long period of time. And we put many sensors in the arctic and Antarctic instead of just a few. And we use the same sensors everywhere. And we use integrating detectors versus min max. Shall I go on?
It really should not be hard for any reasonable person to realize we dont really have a good measure of the global mean temperature.
Hi Tony,
In a literal sense, if no other, there is a global SST record from 1850. It’s called HadSST3. I hope we can agree on that (particularly with the rapidly approaching caveat). The uncertainties have been estimated too. Where we differ (you and I) is that you think the uncertainties are so large as to render the effort useless and I don’t. You are, of course, welcome to this opinion, but I would like to see a quantitative basis for your statements.
For example, what is a “tiny” number of measurements? What is an “unscientific methodology” What is a “tiny portion of the ocean”? What changed in the 1950s? What is “very patchy”? These are all qualitative statements from which you are drawing (to my mind anyway) quantitative conclusions.
Richard Telford already pointed out in the article I think you are referring to that there were numerous SST measurements even in the 1850s. I’d say there were around 10,000 per year back then. That still doesn’t sound like a lot compared to current data densities of millions of measurements per year so the obvious question is what difference does that make?
In my paper on SST uncertainty, I looked at reducing SST grids from well-sampled periods down to the coverage we had for the nineteenth century. Even using a simple average of available grid boxes, poor coverage had a much smaller effect than I thought it would: one or two tenths of a degree. The Berkeley analysis makes more intelligent use of the coverage, so might be expected to do an even better job.
There’s a copy of my SST uncertainty paper here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html
There’s a lot more in it besides.
Best regards,
John
John
Sorry for the slow reply but I am on an internet line even spottier than 1850 global SSt’s… :)
Richard Telford refused to guess at the ph of the sea too far back as he didn’t have enough measurements and they were too concentrated.
I contacted Noaa after seeing his SST graph and 10000 readings in 1850 might theoretically be true, but their distribution generally comes from very well travelled sea lanes in very specific areas so is hardly global in any meaningful sense of the word. In addition, the highly variable collection methodology can not be ignored as we have discussed before.
Looking at EACH of your small grid cells how many readings do EACH contain per day week, month and year, on a like for like basis using reliable methodology?
That is to say, how similar are they to those taken daily on land at the same time, the same place, the same height using the same thermometer?
I appreciate SST’s don’t change as quickly as do land temperatures but they do still change according to the weather and the depth and who has collected and read them.
In his pre Christmas glow Richard Betts promised to meet up with me next time I used the Met Office library which might be late next week or the following week. I shall ask him if you are around to shake hands as I do think you do a good job, its just the raw material I remain highly sceptical about….
all the best
Tonyb
Hi Tony,
I get the feeling we’ve been over this before and as enjoyable as that is, I’m not sure it’s getting us anywhere. I know you are sceptical about the raw material. I am too. However, the points you raise can and have been studied quantitatively. If we want to get a better handle on these things via these discussions, then I would really value some kind of quantitative analysis from you to back up your qualitative claims.
The 10,000 observations form 1850 is not “theoretically true”, it’s approximately how many observations there are in HadSST3 for that year. The observations are not everywhere, but there are measurements from each of the ocean basins and from them it is possible to extract an estimate of the global temperature. As I mentioned above, we can test this by reducing modern high-coverage data to typical nineteenth century coverage and seeing what kind an error this introduces into the estimated global temperature. The uncertainty so introduced is around 0.1-0.2 degC. I dare say with a better statistical approach, that number could be lowered. If you think that number ought to be higher, you’ll have to explain why.
Each of the 5-degree grid cells in HadSST3 that contains data contains anywhere from 1 to (in some modern periods) several thousand measurements. These aren’t like measurements from land stations because ships and buoys come in all shapes and sizes. However, differences between ships are allowed for in our uncertainty calculation. Typically the difference in bias between two ships has a 2-sigma (ie approximately 95%) uncertainty range of over two degrees. The difference between two single observations from two different ships measuring at the same location would be larger still. As I said, this is accounted for in our uncertainty calculation.
We don’t need perfect uniformity of data collection to make a reasonable estimate of global temperature from the marine data. It would be nice if we had it, but for long stretches of time, we don’t. There is a certain degree of uniformity though. Observations made by ships for particular countries were generally given standard instructions and, in some cases, standard equipment.
Best regards,
John
John Kennedy (@micefearboggis) commented
When I went to see what the 10,000 “observations” (how is that different from an actual measurement?) were, I found this doc http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/ascii/HadSST.3.1.1.0.number_of_observations.zip, and there sure were a lot of -99.99 values indicating no measurement. In the first 6 columns of the first cell, out of 216 cells I counted ~30 had values ~13%.
Okay, call me skeptical too.
Let me ask a question, if the area bounded by the “polar-front” jet stream changes wouldn’t that alone change global average temp? I know there is a large difference in temperatures (and humidity) when Canadian air pushes out tropical air.
That’s very reassuring that in some cases there was standard equipment. Can you tell me which cases?
=======================
If we want to get a better handle on these things via these discussions, then I would really value some kind of quantitative analysis from you to back up your qualitative claims…
He’s politically opposed, so dream on.
JCH
If when you say ‘politically opposed’ you are referring to me I am afraid you must be unaware that I am the President (and only member) of the ‘A plague on all your parties, party’
Its just that having previously examined the historic SST’s in some depth (pun intended) I think this is one of those times when, bearing in mind the paucity of records, how concentrated those we have are in very specific places AND the nature of the methodology, we should be saying that we simply don’t have a good enough handle on this to be able to scientifically conclude that we have a global SST figure back to 1850 that has enough merit to be used as part of a poiicy document.
I have every regard for John Kennedy. He is a terrific scientist. He and I have been this way many times. However, If Richard Telford concludes he can’t calculate historic ph levels of the ocean until x date, perhaps we ought to be as objective, bearing in mind the nature of the raw material we have available.
As I am on holiday with a very spotty internet connection I cant go into depth on this subject at this stage. Perhaps if John will buy me a coffee next time I am at the Met Office I might take him up on his suggestion, although I have got a lot of other projects queued up before another examination of SSt’s.
tonyb
John Kennedy, “Where we differ (you and I) is that you think the uncertainties are so large as to render the effort useless and I don’t. ”
I wouldn’t say it is useless. There are a few issues though that are interesting.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bQfM16vJULw/VL_Blulr45I/AAAAAAAAMNs/diVESqfwx5w/s1600/comparision%2Bof%2Btropical%2B30S-30N%2BSST%2Bproducts.png
I was looking at a tropical SST reconstruction that had a good correlation with HADSST (30S-30N), the 2005 version, that doesn’t have all that great a correlation with the newer version(s).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LxzkixmXoGs/VL-1JWQ-7iI/AAAAAAAAMNc/Geak7wMp62s/s1600/Wilson%2Bcorals%2B30-30%2Bwith%2Bersstv4%2Band%2Bhadsst.png
When paleo has calibration periods that get re-calibrated it can get a bit confusing.
Hi Mi Cro,
“When I went to see what the 10,000 “observations” (how is that different from an actual measurement?) were, I found this doc http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/ascii/HadSST.3.1.1.0.number_of_observations.zip, and there sure were a lot of -99.99 values indicating no measurement. In the first 6 columns of the first cell, out of 216 cells I counted ~30 had values ~13%.”
Sorry, for using jargon. I’m using observation as a synonym of measurement – it’s quite common to refer to the sailors and scientists who took measurements as marine observers and the fleet of ships recruited to make measurements is the Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) fleet.
For January 1850, there are around 2000 measurements used in HadSST3 and a similar number for each month in 1850. The total for the year is a little over 25,000. These aren’t evenly spread over the whole global, but, as I said, there are measurements from the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean basins.
“Let me ask a question, if the area bounded by the “polar-front” jet stream changes wouldn’t that alone change global average temp? I know there is a large difference in temperatures (and humidity) when Canadian air pushes out tropical air.”
Circulation changes can change global temperature, sure. However, if you get northerly flow in one area, you tend to get southerly flow in other areas, which can compensate to a degree. There are interesting effects like the ColdOceanWarmLand (COWL) effect. e.g.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-4.html
Best regards,
John
“Mostly flat”? (re: global temperature change)
What is that in numbers?
Looks like something less than zero:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend:2001
Lucifer: Why do you prefer RSS’s data for the lower troposphere over UAH’s data?
There are vagaries of analysis, but RAOB,UAH, and RSS are all reasonably close:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot.png
L: No, RSS and UAH are not “close.” Learn how to calculate for yourself.
That’s what I have done in the image.
All three show a maximum trend over the Arctic, cooling in the stratosphere, and no indication whatsoever of the Hot Spot.
They are not identical ( they shouldn’t be because RSS and UAH even use different satellites ) but they are all close.
The hot spot would be part of a negative lapse-rate feedback. Warming is worse than we thought if we don’t see it as strongly as expected. Its presence would help radiate excess heat to space. Careful what you wish for.
Jim D, I am not wishing for anything but simply assessing the data.
The Hot Spot is absent.
Since it is supposed to occur from any source of warming, another possibility is that perhaps the water vapor feedback is not occurring.
The hot spot is supposed to occur for tropical ocean surface warming. This is the slowest part of the global warming currently with much more obvious warming over the continents and in the Arctic.
JimD, “The hot spot would be part of a negative lapse-rate feedback. Warming is worse than we thought if we don’t see it as strongly as expected. Its presence would help radiate excess heat to space. Careful what you wish for.”
You do have a knack for the dramatic. The TTHS would be a part of the negative lapse rate if the models were right. We aren’t not seeing a TTHP because the models are wrong in a number of respects.
The first is the models tend to miss the absolute surface temperature by a mile with respect to latent energy and don’t get pole ward advection even close. They are stuck in an up/down mode.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NoYDHPPFMZQ/VLptC6_FcOI/AAAAAAAAMK0/aR07X-t-8UM/s1600/tropical%2BSSE%2Bversus%2BAntiArctic%2BE.png
That compares the estimated Tropical SST energy via S-B with the Antarctic energy. Energy increase in the tropics is advected poleward. There isn’t any hanging out in the tropical troposphere waiting on CO2s permission.
The models just don’t get the dynamics right and y’all are running out of excuses.
captd, I don’t know why the models overestimated the tropical ocean heating, but they also underestimated the Arctic sea-ice loss and its positive feedback, so the response is there, but in different places. As I said, there is no comfort in the lack of a hot spot when you look at what the real world is doing instead. The model world may have been a better one regarding the prospects for sea level.
A ventilating comment, Cap’n, refreshing; it cools and clears the air.
===================
JimD, ” As I said, there is no comfort in the lack of a hot spot when you look at what the real world is doing instead.”
There is no discomfort either. What you do is try to figure the problem out. Your inability to figure it out is not a reason for me to freak out.
If you back off your AGW OMG perspective you look at the data and find out what that indicates. Since it is an energy problem not a temperature anomaly problem, you should blow off 0.04C BS changes in anomaly and look at the energy picture.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-anti-arctic-ala-best.html
Imagine that! Exactly what models should expect. A doubling of CO2 will cause about 3.7 Wm-2 of increased resistance to heat loss. Where would that increase in energy tend to go? To the heat sinks. Pole ward advection increases.
captd, poleward advection increasing may explain why Greenland’s glaciers are melting at accelerating rates. Take your logic further. if you are going to insist on it.
Jim D,
Dr. Strangelove posted this earlier: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
Unless I’m misreading, it indicates that Greenlands glaciers did melt above average 2012/13 but not so much (by wide margin) 2013/14. What I don’t see is how much rebound (if any) between those reporting periods. Thoughts?
Also, can anyone suggest a source for a chart of the extent of ice dating back to pre-industrial (say 1850?) in comparison with temps and CO2? I’m learning about the tools to create these, but this is a tool not yet discovered.
Jimmy can you show us again your chart that shows temperature, CO2, and water vapor increasing in lockstep? Water vapor is CO2’s meaner partner in crime, ain’t it jimmy? CO2 causes more heat, but the real monster is the positive feedback water vapor thug, which increases right along with temperature. So this must have been a record year for water vapor. And the last decade must have been a record decade for water vapor. So show us the freaking chart that shows water vapor steadily increasing, right along with temperature and CO2. Isn’t that the theory you are trying to cram down our throats, jimmy. Show us the freaking chart.
> Take your logic further. if you are going to insist on it.
All the way down the vortex of inconsistencies, JimD?
JimD, “captd, poleward advection increasing may explain why Greenland’s glaciers are melting at accelerating rates. Take your logic further. if you are going to insist on it.”
We have already been over that Jimbo. Glacier accumulation tends to be directly related to SST. Moisture would also be advected pole ward increasing precipitation, snow fall. Most of the minions tend to miss that point. The biggest thing that causes top melt is reduced albedo.
JimD, Gates just posted an example of some pole ward advection.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Bu51L37fTvE/VLqPqt5ooPI/AAAAAAAAMLM/jF22gO4qzkY/w742-h495-no/polar%2Bvortex%2Bbear.png
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-73.10,79.04,461
Don M, it is worse than we thought. If the oceans insist on not warming, the land and Arctic have to make up for it with more warming in a smaller area, and that is the path we seem to be on. The land is warming twice as fast as the ocean at a rate near 4 C per doubling since 1980.
captd, in case you haven’t noticed, the glaciers are not accumulating and the Arctic sea ice has been a victim of your poleward heat transport.
It is the land that is warming. Just the data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/mean:240/mean:120
JimD, Box and others have been doing a lot of work studying glaciers which have very interesting dynamics. The Greenland mass balance you guys like to post most often ends in 2012.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.3-tedesco.jpg
That is a whopping 12 years of data.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/alley2000.gif
On a planetary time scale, things look different.
You are pathetic, jimmy. Where is the freaking chart? We know the land is warming, but why? Does it have anything to do with the non-existent positive water vapor feedback? Your whole catastrophic theory rests on the positive water vapor feedback amplification BS. Your theory is bust. You can’t even discuss the water vapor. Ask you anything else, or challenge you on anything else and you clowns got papers and charts up the wazoo at your fingertips. But water vapor is like a cross in the face of a freaking vampire. You fly away. Bye, bye jimmy dee.
“Glacier accumulation tends to be directly related to SST. Moisture would also be advected pole ward increasing precipitation, snow fall. Most of the minions tend to miss that point. The biggest thing that causes top melt is reduced albedo.”
—-
There are many moving pieces with multiple feedbacks, some of which create counter-intuitive results to a system actually gaining energy. Overall though, the system is very likely gaining energy. And the steadily accumulating GH gas concentration is very likely a huge contributing factor. We will get warmer and wetter polar regions, as heat and moisture are advected poleward. Related to glaciers specifically, for them to begin growing, snow would have to survive the summer and new snow to fall on it the next fall and winter. As most of you know, or ought to, summer snow cover has been declining in the NH for many years.
What about the deadly positive water vapor feedback, gatesy? Melting glaciers aren’t going to kill us? Show some guts and tell us about the record high levels of water vapor.
R. Gates, “There are many moving pieces with multiple feedbacks, some of which create counter-intuitive results to a system actually gaining energy.’
Lots of pieces and lots of time scales to consider. Taking short snippets and extrapolating is pretty unimpressive. Better paleo with a little less personal bias would be in order and the NH tree ring circus just don’t cut it.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OvQHzJy8gFU/VLF3XHImAqI/AAAAAAAAMGM/X1vv5Tx0kiI/w689-h411-no/oppo%2Bover%2Bmann.png
Danny Thomas, individual years can do different things, but for climate you have to evaluate it in decadal contexts. It is hard for some to think in those terms and not be distracted by individual years, but that is how to think about climate.
Jim D,
Thank you, I get that. Trends, trends, trends. Then, time frames for perspectives. Hence the follow up question on how to create the chart of ice/CO2/temps dating from around 1850’s to present in an overlay. But Capt. D. showed a great perspective of the 12 year chart of the Greenland ice change vs. historic trends did he not? Learning lots so appreciate your continued feedback. Makes me wonder if our next “shift” might lead to an event such as the “Younger Dryas” instead of frying? Any thoughts?
Don M, water vapor is part of the equilibrium response because, yes, eventually the ocean has to catch up and the water vapor will rise with it when it does, but so far it is lagging behind. This is a transient climate, not an equilibrium one that we are living in. It has some unusual properties like a hotter land than water area.
That’s just handwaving BS, jimmy dee. Show me the charts and the papers that support your bogus assertions. Show me how there is a correlation between CO2 and water vapor, with a lag. Why would anybody take you seriously, jimmy. You have all kinds of charts and papers. Show me the one I am asking for.
Don M, how much of IPCC AR5 WG1 have you actually looked at? Which papers in there don’t you like? There’s whole chapters summarizing observations.
You are going to wave me off to the freaking IPCC, jimmy. I am asking you. It’s not like you to dodge questions or to fail to produce some chart or paper. Why are you just stuttering and stammering about the water vapor? Are you aware that a 10% decrease in water vapor in the stratosphere since 2000, is one of the dozens of excuses being put forward by the basic physics settle-science crowd, for the pause…that is killing the cause? Did CO2 or temperature decrease since 2000? Show some guts, jimmy.
Don M, is this the plot you want?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/SSMI-vapor-thru-Jun14.png
Do you have a source for that water vapor chart or did you make it up?
OMG! Can that be right, jimmy dee. Superimpose it on your chart of CO2 and temperature.
Danny Thomas, it is very hard to get sea ice extent before the satellite era. When people publish this, the “skeptics” usually complain that they didn’t do it right but have yet to come up with an alternative. Anyway, I will show you one based on paleo proxies.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg
Jim D,
Thanks for that and your continued patience. Apologies, but I was asking more about the N.H. land areas. The arctic I was able to find, but it’s the land that I’ve been unsuccessful locating as that’s what’s more likely to impact sea levels.
This: http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg (I’m not familiar w/John Englander)
Makes the CO2 conversation less worrisome and natural viability a seemingly stronger case. A missing link for me, is land ice.
jim2, my source was a Google search, but it came from Roy Spencer. I don’t know where he got it from.
Here’s another happy chart showing water vapor changes:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/humid.jpg
Many speak to the greenhouse or LW effects of this increased water vapor, but atmospheric SW absorption also increases, and is significant based on the absorption spectrum of the water molecule.
Also, Jim D, there is no “pleasing” many here on CE. To accept the data you present would imply they change their world view, and of course, such paradigm shifts are not easy.
Don M, I am sure you are capable of Google searches too. Don’t rely on me coming up with plots you will like. If you don’t like Spencer’s plot, say why and then find your own.
JimD, it is almost unbelievable how much Arctic Sea Ice has changed. I guess we are all doomed.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6vjI3HNzsOM/VLqo71WeA0I/AAAAAAAAMLg/wOXcjSYNlQ4/w715-h437-no/subpolar%2BN%2BAtlantic.png
Of course, the creator of that chart might share your flare for the dramatic :)
Can’t you characters find or make a chart that superimposes water vapor over the CO2 and temperature charts? Whenever you are trying to make the point that CO2 causes warming you pull out THE chart. You are struggling here. But I didn’t expect much out you lightweights. I asked the learned genius, Dr. Vaughn Pratt, the same question recently and he said he has not thought about the all-important alleged positive water vapor feed, too much. That’s really believable, and courageous. At least you small fry anonymous blog characters with no reputation at stake, had the guts to give it a try. Pathetic as it was.
That’s a good chart Jim D, one which the Randian pseudoscientists hate. They hate this one even more:
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/1159/306419/kinnard.gif
The world is not threatened by a lack of sea ice, gatesy. It’s the water vapor that’s supposed to kill us. What about the water vapor?
Apparently Donny boy you don’t understand that humidity and water vapor are closely related. Oh well, there is no pleasing you, and there are none so blind as those you will not see.
Rgates
I dealt with that frankly unbelievable ice chart in the extended version of an article originally carried at CE.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
It seems that the Vikings must have been sailing their wooden ships through solid ice judging by how much ice the authors believe was present in their era and how relatively little there was during the LIA.
As I mentioned in the article, according to Phil Jones the warmest two consecutive decades over Greenland remain the 1930’s and 1940’s. We will have to wait until 2021 to see if the current warm spell exceeds it
tonyb
The chart does allow for lower ice areas around 1000 AD, if you look at it. This is consistent with the general Holocene temperature decline in the last millennium inferred from other paleo proxies (consistent with a Milankovitch cycle, by the way).
You are trying to hide the pea, gatesy. I know that humidity and water vapor are closely related. Show us how humidity and water vapor are closely related to THE famous chart showing that CO2 causes the temperature to increase by it’s own radiative effect CAUSING A POSITIVE WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK THAT’S GOING TO KILL US ALL!
You are not up to the task, gatesy. Ask Dr Pratt if he can help you. Ask anybody here. Maybe willy. Where is Dr. Apple, when you need him?
For Donny Boy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UhfiWXTBPWU
Don M, as I showed, we are seeing 2 C per doubling over the last 60 years implying a doubling of the no-feedback effect. You are being too simplistic expecting it to be all water vapor. It isn’t. If you have other possible culprits for this apparent feedback, you can mention them, but the bottom line is that there is an apparent positive feedback just from the data.
Here are a couple more sub polar North Atlantic SST recons by Sicre. Some of the proxies tend to go with the flow so reconstructions around things like gyres get a bit complicated.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BLcJM_d8maw/VLqybSMmUGI/AAAAAAAAML0/n6Qb4t4LMlk/w630-h431-no/subpolar%2BN%2BAtlantic%2Bsicre%2B2011.png
Tropical reconstructions from places like the IPWP tend to be more stable because currents are a bit more predictable. Perhaps if R. Gates has a link to the almost unbelievable sea ice reconstruction data we can do a little due diligence :)
R. Gates and Jimbo D.
I believe y’all might be prime candidates for some property I have to sell complete with bridge here in the Keys :)
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/05/kinnard-arctic-o18-series/
Another big FAIL for Jim D.
Increasing surface temperatures cause more evaporation which by itself increases the water vapor content of the atmosphere. Water vapor at low altitudes has indeed increased with warming, as I have shown here (over the oceans)
Not exactly global, total column water vapor, is it?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/water-vapor-feedback-and-the-global-warming-pause/
And Dr. Spencer continues …
But for many years I have advocated the view that water vapor feedback on the long time scales of climate change might not be positive. Clearly, something is causing the current “pause” in global warming. The three most likely causes of the pause (in my view, not prioritized) are: (1) increasing cloud reflection reducing the solar input, or (2) decreasing water vapor (and maybe cirrus clouds) in the upper troposphere increasing the infrared output, or (3) an increase in ocean mixing sequestering extra heat in the deep ocean. Or, some combination of the three. (I’m not a big fan of other theories, like more aerosol reflection of sunlight from dirty Chinese coal, or problems with the CO2 theory itself. Not that they are necessarily wrong.)
And that efficiency (“of precipitation systems”) is in turn sensitive to some unknown (probably large, IMO) extent to the amount and nature of aerosols involved in cloud formation.
And aerosols are not only determined by such things as rain/drying of soil, but also a variety of biological/ecological effects that, in turn, are sensitive to both climate and pCO2. It’s all extremely complex, and there are many other factors that affect “warming”, including other ways the pCO2 can affect it besides the greenhouse effect.
Skeptics need to be shown that, yes, warmer oceans have more water vapor above them, and Spencer did a good job of showing them that so that they don’t get onto the wrong side of the data in their arguments. He then goes on to say some defensive things to try to make them feel better, but it is a bit handwavey. The damage was done with the graphic.
Is this what you’re referring to as “handwavey”?
AK, is he saying that the stratospheric effect will overcome the tropospheric effect of extra GHGs due to H2O? It is handwavey because he did not say the relative magnitudes of these effects, or even acknowledge the GHG effect in the troposphere.
@Jim D…
That’s not what he said. He compared the upper tropospheric effect with surface level (mixing layer, AFAIK). And he said it’s bigger, which means an “equal” effect in the upper troposphere will overcome an “equal” effect at the surface. Presumably, if the one at the surface is enough larger, it can balance the upper troposphere. How much larger? Depends. Have you read the paper he referenced?
OMG! What about this, jimmy dee?
NOAA says:
“Their findings indicate that as stratospheric water vapor decreased after 2000, it has slowed the rate of the Earth’s warming. Likewise, an increase in water vapor in the 1990s accelerated the rate of warming during that time — by about 30 percent. Scientists cannot yet fully explain the changing patterns of the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere.”
That’s official, jimmy. Before 2000 water vapor feedback accelerated the rate of warming, but after that it slowed down the warming. WTF? CO2 and temperature set records, warmest decade EVAH etc., and what was sold as positive water vapor feedback slowed the rate of the warming? And they said “likewise”. How TF can slowing and accelerating be likewise? Do you realize how ridiculous that is, jimmy? Of course you do. That’s why you want to ignore it.
NOAA went on to officially admit that they don’t really know what’s the deal with water vapor and they are right about that.
Don M, so now you think water vapor is more important than CO2. An extreme view, but go ahead and believe it. It modulates the warming trend due to CO2. As a GHG it has an effect. Increased amounts cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere, just like CO2. No surprise. Part of AGW.
You don’t know what I think, jimmy. But I understand what you are saying. No matter what happens it’s part of the AGW theory. Just add a ‘likewise’ in there somewhere and there is no inconsistency with the theory, no matter how silly and disingenuous you look saying it. The AGW theory is not falsifiable. You have no credibility, jimmy. Give it up.
AK, his graph did not demonstrate decreasing upper tropospheric water vapor. Without actual evidence, this would be handwaving. I have heard that the relative humidity may decrease, but not the water vapor itself.
Jimmy is an expert in handwaving. Jimmy says that he heard something-something about water vapor, as he waves his hands about lazily. Why don’t you help the NOAA geniuses who are being well-fed on our payroll, jimmy:
“Scientists cannot yet fully explain the changing patterns of the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere.”
There’s a gaping hole in their positive water vapor feedback theory and they can’t explain it. Saying that unexplainable changing patterns that don’t fit the theory are freaking ‘likewise’, doesn’t do it.
It seems like water vapor would be the part of climate under the microscope, with space shots bearing satellites intended to measure it and the resulting cloud albedo. But, no, it’s the (it might be, but probably not) the hottest year ever!!!
Jim D | January 17, 2015 at 11:06 am |
captd, poleward advection increasing may explain why Greenland’s glaciers are melting at accelerating rates. Take your logic further. if you are going to insist on it.
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
The melt doesn’t appear to be accelerating – the growth does.
Unless things change, warmers are not going to be happy about the Greenland Ice sheet this year either.
Clarification: I’m not asking what the 10 year temperature trend is. Rather, how large a range you would include under the description ‘mostly flat’. Secondarily, is that range symmetric?
The NASA GISS global land ocean anomaly added to 14.0 gives the following which I had already reduced to 12 month avg. Figures for 2010 2014 2005 2007 are not statistically different from one another. The trend re the hiatus continues as it has since 1999-2001… since 2001 there is no statistical increase in global mean surface + ocean temperature, rsq = 0.0003.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
12 mo avg
2010 14.6575
2014 14.6575
2005 14.65
2007 14.61833333
1998 14.60916667
2002 14.605
2013 14.59416667
2003 14.59166667
2009 14.5875
2006 14.58666667
2012 14.56583333
2011 14.54166667
2001 14.52
2004 14.5075
2008 14.48666667
1997 14.45333333
1995 14.42666667
2000 14.39666667
1999 14.39666667
1990 14.39083333
1991 14.37833333
1988 14.35
1996 14.32166667
1994 14.2825
1987 14.28
1981 14.2775
1983 14.26666667
1989 14.24083333
1980 14.225
1993 14.205
1992 14.18916667
1973 14.1575
1977 14.14416667
1986 14.14166667
1979 14.115
1984 14.115
1982 14.08416667
1963 14.07833333
1985 14.07666667
1969 14.0625
1961 14.05333333
1978 14.045
1962 14.04166667
1970 14.04083333
1959 14.02666667
1972 14.0225
1967 13.99166667
1975 13.98583333
1966 13.95916667
1960 13.95833333
1968 13.9475
1971 13.94083333
1974 13.92833333
1965 13.89833333
1976 13.8775
1964 13.80416667
What is the trend since last Tuesday?
Cooler……….until today when the sun finally came back out! Yeah!
:)
Peak solar and peak CO2 and temp still stalling out. What’s the pilot doing, anyway?
===========
Kim,
That is a great question. Any ideas?
Ignore the millennial at your perennial.
========
Sorry Danny, I guess that was bad form. Just nostalgia for an oldie but goodie of mine.
Modern climate science takes no notice of the millennial scale cycles. It has left completely unexplored the idea that the recovery from the Little Ice Age may be over, or that we are in the Modern Climate Optimum.
Personally, on little evidence and much speculation, I believe the sun is a candidate for millenial scale changes that affect climate.
================
Kim,
I have yet to see you “in bad form”. While we may not (always) agree on content, form has yet to be an issue. :)
I noticed something interesting over at Jo Nova’s. Last solar cycle, at the peak, there were fifty predictions by solar scientists for the next cycle. Now, at the peak of this cycle, there are none for the next cycle.
You don’t have to be very numerate to ponder that one. Fifty Ways to Leave Your Catastrophe.
================
Kim: “Peak solar and peak CO2 and temp still stalling out. What’s the pilot doing, anyway?” A light airplane such as a Cessna 172 will eventually reach its service ceiling. Fire walling the throttle or raising the nose will not make it gain anymore altitude. The air is too thin and the engine lacks sufficient oxygen to develop the desired power. The negative feedbacks now completely offset the control inputs that usually gain altitude. Some of the larger Cessnas have a turbocharger that attacks the most solvable problem, but they too eventual reach their peak altitude, say 20,000 feet. The pilot in your question has found out it’s the airplane designers and nature that determine where the service ceiling is. While control inputs behave in a more or less linear fashion up to near the service ceiling, they eventually don’t do anything more in the upwards direction.
Gorgeous, the metaphor blossoms, and takes flight.
========
Well at least GISS succeeded to push 1998 down enough not to be the warmest year. Both RSS and UAH show 1998 head and shoulders above the rest.
RSS and UAH aren’t measuring the same thing as GISS.
“RSS and UAH aren’t measuring the same thing as GISS.”
Correct.
However, GCMs predict that lower and middle tropospheric temperatures should be warming at a GREATER rate, not at LESSER rate than the surface.
Some excerpts from the Capitol Weather Gang article:
Jonathan Overpeck: “The global warmth of 2014 is just another reminder that the planet is warming and warming fast.”
Jeff Masters & Bob Henson: “Based on the evidence, more than 97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet to the record levels observed in 2014.”
Michael Mann: “The record temperatures *should* put to rest the absurd notion of a “pause” (what I refer to as the “Faux Pause” in Scientific American) in global warming.”
Philip Mote: “Clearly the hiatus is over!”
Kerry Emanuel: “I think it is a mistake to focus on single years, whether they be cold or hot.”
Roger Pielke Sr: “we need to move beyond just assessing global warming, but examine how (and if) key atmospheric and ocean circulations, such as El Nino, La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ect are changing in their intensity, structure and frequency. These are the climate features that determine if a region has drought, floods, and so forth, not a global average surface temperature anomaly.”
Judith Curry: “With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations.”
Pat Michaels: “Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen.”
==============
P.S. “Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer)” — very funny!
Judith Curry wrote:
“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations.”
Over the entire GISTEMP record, 31% of the 120-month trends have been negative. Yet warming has been +0.9 C since 1880.
You might want to be clearer as to how your comment is responsive to Judith’s remark about the discrepancy between models and observations.
Harold: I thought my point was obvious, but it’s this: “warming over the past decade” means nothing for the long-term picture. It’s natural variability. It happens. The long-term trend is up.
The question is why has it warmed, and to the extent it us, can we keep it up?
============
David Appell, “Over the entire GISTEMP record, 31% of the 120-month trends have been negative. Yet warming has been +0.9 C since 1880.”
And with NOAA’s whopping 0.04C per four year that would be another 1 C in 100 years!! All things remaining equal of course. Scary stuff doncha know.
“The long-term trend is up.” I agree with that, I’m sure Judith does too. Fine.
That does not contradict the claim that models diverge from observations. Is it your contention that temperatures would be rising at >0.2 K/decade (as the multi-model mean would have it) were it not for “natural variability”?
Captdallas2 0 wrote:
“And with NOAA’s whopping 0.04C per four year that would be another 1 C in 100 years!!”
It’s ridiculous to use a 4-year difference to project a long-term trend. Try to pay attention.
HaroldW wrote:
“That does not contradict the claim that models diverge from observations. Is it your contention that temperatures would be rising at >0.2 K/decade (as the multi-model mean would have it) were it not for “natural variability”?”
I don’t know. (Where does that number come from anyway, and what are its error bars?) How much cooling is coming from aerosols, especially including the reflectance from clouds? The error bars for that are big. The negative PDO phase?
David Appell: Over the entire GISTEMP record, 31% of the 120-month trends have been negative. Yet warming has been +0.9 C since 1880.
I like that comment. There have been zillions of computations based on extant data, and altogether they predict many different futures. It is hard to believe any of them. I think the most secure forecast for the future is that increased CO2 levels will continue to increase the rate of growth of terrestrial forests and kelp forests. It’s hard to see a policy recommendation coming from that.
David Appell: It’s ridiculous to use a 4-year difference to project a long-term trend.
How true. Yet it has been done many times, as with the death spiral of Arctic Ice after the summer ice disappearance rate had transiently increased.
David Appell’s number
“Yet warming has been +0.9 C since 1880.”
I keep wondering what the debate would be if it were -0.9?
assuming the measurements have meaningful reliability to .0, which I can’t believe
can we make the trend line flat?
I think we may have gone mad
Matthew wrote:
“How true. Yet it has been done many times, as with the death spiral of Arctic Ice after the summer ice disappearance rate had transiently increased.”
You think because Al Gore said something, that makes it science?
Really David?
Try googling “arctic ice death spiral” and note the names
Which scientists said “arctic death spiral?” And in what way do they singularily represent all of climate science?
I think Mark Serreze of NSIDC coined the term
Here’s a nice graphical representation of that spiral:
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201302.png
R Gates – do you realize the year is 2015? Not 2013?
David Appell wrote:
Which scientists said “arctic death spiral?” And in what way do they singularily represent all of climate science?”
The quote from Mark Serreze in 2010 was:
“I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover.”
It’s significant because Serreze is the Director of the NSIDC. Serreze has also made ludicrous statements in the past such as:
“The arctic is screaming”
Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard, has amazingly translated the arctic’s scream:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/the-arctic-is-screaming-it-is-time-we-listened/
curryja wrote:
“I think Mark Serreze of NSIDC coined the term”
Did he? Where?
Does Serreze speak for all of climate science? Or does he speak for himself?
BTW Judith, please answer the question here about whether you will correct the representative from Oklahoma.
Once again, Appell crumbles.
David Appell: Did he? Where?
Does Serreze speak for all of climate science? Or does he speak for himself?
Neither I nor anyone wrote that the repeated exaggerations of importance of short-term trends was representative in any sense. What I wrote, and what can be easily verified for many other short-term trends besides the short-term speed-up of Arctic ice disappearance, is that exaggeration of short-term trends has been very common. The perpetrators of these warnings have mostly been established, respected scientists.
Compare and contrast:
==> “Kerry Emanuel: “I think it is a mistake to focus on single years, whether they be cold or hot.””
and
==> ““With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. ”
What if instead of “single years,” Emanuel had said “single decades?”
I’ve long ago decided he’s completely wrong. Climate is chaotic, so you have to focus on every moment everywhere.
That’s a bit of a tall task.
How about instead, focusing on decision making in the face of uncertainty?
Joshua,
The implication, if I understand your point, is we must decide NOW. The uncertainty conversation comes across to me as a distraction. Doing nothing NOW is a decision. Mitigation NOW is a decision. R. Gates and I are playing (as is Dr. Curry). Where’s YOUR money, how much, and on which square? Then how long before it’s determined if you win/lose?
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/108273638379/climate-is-chaotic-so-you-have-to-focus-on-every
Have been unable to make that link work!
Danny –
==> “Doing nothing NOW is a decision.”
Thank you for that. It can be difficult to get people to admit that, and that advocating for doing nothing NOW is advocacy.
==> “The uncertainty conversation comes across to me as a distraction.”
Interesting. Not sure why you’d say that.
Uuncertainty (certainly, heh) is a complicated topic, but my view is that much of what takes place (over-certainty in the service of identity-confirmation) is, essentially, a distraction. In other words, I think that dealing with uncertainty is the point, and avoiding uncertainty is the distraction.
==> ” Where’s YOUR money, ..”
My money is in creating a framework for addressing the flawed reasoning present on both sides – flawed reasoning that perpetuates identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors and reinforces positions. With that framework, instead, we can cast an eye towards creating a more enlightening discussion that fosters shared interests.
I really don’t know how such discussions can take place without acknowledgement of the inherent and unyielding, underlying uncertainties.
==> “how much, and on which square? Then how long before it’s determined if you win/lose?”
What I’m saying is that win/lose shouldn’t be the point.
Joshua,
Uh. Having a hard time wording due to “uncertainty”. Doing what we do is most certainly a decision, as is making a change. The reason I find the “uncertainty” a distraction is it interjects broader complexities. What I’m trying to say is when I make a decision, say to buy a car, I try to narrow and then make the best choice on the narrowed data.
In this topic, I think we can take the politically less sensitive (low hanging fruit) to mitigate CO2 (and other GHG’s) w/o the need for creating further acrimony. My money would be on: land use, “preparing for yesterdays’ weather” (thanks Mr. Mosher), continued investment in renewable energy technology thinking about the need to replace FF (which are limited) but not to mitigate CO2 (as that’s an uncertainty and I’m trying to narrow), offering incentives to ALL energy companies equally (Exxon’s still here with an impressive track record/Solyandra’s gone {I.E. bad investment}). After all, that money comes from our pockets either way so exclusionary practices is inherently unfair.
But in doing so, I’d wish for a structure than punishes no one. If someone builds a beach house and it gets flooded (sea level rise vs. storm), I don’t care to pay for it. (My insurance goes up, or my tax money does).
In other words, I’d address the “certainties” and (for now) leave the uncertainties out. To me, that’s removing the win/lose where proponents of the AGW side (the “A” being an uncertainty?) seem to more so wish for the win/lose scenario.
Maybe we’re on a similar track? Based on this report and historic data there are “certainties”. Interjecting models (requiring error bars) increases uncertainties and that’s (to me) a less effective decision making process.
Danny –
Thanks for the response. I’ll get back to it later.
> Have been unable to make that link work!
Thanks, Danny. It works from my end. Lots of people report having problems connecting with Tumblr. No idea why.
Matthew wrote:
“I think the most secure forecast for the future is that increased CO2 levels will continue to increase the rate of growth of terrestrial forests and kelp forests. It’s hard to see a policy recommendation coming from that.”
Is the rate of growth of forests and kelp a big problem for humans? Or for them?
No. OTOH, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more of it will cause more warming.
Which will probably cause more growth! Positive feedback!
Nobody believes Judy is that blind.
Oh I see, thank you… so this is why the Mad Hatter told Alice it’s possible to fall up the staircase?
From the article:
…
At the rate things are going, the Earth in the coming decades could cease to be a “safe operating space” for human beings. That is the conclusion of a new paper published Thursday in the journal Science by 18 researchers trying to gauge the breaking points in the natural world.
The paper contends that we have already crossed four “planetary boundaries.” They are the extinction rate; deforestation; the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and the flow of nitrogen and phosphorous (used on land as fertilizer) into the ocean.
“What the science has shown is that human activities — economic growth, technology, consumption — are destabilizing the global environment,” said Will Steffen, who holds appointments at the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center and is the lead author of the paper.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-human-activity-has-pushed-earth-beyond-four-of-nine-planetary-boundaries/2015/01/15/f52b61b6-9b5e-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
From the article:
…
A team of scientists, in a groundbreaking analysis of data from hundreds of sources, has concluded that humans are on the verge of causing unprecedented damage to the oceans and the animals living in them.
“We may be sitting on a precipice of a major extinction event,” said Douglas J. McCauley, an ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an author of the new research, which was published on Thursday in the journal Science.
…
There are clear signs already that humans are harming the oceans to a remarkable degree, the scientists found. Some ocean species are certainly overharvested, but even greater damage results from large-scale habitat loss, which is likely to accelerate as technology advances the human footprint, the scientists reported.
Coral reefs, for example, have declined by 40 percent worldwide, partly as a result of climate-change-driven warming.
Some fish are migrating to cooler waters already. Black sea bass, once most common off the coast of Virginia, have moved up to New Jersey. Less fortunate species may not be able to find new ranges. At the same time, carbon emissions are altering the chemistry of seawater, making it more acidic.
“If you cranked up the aquarium heater and dumped some acid in the water, your fish would not be very happy,” Dr. Pinsky said. “In effect, that’s what we’re doing to the oceans.”
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html
JimD, Point to note. I think that you will find the oceans are alkaline not acidic.
From the article:
…
WASHINGTON (AP) — For the third time in a decade, the globe sizzled to the hottest year on record, federal scientists announced Friday.
Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA calculated that in 2014 the world had its hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping. Earlier, the Japanese weather agency and an independent group out of University of California Berkeley also measured 2014 as the hottest on record.
NOAA said 2014 averaged 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average.
But NASA, which calculates temperatures slightly differently, put 2014’s average temperature at 58.42 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 1.22 degrees above their average, which they calculate for 1951-1980.
…
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150116/us-sci–hottest_year-b64ea00652.html
Pingback: There's a war on for your mind! - Trendingnewsz.com
Gee, I thought surface temps were so 1998. What happened to arguing that the “pause” is irrelevant because surface temps are a terrible proxy for globalclimatewarmingchange?
If you mean, are the oceans still gaining energy below the surface-air-temperature measurement area, yes they are.
Another county heard from.
============
I’m curious at the Land Surface not setting a record whilst the SST did.
“I’m curious at the Land Surface not setting a record whilst the SST did.”
Don’t know. The ocean stores large amounts of heat. It comes through the surface before it goes into the atmo.
Lucifer,
The GISS met station only data has 2014 second warmest, even with 4 months of 2014 were warmest, specifically May, Sep, Oct and Dec.
All dominoes don’t fall every year.
Oh, RGates still bleats about it now and then, following the herd of ignorulates.
=============
But as Tony as so aptly pointed out, ocean data until Argo is sketchy at BEST.
The pre-Argo data is sufficient to hit a bullseye with a fish, and has been for decades.
another misunderstanding
“That is not to say that the tops of the oceans may not be warming, but the data is insufficient to be able to prove it.”
there is no proof in science. There are proofs in logic, math, geometry.
If science we have uncertainty.
That is conclusions subject to assumptions and error.
I can’t prove the sun will come up tommorrow. Chances are really good.
I wouldnt bet on it. But someday someone will win that bet.
If I bet you that 2+2=5 tommorrow, well I wouldnt win that bet. ever.
Well, no, wouldn’t be day if the sun didn’t come up. Gad, moshe, you’re slipping.
===============
A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine.
And a day without sunshine is like night.
> wouldn’t be day if the sun didn’t come up
Assume a twin Sun. No need to imagine it’s perfectly identical, just that he makes your day
The ocean sets a record every year (well, at least the top 2000 m), so there’s nothing notable that needs a press conference. But people live on the surface, so they’re kind of attached to it.
BTW, land is warming faster than the globe as a whole.
Trying that again.
But as Tony as so aptly pointed out, ocean data until Argo is sketchy at BEST.
The pre-Argo data have error bars, just like all data. But even the Argo data for 0-2000 meters shows steady warming year-after-year. (In fact, a 2nd-order polynomial is a slightly better fit to those numbers than a linear fit.)
Pre-ARGO data is both sketchy and short.
“Trying that again.
But as Tony as so aptly pointed out, ocean data until Argo is sketchy at BEST”
Actually not. it’s a far sight better than using CET to talk about temperature
mosh
At least be consistent. You have previously said that CET was a reasonable global proxy and in this you were in agreement with Hubert Lamb, The Met Office, The Dutch Met Office, Mike Hulme and many others
Now, justify to the denizens the concept of a global temperature as applied to SST’s back to 1850. The Challenger expedition of the 1870’s had merit but that was extremely limited in its scope.
Prior to the 1950’s and more specifically in the 19th century, there was no global reach, few readings and those that were available were highly concentrated in a few areas and there were huge inconsistencies in the way that readings were taken, of which only a few came from reversing thermometers.
Would you accept that sort of spotty inconsistent data as acceptable for BEST?
tonyb
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/land-and-ocean/land-and-ocean-summary-small.png
So, Steven, what part of the pre-1900 95% uncertainty is due to to ocean data? Same question for 1900 – 1950.
IIRC, variance, the square of SD, is preferred to a simple error range because variances are additive, so it should be easy for you to produce numbers to defend your assertion.
“So, Steven, what part of the pre-1900 95% uncertainty is due to to ocean data? Same question for 1900 – 1950.”
[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/54srr4.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/6oo6s2.png[/IMG]
http://i61.tinypic.com/6oo6s2.png
http://i61.tinypic.com/54srr4.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/54srr4.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/6oo6s2.jpg
Is ocean uncertainty tighter simply because the range of change of the anomaly is smaller than land?
you’re wrong tony.
The simple fact is this.
with one station, CET, you can estimate the globe. You could estimate the land only, you could estimate the ocean. you could estimate them both.
That estimate will have large error margins. That estimate will have no
spatial variability.
with one ship you can do the same thing. you can IN FACT estimate the global value from that one record. Your error bars will be large. you will miss spatial variability.
There is no such thing as Too few records. unless you are talking about zero records.
The question always is and will forever be. GIVEN what I have what is the best estimate I can make. depending on the number of records this estimate and its accuracy will change.
We can also test this. For example, by comparing the global averages versus the recent data recovery from ships logs.
You fundamentally dont understand estimation. Until you do, read more and comment less.
“with one station…you can estimate the globe”
How’s this for an Analogy: With one Credible Doctor you can validate Climate Science.
Andrew
Mosher
I believe proxy data is often validated by comparing recent instrumental data over the same time period. When this is done with CET there is appearance that it closely follows the global index.
Please comment.
Regards,
Richard
Mosh
Nonsense.
Jim Cripwell rightly used to take you to task about estimates and so did Max Anacker.
Its not good enough to take one record in a year for a 5 degree grid and use that to calculate the temperatures in that grid over the year and interpolate that to adjacent grids. If you think that is either good enough or scientific enough I am afraid we must beg to differ. The paucity and accuracy of many of those SST records is so vague that I sincerely hope BEST would not believe they merit the word ‘global,’ let alone have any sort of accuracy to the levels depicted.
Surely there are times when science should say we simply don’t really know and our best guess is nothing more than that. That is not to say that the tops of the oceans may not be warming, but the data is insufficient to be able to prove it.
As for the deeper oceans I heard Thomas Stocker himself say we did not have the technology to measure it accurately.
Sometimes a little humility and uncertainty is the right response isn’t it?
tonyb
rls wrote:
“I believe proxy data is often validated by comparing recent instrumental data over the same time period. When this is done with CET there is appearance that it closely follows the global index.”
That’s interesting if true. What study(ies) show that?
“I believe proxy data is often validated by comparing recent instrumental data over the same time period. When this is done with CET there is appearance that it closely follows the global index.
Please comment.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20080501073519/tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/central-england-temperature/
if you want an idea of how well the UK correlates with the ROW
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-kingdom-(europe)
“closely follows” is not a technical term. you want to look at the correlation and then you have to specify a time period.
comparative records
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/netherlands
better performers:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/massachusetts
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/ontario
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/qu%C3%A9bec
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/missouri
And the Quebec record is going to be improved with new data recovery that
will push back a ways. Those new records are what we call out of sample.
That is we built the prediction of the region without them. Now we just compare the prediction with the recovered records.
https://agu.confex.com/agu/ja2015/preliminaryview.cgi/Paper34998.html
The same thing can be done with old ship records that are being digitized.
We have a prediction of what they should have been. Then folks find and digitize the records. Then you compare.
This builds your confidence in your prediction. You tell me the temperature in one location and I can predict ( with error) the temperature in another location. Then test that.
As for the deeper oceans I heard Thomas Stocker himself say we did not have the technology to measure it accurately.
Again, this type of unqualified pablum is of no interest to me.
The issue for SST is not the deep ocean.
The unqualified assertion of “not accurate” isn’t at all interesting.
not accuarately enough to do X with Y confidence is the intellectual framework you need to understand.
tony
‘Surely there are times when science should say we simply don’t really know and our best guess is nothing more than that. ”
We NEVER really know. We only have estimates or guesses if you like.
The estimates all come with uncertainty.
every measurement comes with assumptions and uncertainty.
every estimate comes with assumptions and uncertainty.
you take what you have. you do the sums. you report your assumptions
and uncertainty.
Just accept the uncertainty monster.
tony
“Its not good enough to take one record in a year for a 5 degree grid and use that to calculate the temperatures in that grid over the year and interpolate that to adjacent grids.”
Sure it is.
In fact you can test this yourself.
Take the global SST. in 5 degree bins.
For every grid cell, use that grid cell to estimate the surrounding 4.
calculate the error this method would produce.
Then you can do the same thing over time and actually use the structure in the better known data to improve your prediction/infilling.
We do this all the time. I’m doing it today with business data. It’s not rocket science.
You do it too. except you dont do it formally and explicitly
“Jim Cripwell rightly used to take you to task about estimates and so did Max Anacker.”
Don’t mess with Mosher. Especially if you are right.
Andrew wrote:
“How’s this for an Analogy: With one Credible Doctor you can validate Climate Science.”
As an analogy, it’s an extremely poor one.
Don
you gotta love tony
““Jim Cripwell rightly used to take you to task about estimates and so did Max Anacker.”
So far this thread he has appealled to Thomas Stocker ( who conspired with Phil Jones to keep the IPCC free from FOIA). Jim Cripwell.
and Max Anacker.
Nowhere has he actually made an argument. He’s just asserted things.
no math.
no argument.
just appeals to what some other guy said.
cant argue with can you?
glad to see you endorsing the finest arguments.
I think some interesting things to ponder, from just eyeballing these temperature charts. Looks like a lot of warming in the last 30 years and average temperatures significantly higher than at anytime during the modern temperature record. Last ten years warmest ever…blah…blah…blah. So, why no new continental record highs in almost 4 decades?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
It looks like it was significantly colder from 1900-1920 than it was during the time of concern over a new Ice Age, from the 1950s through the 1970s. People after the turn of the century must have been in a panic over a freezing world, or maybe they were a lot tougher in those days. Any help on this, tonyb?
And what happened to the hot 1930s that don’t look on the charts to be any warmer than the cold 1950s-1970s? The folks during the depression were not used to a little warmth, after the frigid previous decades?
Do we need to change the scale of these charts to get a more realistic perspective? Rethink the adjustments, again? What’s the deal?
Heh, in which of those was Tony wrong, moshe?
===========================
Are Stocker and Jones still alive? If so they better be careful. Tony’s appeals to authority can be hazardous for the authority. (I am sure that if our friends Jim and Max are still watching us, they wouldn’t mind me.)
“As an analogy, it’s an extremely poor one.”
OK. How about a group of medics instead of a doctor?
Andrew
I believe that in principle you are right on this, Steven. You go with what you got and try to make the best out of it. I think tony is saying you can’t make any kind of decent purse out of a sow’s ear.
Andrew, if he doesn’t go for that, try a marching band, or a school of sardines.
Don
‘ I think tony is saying you can’t make any kind of decent purse out of a sow’s ear.”
he can say that all he likes. the problem is its un quantified nonsense.
an estimate just is. Its value is determined by what you want to do
and how much confidence you need to do it.
his argument is mere gainsaying
Mosh
Amongst the many surprising things you have said in this thread, there are some that warrant special attention;
‘you gotta love tony
““Jim Cripwell rightly used to take you to task about estimates and so did Max Anacker.”
So far this thread he has appealed to Thomas Stocker ( who conspired with Phil Jones to keep the IPCC free from FOIA). Jim Cripwell.
and Max Anacker.
Nowhere has he actually made an argument. He’s just asserted things.’
When you constantly made references to ‘estimates’ I jokingly included our dear departed friends jim and max, the first of whom was seriously irritated by your changing references to ‘estimates’ and the latter of whom was constantly amused by it. Thomas Stocker is hardly a backstreet practitioner and he had something of interest to say on the lack of knowledge of oceanic heat content at depth which, for a change showed humility and an awareness of the uncertainty monster. Traits that often seem to be missing from the climate debate which reflects a branch of science still in its infancy
You then reference UK temperatures to back up your assertion that CET does not track global temperatures closely, when the UK and CET are two different things AND you have previously agreed that CET is indeed a good (but by no means perfect proxy ) for global.
But best of all is this idea that you can take ONE reading on one SST grid on say July 15th 1860 and from that we can estimate a global record for that day, or for the year for that grid cell. Really? This is what you said;
“with one ship you can do the same thing. you can IN FACT estimate the global value from that one record. Your error bars will be large. you will miss spatial variability.
There is no such thing as Too few records. unless you are talking about zero records.’
You don’t really think that a ONE off single record (which is very close to zero) that may have been taken imperfectly, has any merit in predicting a reliable and accurate global daily or annual temperature (for that grid cell) do you? If so I would really like to see an article on this. Seriously. I must have misunderstood you.
I’d like to see you sell that single record idea to politicians about to be re-elected and to the general public.
tonyb
Don
You astutely said;
‘I believe that in principle you are right on this, Steven. You go with what you got and try to make the best out of it. I think tony is saying you can’t make any kind of decent purse out of a sow’s ear.’
The key question is does the end result of this expensive and endless manufacturing have enough merit to use it to alter the global economic, political and energy status quo?
I say not, as the end result is neither made out of silk, nor is it a purse, nor is it made from a sow. Any resemblance to the desired object is impossible to discern. Is it actually science? Discuss. Or better still lets have on article on it from the purse maker in chief.
tonyb
I was disappointed to see him use the ad hom on Stocker. Surely he knows that that argument fails when the authority is correct.
But you’ve just pointed that out more gracefully than I am able.
==================================
> If you think that is either good enough or scientific enough I am afraid we must beg to differ.
Be very afraid, TonyB, for you’re not the one to decide that question.
Speaking of good enough, here’s something related:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_enough_parent
Willard
thanks for that interesting link. In it there was a reference to a ‘fantasy bond.’ that about sums it up
tonyb
I agree, TonyB, but I’m afraid not for the same reason as you.
Tony,
Don’t tell Steven, but I am more in agreement with your practical stance on this issue, than I am with Mosher’s view from his foliage restricted vantage point in the deep philosophical weeds. You can make a purse out of a sow’s ear, but it won’t be kosher. I gave my wife a very nice purse made out a sow’s ear and she threw it back at me telling me to make myself a pig-ear sammich. She is a Cohen and she was throwing my ghetto upbringing in my face. Culture clash.
Don Monfort | January 17, 2015 at 4:40 pm |
Tony,
Don’t tell Steven, but I am more in agreement with your practical stance on this issue, than I am with Mosher’s view from his foliage restricted vantage point in the deep philosophical weeds.
Mr. Mosher is technical correct and absolutely wrong at the same time.
The historic global temperature is used for policy and planning purposes.
Why changing it is bad is pretty obvious.
If I am building a cabinet or trying to measure lumber for another home project – and every time I move to the next board someone swaps my ruler for a new longer ruler with the same markings – he will get away with it for a while but after I’ve ruined a couple of boards by mismeasurement my patience will run out. On his next pass I am going to club him over the head and tie him up until the project is completed.
I have long since run out of patience with the historic temperature revisionists. It is time to club them over the head and tie them up. It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong.
What you can’t drill into their heads, what they simply don’t understand, is it is better to be consistent than to be right.
Plus – the fact that historic temperatures inevitably get colder and modern temperature get warmer leads to the suspicion that the revisionists aren’t straightening the truth but bending it.
Clive Best on CET since 1650 showing no real evidence
for anthropogenic warming.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6385
The elephant in the room is actually a single-celled organism.
Is joshie on this thread?
I’ll have to ask my wife where she put my microscope.
Next to the bed, Don. Where else is it needed?
Cyanobacteria?
David Appell,
For some reason I didn’t get your note of: January 16, 2015 at 12:41 pm.
Study is paywalled.
Sorry. Not my problem.
David,
Wow. I thought you were trying to make a point to me (& others?) and providing a link to substantiate. Your blood pressure up a bit? Just giving you the feedback.
Yes, I did provide a link the substantiate. It’s up to you to find a copy of the paper somewhere. (Write the authors, if Google doesn’t work.)
David,
I’m sorry sir, but that seems bad form. If one makes a statement, it is not up to the one to whom the statement is made to provide the evidence.
It would be no different than if I said there is global cooling and it’s up to you to prove. I’ll look forward to your response and substantiation should you chose to respond on a different sub thread.
This is likely to be the hottest year under davey’s collar. Dude is getting overwrought and nasty.
Actually, Don, I think someone’s given him lessons, or a lecture, about manners. Lately he’s been nicer; this example is just the elitism glinting through.
=============
This is clearly a heated discussion – the hottest ever. You can look it up!
Danny Thomas is employing the cheap **star* defense.
Bob,
Hey, I have a copywrite on that! (whatever it is?) :)
“It’s your turn to buy a round”
Now that’s the cheap **star* offense!
@-” If he is referring to globally averaged surface temperatures since 2000, there is only a very small amount of warming; this small amount of warming is indeed contrary to the theory of AGW.”
No it isn’t!
The theory of AGW predicts that rising CO2 causes more energy to be retained at the surface. How that energy is distributed and how much temperature change it may cause at land surface, sea surface, or expansion, evaporation and melting of water.
If there was no evidence of accumulating energy then THAT might indeed be contrary to the theory of AGW, but variability in the surface temperature instead of a strict lockstep with energy accumulation is certainly NOT contrary to AGW theory.
izen,
What’s the ‘W’ for then?
Andrew
It would seem to me that if it isn’t Warming (the ‘W’), then the theory doesn’t apply. It’s right there in the name. If the theory isn’t about Warming, then change the name of the theory.
Andrew
Bad Andrew,
Or change the theory?
@-Andrew
“What’s the ‘W’ for then?”
The Warmist year on record?
Warm things up and they expand, sometimes that is easier to measure than the temperature change. No sign of any pause, hiatus or slowdown in THAT metric.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14093
“The Warmist year”
Or The Year of The Warmist? lol
Andrew
Bad Andrew wrote:
“It would seem to me that if it isn’t Warming (the ‘W’), then the theory doesn’t apply.”
It is, in part, about warming. Warming drives the other changes that can occur. But it’s not JUST surface warming. In fact, surface warming is almost a sidebar, if you’re trying to detect a planetary energy imbalance. If that’s you goal you stick a thermometer in the ocean. Gregory Johnson, a NOAA scientists, says “Global warming is ocean warming.”
“It is, in part, about warming.”
So the new name for the theory is AnthropogenicGlobal Phenomenon with Warming When It Happens. lol
Wonder if it will stick. What a bleeping joke.
Andrew
Andrew: the term you’re looking for is “climate change.”
How about “Warming That Failed” – wtf?
I will put this in the proper perspective for you, davey. BEST says the climate ain’t changing:
“blah…blah…blah…Even so, the highest year could not be distinguished. That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.”
As Jesse Jackson puts it so succinctly and with his minimalist rhythmic rhyming:
Umm. The pause…is killing…the cause. Umm.
Captain Kirk shares Jesse’s opinion on alleged climate change:
Spock…the …pause…is killing…the…cause. Take…us..outta..here.., Mr…Su..lu.
I misquoted Jesse. Left an “umm” out between “the” and “cause”.
Appell, you seem to think a changing climate has to be a bad thing. Considering that the most common non changing climate regime has been the various ice ages, one might assume that climate stability is something we might want to avoid.
“the term you’re looking for is “climate change.”
So what happened to the AGW we were discussing? Looks like a goalpost shift. Oh… you’re a Warmer.
Andrew
Global average temperature: Isn’t a calculated (modeled) number? How scientific are the scientists that proclaim a single number as the global annual temperature and compare that number with previous years then proclaim certain outcomes as a result? Is it not a joke? Or am I laughing alone?
Richard
Yes, it’s a joke: no one has ever died from being subjected to an the official global average temperature.
Other jokes are ICBM’s and H-bombs.
I’ll bet you can’t name one person killed by an ICBM or H-bomb.
Chief Marshal of Artillery Mitrofan Ivanovich Nedelin, killed by ICBM
Max_OK: Operation Castle (it was actually a lithium spiced up pre thermonuclear bomb).
@-rls
” How scientific are the scientists that proclaim a single number as the global annual temperature and compare that number with previous years then proclaim certain outcomes as a result? Is it not a joke? Or am I laughing alone? ”
Probably almost alone.
Consider that medics measure your body temperature, weight, blood pressure etc with much less care and attention to possible error and proclaim certain outcomes as a result.
Few people laugh at that.
“Consider that medics…”
*Doctor Analogy Alert*
Medics make Climate Science credible. Didn’t you know?
Andrew
@-Bad Andrew
“*Doctor Analogy Alert*
Medics make Climate Science credible. Didn’t you know?”
Yes, compared to problems in biology and medicine, and the standard of research in each, climate is clearly MUCH simpler and considerably less influenced by proprietary interests.
“Consider that medics measure your body temperature…”
Considering that:
Medical:
– precision is 0.1, accuracy ~0.5, variance between patients < ~1.0
– external factors (other than disease) rarely significantly affect actual temp
– minor intervention (low cost, low risk) if 0.5 above average ( 0.5 times precision, 0.25 times accuracy)
These are “rubbery” or perhaps “indicative” numbers, but they are in the ball park, so I am considerably more comfortable with the medical treatment prescribed than with the climate treatment prescribed. YMMV.
aarg! not sure what happened – should have been ” … greater than about 1.0 above average…” but somehow it says 0.5, which makes the simple math obviously wrong.
the global temperature INDEX is technically a prediction.
1. It’s an index and not a physical state. SST is combined with SAT to produce the index.
2. As an index it provides a diagnostically interesting metric of the entire system.
3. It’s a prediction in that it represents an estimate of the temperature at unsampled locations.
Mosher
“the global temperature INDEX is technically a prediction.”
Thank you. I didn’t know that, perhaps it is misused by many scientists.
Regards,
Richard
“the global temperature INDEX is technically a prediction.”
If the index is going to be used to flog policy, the way the global index is prepared should be defined by law to eliminate the temptation to tweak with it on a daily or monthly basis as is currently the case
wrong.
as you get better data you use it.
you have no idea what you are talking about. read more comment less.
Mosher says:
“Read more comment less”
That is rich, coming from and English major.
There is no evidence that someone has gone back to 1915 to reread the thermometers or establish more weather stations. That is how you get better data.
Your statement is not supportable.
Scientists are really calculating changes in their model of the planet. If their model is good, that will approximate the changes of the planet.
David Appell (@davidappell) commented
Good, that’s what I’m been pulling out of the surface station record (NCDC GSoD).
This is the rate of temperature change measured at surface stations as the daily rate of change goes from the maximum per day to the minimum per day and from the minimum per day to the maximum per day.
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/543663916-global.png
The rate of temp change has changed, you can see it in this graph, but it’s both warming and cooling, and it might be changing direction. I need to add 2014 in, I’ve tended to wait for a while to let them get all of the changes settled and applied.
I don’t know, I’d have to understand your methodology. (Please don’t send it to me.)
The El Non-yo is interesting.
Conventional wisdom held that the tropical SST anomalies caused ‘tele-connections’ to the circulation change.
Recent theories hold that circulation change causes the Tropical SST anomalies as well as changing earth albedo which causes the warming.
The concerted fall in global temps since early autumn ( not winter as usual ) indicate that this was an El Nino which peaked early.
“The concerted fall in global temps since early autumn…”
____
Uh, December 2014 was the warmest December ever for global temps. How that that fit into your “temps falling since early autumn” meme?
Make that the fall in SSTs since peaking in September.
Not true. June-Nov where the warmest SSTs for their month. Dec was second warmest. (HadSST3 data)
2014 HadSST, falling temperatures every month since August:
Aug 0.644
Sep 0.574
Oct 0.528
Nov 0.480
Dec 0.452
( http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat )
It’s typical of El Ninos for SSTs to lead land temperature anomalies.
It’s A-typical that peak anomalies occur in August.
Well, they fell for 30 days of autumn.
The pause is on!
All this reminds me of Mike.
Now, let us think about that.
It appears that 2014 was the warmest year on record for global temperature.
Thank you for being a sane individual.
Define “appears,” “2014,” “warmest,” “record,” and “global temperature.”
We leave the definition of “was” to Bill.
You always have to clarify if you mean by real temperatures or adjusted temperatures.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20Jan1915%20and%20Jan2000.gif
Since 2008 (long after 1915 and 2000 were dead data) 1915 has magically cooled 0.11 degrees relative to 2000. That is a CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming) trend of 0.157°C degrees per decade.
2100 is 85 years (8.5 decades) away. 0.157*8.5 = 1.33°C This is 1.33C of CGAGW for a 85 year period of the temperature record or a CGAGW of 1.56°C.per century.
1915 was originally 0.39°C colder than 2000, it is now 0.50°C colder, In 2100 it will be 1.72°C degrees colder than 2000…
With 1.56°C.per century of CGAGW (3.12°C total for two centuries) it will be impossible to avoid the 2.0°C 2100 global warming threshold relative to 1900 temperatures.. It is futile to reduce carbon emissions and is a wasted effort. Our only hope is to take away the NCDC computers while there is still time to save ourselves..
The link to the Roz Pidcock article didn’t work for me.
Maybe this is it:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature/
Also carbonbrief.org makes this point:
“That means that while 2014 nominally takes the top spot, scientists can’t know for certain that it was warmer than 2005 or 2010.
But, importantly, the temperature record in 2014 occurred despite only a weak showing from the natural climate phenomenon known as El Niño. By contrast, 2010 and 2005 saw the 6th and 12th strongest El Niño on record, respectively.”
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/scientists-confirm-2014-as-the-hottest-year-on-record/
Reply to Max_OK :-
In your second link, why does the NCDC land temperature anomaly start colder than the ocean temperature anomaly, and end up warmer ?
Probably because –
Specific heat capacity Water 4200 (J/(kgK)
Specific heat capacity Soil <1000 (J/(kgK)
?
I didn’t make the graph, but my guess is it’s because land temperature has been rising faster than ocean temperature. If you want to know why, I’m not the person to ask
Ocean SSTs are warming slower than land temperatures because heat can more easily travel down into the ocean, but it can’t do much of that on land.
2.5 m of ocean has more heat capacity than the entire atmosphere. There are 4000 meters of ocean.
2.5 m of ocean has about as much heat capacity as 7.5 m of dirt (1260 J/kgK dry and somewhat higher wet). Further the temperature of dirt below 30 m is pretty constant. In Minnesota things buried 5 feet down are below the frost line so -20 °F weather doesn’t even penetrate that far.
80% of solar energy is absorbed in the top 10 meters of ocean. The long wave (thermal) energy from the atmosphere isn’t absorbed at all and only warms the surface (water is opaque to infrared).
It takes over a century for the ocean to hit equilibrium after a change in forcing.
Well at least the Faux Pause acolytes can still re-secure the goalposts at the ‘the models are still not perfect’ argument. All is well.
+100
Models will never be perfect. Your point?
The clown is on your side, davey. You are so angry you are shooting in all directions.
Yes, it’s Time for the confusionists (looking at you Judy Curry) to be openly mocked. Nothing else will make an impact on them.
@-“Meanwhile, the ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures. Roy Spencer reports that 2014 was third warmest year since 1979, but just barely.”
That would seem to argue against the calls to re-classify ENSO to include in some form the present conditions.
Satellite data have usually amplified the ENSO signal over the surface index making warm years warmed by an ENSO event, (1998, 2010) larger records in the satellite data than the surface index.
As we reflect on 2014 being the warmest year on record, with record warmth in the N. Pacific ocean as well, it is also interesting to check the state of sea ice in the Bering Sea, which is affected by ocean heat content. Record low sea ice currently in the Bering:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html
With daily insolation hitting the waters of the Bering now increasing to the summer max, it will be hard, though not impossible, for the Bering to make up for that lack of ice. Could set up an for an interesting melt season for 2015. Worth watching.
How about an Aug 1910 open Bering straight?
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/rediscover/dmi_sea_ice_maps/1910/1910_08.pdf
or maybe 1916 http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/rediscover/dmi_sea_ice_maps/1916/1916_08.pdf
It seems that maybe when it get warm, the ice melts to cool the planet off?
Interesting Mi Cro, but probably need to compare the same month of the year. This is the lowest January Bering Sea ice on record. Bering Sea ice always reaches a minimum in the summer, and it is always much less now in August (usually totally ice free) than it was in either 1910 or 1916.
What’s the length of the record? The link compared current ice to 1979-2008 anomaly.
“It seems that maybe when it get warm, the ice melts to cool the planet off?”
_____
This doesn’t make any physical sense. The latent heat of fusion that goes into melting the doesn’t “cool” anything off. It takes net energy gains to the climate system to reduce the total mass of ice on the planet, and the total mass of ice on the planet has been declining for many decades. This decline does not “cool” the planet.
R. Gates commented
It does if you think that open water at ~0F radiates more energy to space than it receives from the Sun most of the year, and far, far more than that same area would if the water was covered by ice.
Reply to : R. Gates
Where can I find a decades long record of total mass of global ice ? I have only been able to find separate records (with differing frequencies) of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent.
micro
Bering sea ice varies enormously year by year and decade by decade with some of the highest temperatures in the 1930’s.
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/reports/bs_04.pdf
I have seen Russian records in the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge whereby it is apparent that this variability is historic, with some notably low ice levels in the early 1700’s and early 1500;s
tonyb
R. Mallet,
Sea ice represents a very seasonal and low percentage of total ice mass on the planet. When looking at net energy input to the climate system, you really need to look at glacial ice mass, mainly from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps of course. Charts like this, while not perfect, do give good idea of what’s been happening related to the latent heat of fusion in melting massive amounts of ice over the past many decades:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Global_Glacier_Mass_Change.gif
Reply to : R. Gates
Thanks for the graph on global glacier mass change – that’s very interesting. Where does it come from ?
“It seems that maybe when it get warm, the ice melts to cool the planet off?” I am with Mi Cro on this one. Its seems the insulation value of Arctic sea ice would be a greater effect than the albedo effect. The albedo effect of snow on sea ice would protect the sea ice, the insulation, that would help to trap heat in the oceans. When we believe on average the oceans are warming, it would seem logical to vent more ocean heat in the polar regions and that might help explain warmer Arctic atmospheric temperatures. So at least short term oceans trying to cool themselves warm the atmosphere and we think this is an amplification. But the atmosphere is the conduit the oceans use to obtain their own ideal temperatures and we can assume for quite awhile they’ve successfully managed the amount of sea ice rather than been done in by too much or too little sea ice. That life has survived as we bounce from glacial to interglacial and rearrange quite a lot of water to and from ice suggests ice has a stabilizing influence. I’ve also wondered that as CO2 is insulating, how are we separating out its insulation effect from sea ice’s insulating effect? If we lose insulation at the ocean/atmosphere interface, that would look the same as gaining it TOA.
Micro
Here is a photo of the Arctic in 1931 when there was less ice compared to a modern photo:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2013/11/6/1383738584156/1931-FRANKENSTEIN-010.jpg
Looks like gatesy has been chart shopping at SkS, again.
When was the Bering straight not open in August?
R Mallet,
Data originates here:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
Watch out for the pseudoscientists, who will pick one glacier or one mountain range or region where glaciers might be growing and insist it “proves” AGW isn’t happening. We care about global glacial mass…and it’s been going down down down. That’s some of the best evidence that the net energy in the climate system is increasing, along of course with ocean heat content increases, sea level rise, species migration, permafrost melt and higher troposheric temperatures.
Gatesy, please go to your pals at SkS and ask for the chart that shows water vapor increasing in lockstep with CO2 an temperature. Also please give us links to all the hysterical alarmist media reports about 2014 being the year with the most water vapor EVAH?
(They don’t like to talk about the water vapor.)
We see that the Bering Sea has anomalously warm surface temps, but the winds are now coming from the north mainly (they’ve been from the south much of the fall and winter), so the growth of ice which is favored by northerly winds will do battle against the anomalously warm SST’s:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-174.17,57.56,1334
The Bering Sea ice usually peaks about the end of March, so the next two months will be interesting there.
ONI -1.5; PDO cold as heck:
Nature with her cold teeth bared.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.10.30.2014.gif
Oni – +0.5; COLD PHASE of the PDO; no El Nino:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.10.30.2014.gif
But RSS says it’s not happening!
Whoops:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.12.30.2010.gif
PDO “cold as heck?” This is the first year it’s been positive in eight years.
Davd – “cold as heck” was supposed to be a description of this graphic of the SST and the PDO at 12/30/2010:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.12.30.2010.gif
I realize you just wade in here and start shooting, but I have consistently pointed out to the Repdumlican’ts here (they are politically driven with little interest in climate science whatsoever) that the PDO has been surging upwards for the last two years.
I’m sure Senator Cruz will try to have NASA hide it as soon as he can.
micro: ice is far more reflective (of sunlight) than ocean water.
David Appell (@davidappell) commented
Until the incident angle of the Sun gets up over 70-75 degree, and then the differences are far less.
http://www.iwu.edu/~gpouch/Climate/RawData/WaterAlbedo001.pdf
And all of the time the sky is clear it’s radiating to space, and Tsky is still very cold at noon, the Sun being up doesn’t matter that much.
So most of the time during the day for most of the year open arctic waters are cooling.
This is a specialty of out hostess, so she might disagree with me.
micro: the angle of sunlight is the same for ice or ice-replaced-by-ocean. Ice wins the albedo contest:
sea ice albedo: 0.6
open ocean albedo: 0.06
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
“David Appell (@davidappell) commented on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that.
in response to David Appell (@davidappell):
micro: ice is far more reflective (of sunlight) than ocean water.
micro: the angle of sunlight is the same for ice or ice-replaced-by-ocean. Ice wins the albedo contest:
sea ice albedo: 0.6
open ocean albedo: 0.06”
You need to read that paper, open water can be over 0.25-0.3 with an incident angle greater than 75-80, which is most of the day most of the year.
Ice at a point X is more reflective than open water at point X. QED
“Ice at a point X is more reflective than open water at point X.”
First that isn’t what’s important about it, and I think you are wrong, when you’re driving into the Sun, what has more glare, a lake or the ice and snow on that lake?
The point is the absorption of ir by the water is is greatly reduced, and cooling has increased.
tony
I received an email this week from NSIDC confirming the essence of your linked study as to the periodic lack of sea ice in the Bering Sea . I had asked for their assessment of the cause of lack of Sea Ice in recent weeks. They cited the existence of an unusually high pressure system.
Ceresco kid
thanks for that. When we continually boil everything down to ‘averages’ we tend to forget there must be highs and lows to create those averages in the first place and are startled by any variability outside of the ‘average.’
tonyb
“So, what is wrong with Cruz’s statement? Well, assuming that by ‘recorded warming’, he means the satellite-derived lower atmospheric surface temperatures his statement is absolutely correct. If he is referring to globally averaged surface temperatures since 2000, there is only a very small amount of warming; this small amount of warming is indeed contrary to the theory of AGW.”
http://klimaatverandering.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tabel-1979-20121.png
Well…
The interesting thing is that the satellites have more problems over the ocean particularly during El Nino and TLT shows a wider variation. But over ocean over time the difference in the data sets is trendless.
Over land there is a persistent trend to the surface data over the satellite data. The sorts of excuses for why the satellites are wrong are less valid from what I can tell for land measurements.
The problem with the surface and radiosonde measurements is they keep changing the instrumentation which brings a lot of estimating and error into the system. This opportunity for hanky-panky is indefensible.
There should by law be a testing standard for new sensor designs. Since MMTS is the most widely used sensor a reasonable approach is to require an MMTS compatibility mode on all future sensors, that reports MMTS data along with any other data generated by the sensor, and only the MMTS mode data by law can be used for global temperature trends.
Perhaps a good starting point would be to appoint an outside audit team of engineers (with some PE representation), and statisticians to review and evaluate the processing of land data, perhaps setting mandatory standards for processing of land temperature data by government employees.
The satellite and land based trends should not be discrepant. The best starting point is to make sure the land data is processed in a way that eliminates UHI and is a faithful representation of historic temperature based on the data.
I suppose you mean a MMTS sensor of a specific design and specific components. There are lots of ways to build a min/max thermometer. In fact, if you record the temperature often enough, you can derive min/max from it.
Nope – haul it off to an environmentally chamber and undergo a testing regime followed by a one year field test along side an in-calibration MMTS. Sadly the MMTS is not a good standard for comparison.
http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20%28F-J%29/hubbard_etal.pdf
The MMTS has a lot of issues and is only accurate to about 0.2°C.
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/coop/PIC-mmts.jpg
Plus they tend to locate them near buildings (a heat source) to keep the cable short or mount a solar panel directly under the sensor for remote locations.
Might as well put a chaffing dish warmer under the sensor.
My engineering instincts are sorely offended by the way some scientists practice science. The problem is some combination of ignorance, poor judgment, or deliberate error.
PA wrote:
“Plus they tend to locate them near buildings (a heat source) to keep the cable short or mount a solar panel directly under the sensor for remote locations.”
If the data are no good, you can’t use them to claim a hiatus.
Admission against interest, David, but thanks. Besides, satellite data is even better for demonstrating a pause.
===================
I can’t wait for moshe to see this one, Big Dave.
=================
http://www.cprl.ars.usda.gov/REMM%20Pubs/ases04_198A.pdf
Some fun facts about solar panels.
They are rated for 100% output at 25°C. Silicon devices get less efficient at higher temperatures. During the summer they are seldom if ever used at 25°C.
The summer peak temperature of a solar panel can reach 65°C. The maximum TCase temp for an Intel I7-4670K processor is 72°C.
The summer energy production (July/August) should be derated to 93.5% of nameplate capacity.
So pay attention to the best global temperature measure we have, one which smooths out all the local weather and seasonal variation, although it is prone to under-reporting high temperatures because of evaporation of the measuring liquid.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/solving-puzzle-sea-level-rise-reexamining-past
It makes no sense to subtract UAH from NCDC — they are measuring different things.
So do they pick x amount of thermometers to measure and then model the rest of world? Does the final result vary depending on what thermometers are chosen to measure_ (would take me too long to Google)
Try Google. (Knowledge is hard-won.)
Climate-Change Status: 2014
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jg8L7z7yl0c/VLk0eG-hGKI/AAAAAAAAHlE/Ir8GN8vliQg/s1600/GISTemp14.png
• energy-balance physics strongly affirmed
• greenhouse effect strongly affirmed
• anthropogenic CO2 strongly affirmed
• ocean heating strongly affirmed
• land heating strongly affirmed
• ice melting strongly affirmed
• sea-level rising strongly affirmed
• ocean-acidity increasing strongly affirmed
• scientific consensus strongly affirmed
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/97hours_crowd.jpg
• confident stadium-wave predictions not affirmed
Q1 Judith Curry, what is your climate-change prediction for ocean-heating, ice-melting, sea-level rising, and ocean-acidification?
Q2 What scientific basis do you use for these predictions (or absense of predictions)?
Q3 Will these climate-change trends continue, without pause or obvious limit, as in previous decades?
Q4 Or is it your opinion, that prediction of these trends is beyond the capacity of climate-science?
The world wonders!
Q5 Is it reasonable for the world to wonder?
Rely to : A Fan of More Discourse
Where can I find the data that strongly affirms :-
a) the greenhouse effect ? CO2 levels seem to be increasing linearly, while temperatures have sometimes been increasing and sometimes decreasing (and sometimes neither) since 1880.
b) anthropogenic CO2 ? From what year does anthropogenic CO2 start to show an effect separate from natural CO2 ?
c) ocean and land heating ? They have been increasing at a rate of about 0.65 C per century since 1880. Is this more than natural variability, and how do we know ?
d) sea level rising ? This has been increasing at a rate of 3.2 mm. per year since 1992. Is this more than natural variability, and how do we know ?
Richard,
+100
Those are excellent questions! FOMD, think this might a toughy but certainly do look forward to your discourse.
He’s pretty much a loudspeaker blaring propaganda. Now and then he deigns to communicate two-way with the inmates.
=======================
Richard: For “a”, see
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Reply to : David Appell
Your link points to a page with data that start in 1979. Where can I find CO2 data that starts in 1750 or 1850 (probably the earliest two candidates for the start of the industrial era) ?
For “b”, see
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/1850-2005.txt
Reply to : David Appell
Thanks, your second message with two links start in 1750 and 1850, though they end in 2008 and 2005, but they enable correlation to be tested.
Plotting the two series of total carbon emissions from fossil fuels and annual net carbon flux against HadCRUT4, which starts in 1850, gives R^2 correlation of 0.71 and 0.54 respectively. Not something that I would want to hang my hat on.
For “d”, see sealevel.colorado.edu, or AVISO:
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.txt
Reply to : David Appell
I did go to sealevel.colorado.edu to get the figure of 3.2 mm. per year. Do you disagree with that, or do you believe that is a dangerous rfate of sea level rise ?
Sorry – I mistyped ‘rate of sea level rise’ in my reply to David Appell
For “c”, see HadSST3 and CRUTEM4
Reply to : David Appell
I used CRUTem4+HadSST3=HadCRUT4 which gives a trend since 1850 of 0.48 C per century. NCDC gives 0.66 C per century, and GISS 0.66 C per century, since 1880. Both are post-industrial age. Is this more than natural variability ?
Re: “c” — land is warming faster than oceans. See NOAA data for each at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Reply to : David Appell
I have been using HadCRUT4, GISS (land+ocean) and NCDC (land+ocean, from the link you posted) and Berkeley Earth (land only: the trend is 0.36 C per century since 1750) – is this more than natural variability ?
Richard
You can see the co2 levels in my graphic here which is plotted against our own real world CET data set.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
Please note the CET temperature dropped then rose again since the chart was graphed. For the latest see ‘Hadley CET 1772’
tonyb
Reply to : climatereason
In your WUWT article, what is the source of the CO2 levels from 1530 ? Not Mauna Loa :-)
From the comments under climatereason’s article Tony answered your question “The co2 figures are from the mauna loa series from 1958. Prior to that it is the general estimate by Keeling and CDIAC that co2 was a constant 280ppm until the industrial revolution (generally considered to commence around 1750) which by 1900 had reached 300ppm and gradually increased to 315ppm by the time Keeling started his measurements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Richard Mallett | January 17, 2015 at 10:55 am |
Reply to : David Appell
I did go to sealevel.colorado.edu to get the figure of 3.2 mm. per year. Do you disagree with that, or do you believe that is a dangerous rfate of sea level rise ?
http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Impacts/Sea-Levels/SeaLevel-01.gif
Well…
Not sure if ClimateEtc has had a food fight about sea level. But it would be interesting.
The sealevel.colorado.edu sea level rise is 2.9 mm. 0.3 mm is invented nonsense (see GIA).
The fact that they artificially inflate the sea level (this started in 2011 when the sea level was dropping) makes their interpretation of the data less credible
The satellite measurements start at what was the lowest sea level in a decade before a sudden increase so they are a little biased.
The sea level rise is about 1.7 mm/year and hasn’t changed much. Since it is mostly steric (ocean temperature) caused it should reflect whether the ocean is warming or cooling. And the ocean is warming a little.
Reply to : PA
Thanks for that – whether it’s 3.2 mm. per year or 1.7 mm. per year of sea level rise, it’s nothing to be alarmed about, just as a temperature rise of 0.65 C per century (or, if you prefer, 2.0 C in three centuries) is nothing to be alarmed about.
Richard
The 1530 co2 figures are the assumed (by scientists) pre industrial level of 280ppm. Those are generally considered the values until 1750 with a figure of 300ppn or so in 1900 i.e. a slight rise during the interim due to industrialisation.
tonyb
Reply to : climatereason
Thanks for that. Why do you not use the CO2 levels as measured in ice cores ?
A hat, a hat, my wuurrllldd for a hat.
==============================
Richard Mallett, there is a clearer signal when you look at accumulations. The correlation rises to over 0.99. Coincidence? I think not.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/engelbeen-3.jpg
Reply to : Jim D
So atmospheric CO2 has a high correlation to cumulative emissions, but neither has a high correlation to global temperature from 1850, as I have just demonstrated in my reply to David Appell.
Richard Mallett, you have to ask yourself why you would expect a high correlation. CO2 is one of the drivers, but not the only one. Climate varied within +/-0.2 C until we started adding CO2 and now it is still varying by that much but with a ramp of 0.8 C added to the background.
Reply to : Jim D
The HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly was around -0.2 C during the period 1956-1976 when we were being warned of a new ice age, so it’s only during the ‘hockey stick’ period of 1976-1998 that we had this steep warming period when the anomaly increased from -0.2 C to +0.6 C.
Richard Mallett, even in the 70’s, after a long temperature pause, some scientists knew this rise was coming and published papers on it. They knew increasing CO2 would have this much effect, and the science they used is the same as is used now to explain it, and it can be traced back 100 years. Some have denied that this same science could possibly be right despite its track record.
Reply to : Jim D
So let me get this straight – we have, during the industrial age (since 1850 say) been adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere, and during that time the global temperature :-
stayed much the same from 1850 to 1880
cooled from 1880 to 1911
warmed from 1911 to 1944
cooled from 1944 to 1956
stayed much the same from 1956 to 1976
warmed from 1976 to 1998
stayed much the same from 1998 to 2014
– and during that whole period, the effect of anthropogenic CO2 has only manifested itself during the 22 years from 1976 to 1998 ?
Or were people saying between 1911 and 1944 that the warming then was explained by anthropogenic CO2 if the science can be traced back 100 years ?
Are the cooling and stasis periods also explained by the science ?
Is that why people are saying that the science is settled, because the science of 100 years ago is able to explain the warming, cooling and stasis periods ?
Richard Mallett
You may have already read some of Roy Spencer’s work but if not here is a link to his website. He has been denigrated repeatedly due to his supposed religious views even though his credentials as a climate scientist seem to be impressive. Perhaps I am biased since he and my son are graduates of the University of Michigan but I have always thought his positions to be objective and thoughtful. I am passing along this website for another perspective.
http://www.drroyspencer.com
Reply to : ceresco kid
Yes, thank you, I do check Roy Spencer’s website eery day, and I have read a couple of his books.
Reply to : ceresco kid
‘eery day’ should be ‘every day’ of course, sorry
Richard Mallett, if you look closely at the temperature behavior in terms of a 30-year smoothed trend you can see a general rise of about 0.8 C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:240/mean:120
The effect of CO2 is mostly rising through the period and may be four times stronger now than it was in 1950, and you can discern perhaps that there is a stronger rising effect at the end than in general. Adding 40% to the CO2 accounts for this, but some still remain mystified by why it is rising so fast lately, setting records and all that. This is quite understandable.
Reply to : Jim D
Why does adding 40% to CO2 make the effect on temperature four times stronger ?
“scientific consensus strongly affirmed”
The jury of PhD’s ate my homework officer.
Lol!
Is there not evidence that warming during the instrumental record is due to higher lows? How relevant is this to catastrophic predictions? And why would it be occurring?
Richard
rls commented on
When you look at yesterdays warming, and compare that to last nights cooling temps for the station on NCDC’s GSod data you get this for all stations: Rising 17.52F Falling 17.61F for 95 million station.
This is not an INDEX, it’s an average of the measured values (warts and all).
I suspect Steven could argue that too is a model, and I might even agree, but they are different models.
you cant average.
well, you can average, but its very wrong.
Steven Mosher commented
As you might expect I think knowing what a large portion of the planets surface station measured, as opposed to an index has insight into actual surface temps and how they are being model.
Mosher
Is it not possible that higher lows can raise the index?
Regards,
Richard
micro: just where do you think the index comes from, if not temperature stations???
David Appell (@davidappell) commented
I think we just got back to the beginning of the circle. http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/#comment-664719
micro: yes, it’s the result of a data model. Raw temperatures go in, the monthly average global surface anomaly comes out.
Rls yes. In fact some folks think that global warming will express itself as a rise in tmin. For the most part..
Dr. Curry’s question about whether this claim about 2014 being the hotest year on record is statistically significant has been answered: it is not. From “Global Temperature in 2014 and 2015” by Hansen, Sato, Ruedy, Schmidt, and Lo: “The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf
That fact, of course, doesn’t stop them from saying before this caveat that “Update of GISS… finds 2014 to be the warmest year in the instrumental record.” This insistence on deceptive soundbyte statements is disconcerting. They know that they can’t really statistically distinguish those 3 years and yet they make their proclamation regardless. They put in the caveat to be accurate, knowing full well that the media will completely ignore it.
It’s not deceptive to report a fact. It is a fact that 2014 is the warmest year in the thermometer record. To not report that the the American people would be a deception.
You saying that the the race car with it’s front fender clearly in the lead has not defeated the 2nd and 3rd place cars. The reason we have a photo finish is to separate fact from fiction. You’re advocating fiction.
You clearly don’t understand the issue. We are talking about comparing two averages of many individual measurements with uncertainty associated with them from all over the globe. That is why we have statistical tests. This is not a discrete event where we can clearly see the winner. Did you miss the fact that they admit it is a statistical tie? Your analogy simply has no bearing on this. To try to save your analogy, we could talk about one car being one pixel ahead of the other car in the image, but the uncertainty being more than one pixel, in which case we can’t be certain who won.
See Dr. Curry’s comment below as well on the NOAA dataset.
JCH, the climatologists don’t have a magic camera capable of distinguishing the top three finishers. I think they call their camera ‘Statistics’ and it’s a subtle and magical tool, but inadequate for this task.
==================
MHappold: Those calculations have been done for both NASA and NOAA data. See
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/01/probability-2014-is-warmest-year-66.html
JCH, in the adjusted (homogenized) record. But by a tiny amount within large error of estimate. A misleading manufactured headline, only later appropriately qualified by lack statistical significance, something the MSM does not report, thereby misinforming the public.
M Happold, thank you for that outstanding climate-science link!
Climate Etc readers will be interested to not that these results are precisely as predicted one year ago — by James Hansen and colleagues! — in their communication “Global Temperature Update Through 2013: A Discussion.”
Conclusion Good on `yah, James Hansen and colleagues, for reasoned, responsible, respectful climate-science discourse!
Fan, I think you are doing that victory lap thing a little prematurely again.
I expect 2015 to be average for the 21st century. Nino3.4 is down to 0.4 so the El Nino will have to start from scratch. NOAA was 100% wrong last year, and they haven’t changed their tune. Still 50-60% for the first couple of months and neutral thereafter.
NOAA has a problem with their El Nino models. Scientists seem to have a lot of problems with their models. They seem to run hot and they seem to be wrong – they should fix that.
Even if what you were writing was true, look at the big picture. If the three years with the highest temperatures all occurred since 2005, maybe we have a screaming emergency on our hands?
You have a screaming emergency on your hands all right: technology is well on course to solve the problem without your socialist agenda.
It is somehow funny that El Nino is connected so much to the measured warming or no warming, because it has nothing to do with the CO2.
How can the mainstream say the warming goes on (based on CO2), when it is based on the El Nino?
Apparantly any warming is proof of the concept no matter how the warming happened.
El Nino has nothing to do with CO2, except that CO2 is making the global ocean warmer. I don’t know if the equatorial Pacific is warmer.
“How can the mainstream say the warming goes on (based on CO2), when it is based on the El Nino?”
Because El Nino years are getting warmer. 2014 is very warm, and not even an El Nino year.
“I don’t know if the equatorial Pacific is warmer.”
_____
The equatorial Pacific has been warming continuously for many decades, thus, as explained on the CPC website, the ONI index has been constantly adjusted upward for this warming, since El Nino is a measurement of anomalous temperatures, the ONI index needs to be adjusted when there is long-term warming of the region. See:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
Thanks.
R. Gates supplies some really good links.
I agree.
Well. most of the ocean warming is happening in the South Atlantic/South Sea.
In theory CO2 helps trap heat in the ocean. The Eastern pacific is warmer and higher because of the Hadley circulation (eastern trade winds) trap the water in the east as basically a hot water mountain.
The western pacific is cooler because the Eastern trade winds cause cold water from the deep ocean to upwell on the South American coast when the water is drawn away from the coast..
In an El Nino a Kelvin wave carries warm subsurface water from the east to the surface of the west. This disrupts the trade winds, westerly winds form and the hot water piled up in the east is spread across the surface of the tropical pacific (because warm water is lighter than cold water) warming the entire ocean surface. This makes for bad South America fishing.
All that warm water on the surface creates temperature records.
I think you have your directions mixed up.
I think 2014 is the 1st temperature record where ENSO was not a big push until maybe December.
“Sigh” I did screw up a little bit.
The winds are named from where they come from not where they go to.
The trade winds are Westerly winds meaning they go West to East. The El Nino response is Easterly meaning the winds go East to West.
The westerly winds pile up water in the east. The El Nino easterlies unpile the water and spread it over the Pacific.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-elnino-japan-idUSKBN0JO0I620141210
“Japan weather bureau declares first El Nino in five years”
This year’s El Nino had everything but the wind change. That is why 2014 was neutral conditions in name only (NCINO) and was actually an El Nino year.
Eh, this year warmest on record with no El Nino.
There was no manifestation of the typical El Nino signature in the equatorial Pacific. But is that what makes GAT rise? More likely, the circulation change associated with ENSO leads to reduced albedo which is what actually impacts GAT.
Just spotted this, v. interesting
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1
48% chance that 2014 is warmest in NOAA data set
That is an excellent way to present the data, IMO.
Dr. C,
Wonder if this was the source of the “controversy” to which you alluded yesterday? Any insight?
33.3% – 50% “more unlikely than likely”
not oing to slow the propagandists I’m sure
That would be the highest probability of any year ranked in the top five.
Don’t upset the faithful here. Remember the mantra: no warming and anything but CO2.
We are at 46% confident.
Is that statistically significant/ What’s the uncertainty?
How far back does the NOAA data set go? Is the length of the data set sufficient to be significantly significant compared with waves of different periods, such as:
multi decadal ocean currents
ice sheet expansion and retreat
900 year period between Roman, Medieval and current warm period
41,000 year period caused by elliptical orbit around the Sun and the planet’s, tilt, wobble, etc
100,000 year period caused by elliptical orbit around the Sun and the planet’s, tilt, wobble, etc
plate tectonics
solar cycles (of period from decades, centuries, millenia, million years
whatever else
How does the length of NOAA’s dats set compare with these periodicities?
Is it significant?
What’s the uncertainty.
I wonder how many Ph.D’s NOAA has working on this stuff.
Personally I think that the essay in “Climate Change: The Facts” by Pat Michaels is much more interesting than the silly hottest year debate. It includes this:
We examined data since 1950 for the 108 model runs used in the Working Group I (Science) 2013 IPCC Fifth Scientific Assessment available from KNMI Climate Explorer (climexp.KNMI.nl). We calculated the model trends for periods beginning at ten years (i.e. 2004-2013), eleven years (2003-2013), etc., all the way back to 1951-2013. For each trend length, we ranked the 108 trend values from the individual model runs. From this ranked data set, we determined percentiles. Given the sample size, directly obtaining percentile rankings better characterises and constrains the properties of the data than probabilities derived from the assumption of normality. Inspection shows that the data are not grossly non-normal as do other similar analyses examining the collective trends from climate model projections.
Every observed trend, from 1951-2013 to 2004-2013 falls below the model average. The observed trend initially falls below the fifth percentile trend 37 years ago, or in 1977, and remains there for every trend length through the end of the record. The observed trend initially falls below the 2.5th percentile trend 34 years ago, or 1980. Since 1980, there are only four trends between the 2.5th and fifth percentiles. If policies were based upon climate science rather than climate studies, this simple, straightforward analysis would spell the end of any onerous climate policy. However, while our similar studies can be scientifically cited, to date, there has been an understandable reluctance to publish this in the tier-1 scientific literature, such as Nature or Science, as that would indicate a massive, unexplainable, and persistent failure of the studies driving global climate policy.
Since these are diverse models, but all using the same forcing, it is more likely that the specified forcing accounts for the error than something in the physics that all the models do wrong. This is especially likely when the aerosol uncertainty is so large. The forcing may have underestimated the negative aerosol effect. A 10% increase in aerosol effect would have brought the models in line with the warming rate, and the aerosol uncertainty error bars are several times that. Since the IPCC specified the forcing for all the models, this is the kind of error you would see. If different groups had been more free to treat aerosols their own way within the uncertainty, the model spread could have covered the observed line.
“Climate Change: The Facts” is interesting reading.
There’s only 11 “variability” in the thread.
We should discuss “variability” a bit more.
Let’s add three “variability”.
Sounds like you’re saying the official average temperatures of the globe are as superfluous as ICBMs.
It’s almost more certain to be very unlikely that 2014 was the hottest year ever when it almost certainly was not, no?
Here’s an interesting plot by Schmidt:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556140695162200064/photo/1 The point I am trying to make with it is that from 1973 to 1997 there were regular advances. Then in 1998 there’s a big jump, followed by a stalling of the advances. It depends what you say about 2014. If it’s a record by the thin margin, the red lines would be tightly grouped, stalled. Eyeballing and rounding we have:
1973 – 1997 Anomaly advance: 0.3 C
1997 – 1998 Anomaly advance: 0.2 C
1998 – 2014 Anomaly advance: 0.1 C
So in the first 25 years roughly a 0.5 C increase and in the next 16 years 0.1 C. Yes you could say the date ranges are cherry picked. Or you might say the climate has break or change points.
Hmmm … you might say, too: “Roulette wheels, dice-tables and slot-machines have break or change points.”
For sure, many gamblers believe this!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HTm8FDV6cz0/TtTUqWLll2I/AAAAAAAAACo/a0QCDL531wU/s1600/GamblerBlack.jpg
Science says In gambling, the house percentage is relentless (despite gamblers’ intuition). And in climate-science, energy imbalance is relentless (despite skeptics’ intuition).
Everything on CO2 is not a risk management strategy.
===============
@-” Eyeballing and rounding we have:
1973 – 1997 Anomaly advance: 0.3 C
1997 – 1998 Anomaly advance: 0.2 C
1998 – 2014 Anomaly advance: 0.1 C
So in the first 25 years roughly a 0.5 C increase and in the next 16 years 0.1 C. Yes you could say the date ranges are cherry picked. Or you might say the climate has break or change points.”
Or squinting at it in 20 year blocks..,
1954 – 1974 Anomaly advance: 0.1 C
1974 – 1994 Anomaly advance: 0.2 C
1994 – 2014 Anomaly advance: 0.3 C
It looks like a pretty smooth acceleration…
You see tomato and I see tomahto. Especially if you consider the 2014 record as barely, I see the red group stalling, perhaps against some kind of barrier or negative feedbacks. Not defeated though. Is it diminishing returns?
RAgnaar,
Thanks for the clear explanation of that chart. I wouldn’t have looked at it closely if not for your clear explanation. Quite persuasive.
I’ts obvious: The rate of warming is slowing. it’s past its peak. Soon we’ll be cooling. Catastrophe ahead. Doom and gloom. Mankind could be wiped out. All life could be wiped out. Let us pray (or join a cult group that claims to have the answers to save us all – e.g. stop fossil fuels and change to RE now).
Someone said I am just looking at rising peaks. Maybe that tells a story?
Why does anyone with a serious interest in climate pay any attention to temperatures relative to the short period in which they have been recorded? This is an arbitrary period and surely it is quite obvious that temperature fluctuations over the c 12,000 Holocene and the dominant glacial/interglacial cycles over the past 2.8m years are the context in which we should be evaluating 2014 temperatures? Since the hottest period in the Holocene was about 6,000 years ago, why does it matter what they are relative to when the thermometer happened to have been invented?
Formulating tax and subsidy policies based on a couple of hundred years of temperature data is like formulating monetary policy based on price fluctuations between the morning and the afternoon. Madness.
Phantasmagoria.
guy: why do humans care about climate change in the next 100-200 years? As opposed to changes in 12,000 years?
Really???
Yellow card, David. At least quote him correctly before misunderstanding him.
============
I’ll just repeat my point.
why do humans care about climate change in the next 100-200 years? As opposed to changes in 12,000 years?
Humans ( as a species ) have certainly experienced huge variation in climate in the last few hundred thousand years.
I’m not sure that a few degrees warming will even compare.
I’m sure that a barley measurable rise in global average surface temps
is the most serious problem humanity will face in the next 100-200 years
run for the hills
madness indeed
John,
I believe that you and I are fairly late to this party, but help me please. I barley being used in new methodology? (Sorry, but I chose not to resist) :)
Best,
“Humans ( as a species ) have certainly experienced huge variation in climate in the last few hundred thousand years.”
——
The kind of climate changes which could be precipitated by the large GH gas increases could easily take us back to the kind of climate that existed long before Homo sapiens emerged as a species.
guyleech1:
You’re not supposed to ask such piercing questions! All the more so when the “climate change” debate is dominated by a melange of dilettantes who have no field experience in thermometry nor any recognition that systematic biases dominate the sparse and largely urban station records available, rendering presumptive formulations of “confidence intervals” quite meaningless. And never mind that credible SST time series on a global scale are simply unavailable before the satellite era. Unless you trust the pitifully short-term linear “trends” seen in grossly manufactured indices, you are patently “anti-science ” by contemporary academic standards.
John S. and guyleech1
faint praise coming from me, but
great comments
+1 Guy. I have often said this but you said it much better.
I’m feeling very positive about this temperature record. According to what I know, if the surface gets warmer it radiates more energy out into space. This means the planet would have less energy accumulation. As a consequence, I would expect the continuation of the mild winters we have been experiencing. And meanwhile we are running out of oil.
So you’re saying — and correct me if I’m wrong — that the warmer the surface is, the cooler the planet is?
Pingback: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims | Coach Semanko's Blog
Meanwhile, calculating the reliable official global temperature of the globe is really very easy. We just make a few allowances here and there to account for the fact that official instruments are not evenly distributed across the planet and for the changes in the hardware and where it’s located, now and then, and for the UHI (urban heat island) effect in various regions over the period and interpolate the data for those areas where instruments don’t exist and voilà, there’s your official average.
“We just make a few allowances here and there to account for the fact that official instruments are not evenly distributed across the planet ”
How would you do it?
We are immediately lost to science if we follow the Left down their reductionists’ road to climate prediction because down that road we also must believe that the Earth actually has an average temperature. Temperature is what is known in science as an intensive variable. Simply put, the average of an intensive variable has no meaning. Just imagine taking an average of all telephone numbers in NY to understand what the concept, ‘NO MEANING’ actually means.
Of course the Earth has an average surface temperature.
Let T(x,y,z) be the temperature at any point {x,y,z} on the Earth’s surface.
Then the average temperture is
= (1/A> * surface_integral [T(x,y,z) dA]
Sorry; that should have been
Then the average temperture is
avg(T) = (1/A) * surface_integral [T(x,y,z) dA]
Waggy,
Temperature is a bulk property, so any amount of matter can have an average temperature.
It’s true that you can not get the average global temperature by taking a bunch of measurements, summing them and then dividing by the number of measurements. Because it’s not done that way does not mean it can not be done.
Ask Mosher, he would be able to describe how it is actually done.
bobby, show us your chart where water vapor increases steadily, in lockstep with increasing CO2 and temperature. That’s your theory, ain’t it?
What Don,
Did you think it would take more than 5 minutes
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/humidity
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/to:2009/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1970/to:2009/trend
Shows water vapor up, temperature up and CO2 up.
–So, was 2014 the ‘warmest year’? Drum roll . . .
NASA has just issued its press release NASA, NOAA find 2014 hottest year in record. Nothing in the way of technical details, such as warmest by ‘how much’ and ‘is it statistically significant?’–
It’s not warmest it is the hottest ever. It could be that 2014 will be the hottest year for next 100 years.
And the obvious question is did anyone notice how hot it was?
I live in Southern California and this State was also the hottest, but I can’t say I noticed, rather it seemed rather cool, and I don’t use air conditioning- though may used it couple times in my car.
I noticed it was pretty cold in the rest of the country, and sort of mirrors this in Southern California- one could wonder if this year we might have snow- something I have never seen here. Of course our skiing mountains have some snow- though I don’t think it’s been an excellent skiing season so far. And despite we getting a fair amount of rain it’s still considered a drought, but we could get more rain and that status could be lifted. Probably most significant aspect of the year was lack of rainfall and we didn’t get much of the massive street being flooding and or mudslides.
And globally we had a growth in polar sea ice, and few major hurricane,
and for me, it was not noticeable hotter. But today it’s warm enough that I am thinking the ground may be warm enough and could remain warm enough that planting some vegetables in the garden might be a good idea. Or perhaps planting a bit earlier this year might be a good idea.
So 2014 was the hottest year, and since it didn’t seem hot, it could much hotter and when I might have some chance of noticing it. But as I said it could be that 2014 will remain the hottest for many years into the future, and coming couple decades, I doubt we get the coldest year ever, but it could be much cooler- though again it probably not be noticeable hotter.
I in coming year it might appear as though the year is hotter, when in fact it has been cooler.
“It could be that 2014 will be the hottest year for next 100 years.”
Sure — and it could have been true that 2010 was the hottest year for the next 100 years. It wasn’t. Nor was 2005. Or 1998.
More CO2 emissions mean more warming. Why is this so difficult to understand and accept?
David,
Please assist with your impressions. CO2 = warming. Okay. Nat’l Academy of Science says CO2 is “likely” (66-90%) to be causing global warming. So how much of the “emissions” of CO2 is man caused, and how much natural?
Models indicated a projection of “X” warming. “Y” (much less than “X”) warming occurred in the most recent time frame (the pause).
And then what are your preferred approaches to addressing the “man caused” portion?
Danny, I’m not interested today in getting into mitigation, other than suggesting a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with all taxes collected distributed back on an equal per capita basis. (60% of taxpayers would get back more than they paid.)
The IPCC has a different view than the NAS — but I suspect the NAS document you quoted is (?) from several years ago (?)
David,
Thanks for that. I’ve only been researching this topic seriously for about 3 months or so and have a long way to catch up with most of you folks, but that was the description from their website within that time frame. American Physical Society has “likely” also, but as I understand it they have a revision in their policy statement in the works so I was not comfortable citing them at this time.
No comment on the CO2 attribution? That seems to be a serious point of contention (with good reason) and I’ve been unable to nail it down from any sources so far so your assistance here would be greatly appreciated. It appears you have done substantially more research than I.
Appell says: “More CO2 emissions mean more warming”
Well, Guy S. Callendar made the same claim in a scientific paper he published in 1937 entitled, “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature”. Of course he made predictions that temperatures would rise with increasing CO2. He concluded his paper by stating the following:
“The course of world temperatures during the next 20 years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
That’s a sound statement in compliance with the scientific method. So let’s look at global temperatures from 1937 to 1957:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1957/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1957/trend
Ok. Not so good for Callendar. How about 40 years?:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1977/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1977/trend
Hypothesis falsified.
–“It could be that 2014 will be the hottest year for next 100 years.”
Sure — and it could have been true that 2010 was the hottest year for the next 100 years. It wasn’t. Nor was 2005. Or 1998.–
You seem to be missing something. I will quote from link given above:
“The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.”
And continues:
“The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.”
In summary 2 scientist have found a way to re-interpret the temperature record-and it might even be valid.
If even seems to make sense to me that it valid, but it doesn’t change the temperature record, and record temperature indicates 1998 remains highest temperature as recorded using some kind of consistent way to measure [rather find some other way to determine how warm Earth is].
I willing to accept that 2014 may have been warmest year- it makes sense to me, as I think rising sea level is better way to determine how warm earth is. And it would not surprised me that that 2014 has highest levels of the oceanic thermal increase in sea levels. But this does not mean I toss out temperature records because someone may have a different way to determine global temperature.
And I have said many times in past there are better ways to measure “average global temperature” and generally don’t much faith in way it’s currently done.
Though I am not yet convinced these 2 scientist have a better way to measure global average temperature- I am only certain in regards to the obvious that there could be much better ways to do it.
–More CO2 emissions mean more warming. Why is this so difficult to understand and accept?–
It’s not difficult. One should know that it’s been proven that CO2 level have little effect upon temperature and that there are larger factor than CO2 levels which affect temperature.
Or in other words, CO2 levels have had little to do with warming and cooling periods of current interglacial period. Nor has CO2 levels caused
the warming or cooling of the longer cycle of interglacial and glacial period.
Nor does CO2 explain why for last few million years we have been in an Icebox climate
–David,
Please assist with your impressions. CO2 = warming. Okay. Nat’l Academy of Science says CO2 is “likely” (66-90%) to be causing global warming. So how much of the “emissions” of CO2 is man caused, and how much natural?–
Uncertain. But one way to look at it, is increasing amount of Human CO2 emission from burning of “fossil fuels” does not increase global CO2 on one to one relationship. Or about 1/2 of the emission stays in atmosphere but increasing amounts of human emission results less than 1/2 of the emission.
And it used to be that US lead the world in CO2 emission [from fossil fuels] but currently China emits twice as much as US and China continues to increase emission [less than 10 years ago China was about same as US. And high emission of China is due to use of coal to power about 80% of China’s electrical needs [US is less than 40% and with ever increasing natural gas at cheaper prices, burning coal in US has been diminishing and this is causing US CO2 emission to lower] Anyways both China and India are causing most of global increase in CO2 and this largely because Coal powerplants are quick and cheap to construct and Coal is still fairly cheap. Or for almost any country will needs to increase the electrical power quickly, burning coal is fastest and easiest answer.
And best way to lower CO2 emission is by making nuclear powerplants
but these not easy to construct, and particularly difficult if one need a lot electrical power in a short time period- nuclear energy is more of long terms solution and China is ramping up it’s ability to make nuclear
energy, but amount new coal plants made in China each year dwarfs the
amount power currently from nuclear or will be added in the future.
And in terms the US, people oppose to nuclear power are blocking the construct of them in court proceedings.
Reply to : David Appell
The reason that ‘more CO2 emissions mean more warming’ is so difficult to accept is that (from what I have seen) CO2 emissions have been increasing at the same time as warming, cooling and stasis periods.
–Richard Mallett | January 18, 2015 at 4:47 pm |
Reply to : gbaikie
So, given all that you have said, can we establish any link between CO2 and temperature, and (if we can) can we establish any link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature ?–
It’s complicated.
But one begins from the undisputed fact that there are large natural processes which emits and absorb [or store] CO2.
See carbon cycle.
-We are pissing in the wind, but obviously this wind does get urine in it.-
One thing to keep in mind is that for millions of years Earth’s life has been near starvation levels in terms of CO2 content in the atmosphere. That CO2 have been lower than “normal levels” is well known fact. Though not normally described as near starvation levels- but I believe that is very fair characterization.
Plants have been evolving more time than the current low level of CO2, and they are “designed” in terms of evolutionary process to operate with higher levels of CO2.
Or if the atmosphere had 1/2 or 1/3 of the oxygen it has, humans would be starving for oxygen- humans could survive, but we have not evolved in such conditions- and fair to say we would be oxygen starved.
Plus one keep in mind how low the CO2 of 400 ppm is. It’s wonder that
plants can feed on such low levels of CO2, and they will all die at say, 150 ppm.
And plants “like” about 800 ppm. And humans typical live
in their homes with 1000 ppm [or more- and not generally less- because living creatures make it]
What is also a well known fact, is we are in ice age period which has lasted millions of years.This period we are in is characterized as an Icebox climate [cold oceans and polar caps].
And there are ideas/theories of why we living in time of low CO2 in the atmosphere and why we in ice box climate. And this is related position of continents [and plate tectonic in general], So this present condition of Earth [Low CO2 and temperature] is related to geological process.
Basically it’s pointless or silly to argue that humans have not effected global CO2 levels, but to assume human can control global CO2 levels is also as silly.
Or to me it’s possible [not saying it’s likely] that CO2 levels could lower despite human addition of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
We are not as dominate as we like to think we are.
And I would say where we might want global CO2 levels to be is around 600 ppm. Or not have them above 1000 ppm and not want them below 300 ppm.
Reply to : gbaikie
You raise the other interesting question – why is a warmer world, with more CO2, considered to be harmful ? At what levels (or rates of change) of temperature and CO2 would they be considered harmful ?
Right. And the colder the climate, the more CO2 gets sucked up by the oceans. I believe that’s called a positive feedback in engineering circles.
“So 2014 was the hottest year, and since it didn’t seem hot”
In what way are your own perceptions a proxy for the average global surface temperature?
Approximately seven billion people haven’t suffered much heating in oh, pick your own period. Some of them have noticed.
===========================
–Richard Mallett | January 17, 2015 at 11:44 am |
Reply to : David Appell
The reason that ‘more CO2 emissions mean more warming’ is so difficult to accept is that (from what I have seen) CO2 emissions have been increasing at the same time as warming, cooling and stasis periods.–
Well that one reason. But CO2 emission in the past usually follow warming [rather than at same time] and this is usually associated with idea that ocean takes time to warm. But we are interglacial period with thousands of years of ocean warming and rising sea levels of last 2 centuries is largely due to thermal expansion of the oceans [ocean are warming].
So increasing levels of CO2 in atmosphere do occur at same time as rising
temperatures of the ocean.
Said differently, in glacial and interglacial periods, one has large areas of snow/glacier land area [as much as 32 percent of all land area being glacier, as compared to our present time of about 10% of total land area being glaciers. So if have a huge glacier covering large chunk in America
that has large effect upon global air temperature. And melting and removal
of that large snow covered area will warm the air and not necessarily increase CO2 levels [it’s not ocean warming].
Reply to : gbaikie
So, given all that you have said, can we establish any link between CO2 and temperature, and (if we can) can we establish any link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature ?
“So, given all that you have said, can we establish any link between CO2 and temperature, and (if we can) can we establish any link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature ?”
yes and yes
Reply to : Steven Mosher
OK, if we can establish a link between CO2 and temperature, how do we do it ? There seems on the face of it to be little correlation.
If we can establish a link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature, how do we do it ? How do we distinguish between natural and anthropogenic CO2 ?
-Steven Mosher | January 18, 2015 at 8:44 pm |
“So, given all that you have said, can we establish any link between CO2 and temperature, and (if we can) can we establish any link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature ?”
yes and yes–
Certainly has links.
Or definitely has correlation.
Human activity related to CO2 emissions has definitely increased global fertilization due to CO2.
The world is greening and this is directly due to humans.
Desert regions have had the most visible [from space] effect. Another noticeable effect is greening of US after earlier long term and massive logging. No one argues about recent large amounts forest area in US. For example:
http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/eastern-us-forest-growing-faster-than-they-have-in-two-centuries-due-to-changing-climate.html
The rate of this growth in trees can be connected to human CO2 emissions.
And increases in global crop yields has many causal factors, but both “global warming” and increases in global CO2 has been significant factors.
There is causal relationship of increases global CO2 levels and human CO2 emission. But in contrast, there isn’t much evident of an apparent link between increases in global CO2 *causing* measurable increases global temperature, rather the evidence indicates that global warming tends to occur first, and thereafter global warming leads to increases in global CO2 levels.
Some believe that the CO2 feedbacks.
In the sense that “something” causes global temperatures to increase and the resulting increase in CO2 levels causes additional warming [or causes the warming period to continue longer than it would without this addition of CO2]. But they are all forced to admit that such higher global levels of CO2 do not prevent eventual cooling [and did not result in the wild alarmist’s scenarios].
Therefore is no clear evident that increased CO2 levels would prevent our world from again entering into another glacial period. [though many people make this assertion- as though it was an obvious truth].
And related to that, is that many scientists studying Mars hold the unquestioned conviction that greenhouse gases may have had warmed Mars in it’s billion year history- and that greenhouse gases could be used to warm Mars in future. See terraforming Mars.
{{ I do not share this conviction [but I will not to go into explaining why- other than simply pointing to fact that it’s never been shown to be true on Earth].}}
Richard
Keep up with the common sense questions. I have been asking the same question for years without a satisfactory answer. The truth is that one has to believe in inductive reasoning to accept the linkage. They get lost in the equations and lose sight of the fundamental essentials of the scientific method.
Reply to : nottawa rafter
Thanks for that. Whenever I get a set of numbers, I plot graphs, look for correlations, and wonder what all the fuss has been about for the last 25 years.
Global warming ? Sometimes.
Anthropogenic ? Not proven.
Catastrophic ? Not proven.
–Richard Mallett | January 19, 2015 at 6:28 am |
Reply to : gbaikie
You raise the other interesting question – why is a warmer world, with more CO2, considered to be harmful ? At what levels (or rates of change) of temperature and CO2 would they be considered harmful ?–
Well some fear rising sea levels. If sea level rise more than say 1 meter per century it could be a slight problem.
But I am someone who thinks human should be able to live on the continental shelves.
Or everyone could have beach house. There mainly a problem with transport in regards to this and if had flying cars it become a non problem.
So I am not afraid of a rising ocean, but some are terrified about it.
But best scientific guess is sea level in century will rise about 1 foot- which few should consider a problem.
And you have the crazies who think Earth could become like Venus.
And I am a crazy who wants to colonize Venus.
If was space alien invasion, Venus would be the safest planet to live on.
But I am somewhat reasonable, first I think we need to mine water on our moon. I think it’s possible if NASA were to explore the Lunar poles to determine if and where there was minable water, that within few year after this we could have commercial lunar water mining. So in addition to having a satellite market, we could have market for rocket fuel in space.
So NASA currently gets enough funding to do this, and would require about
10 years for NASA to do such exploration of the Moon.
So NASA yearly budget is about 20 billion, and exploring the moon could about 4 billion per year, have total lunar exploration cost of about 40 billion. And this just continuing what we currently spending on Space exploration.
And commercial water mining requires start up investment of somewhere around 10 billion- and of course that is investment dollars which get return on investment [make money]- and not a government paying for it.
Once there is rocket fuel available on lunar surface, lots of things can done
on the Moon.
Anyways it’s only after a couple decades of various commercial activity and various government space agencies activity [say such as, building a huge telescope on the Moon] that one could begin to consider colonizing the skies of Venus.
So things like cloud cities. And etc.
And since Earth is pretty cold, and once we can actually control Earth’s climate from orbit, then people will actually pay some low price to have some chuck frozen wasteland warmed up.
What guyleech1 said.
So you have a warming like every other warming in this little chunk of the quat (maybe the humps are getting a bit smaller) and that means?
How do people imagine that the aborigine was able to walk across Bass Strait a brief ten thousand years ago, or that Roman invaders waded ashore at Richborough less than two thousand years ago?
As for the belief that a rough observation set like ENSO can be a push-button mechanism which is starting to malfunction…saw that B-movie back in the 50s, but preferred the giant octopus stuff.
If climate science is so cool, why not do some?
A couple of random comments:
1. It’s wonderful to see so much interest in atmospheric science these days. I’m not sure that it’s all helpful in the advancement of the science though. Frankly, there seems to be such rampant cherry-picking regarding the pause that it’s difficult to trust anything.
2. Hopefully, this is an easy question for someone…I thought that many sources of surface temperatures reported to the nearest degree C and some to the nearest tenth of a degree. If so, why are we now discussing the differences of their averages in terms of hundredths of a degree?
” If so, why are we now discussing the differences of their averages in terms of hundredths of a degree?”
I believe that falls under political science
@-superchillskeptic
“2. Hopefully, this is an easy question for someone…I thought that many sources of surface temperatures reported to the nearest degree C and some to the nearest tenth of a degree. If so, why are we now discussing the differences of their averages in terms of hundredths of a degree?”
Because with multiple measurements it is possible to refine the accuracy of the result to a much greater degree than the accuracy of a single measurement. This is the way astronomical observations are made with such precision.
The precision of the measurement increases with sample size.
Yes, it is comforting to know the temperature anomaly down to hundreths of a degree. Now if we could just get that actual temperature thing correct in the models. The one I am looking at now missing the tropical SST by 1.99336 C degrees. :)
I used to have a more precise calculator.
Amazing science High-quality audio amplifiers routinely demonstrate noise levels 1/64000 as large as the raw digitization error. The math is covered thoroughly in the well-respected (600+ citations) engineering article “An Overview of Sigma-Delta Converters: How a 1-bit ADC achieves more than 16-bit resolution.”
As with high-quality audio systems, so with climate-science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btfg4szYGMo
Good on `yah, superchillskeptic, for asking a thoughtful question!
Or if you are not familiar with the basic statistical theory behind this, think of it as a Stock Market Index.
The Dow Jones and the NASDAQ are made up of many different measurements, with many local factors affecting the price of the various stocks, argument can arise over whether a share price is representative of the market and should be included in the index. Shades of disputes over weather station biases.
Although the individual stock values vary widely and on a coarse scale the various stock market indices usually run to 4,5 or even 6 significant figures, and bankers pour over every detail of rises and falls comparing year on year…
Because the temperature indexes are predictions.
You want your prediction to minimize the error.
Suppose I weighed you three times with a scale that was good to a pound.
200,200,201 are recorded as measurements
Predict the weight I will record if I weigh you with a perfect
Scale.
You want your prediction to minimize the error
What point prediction do you make and why
I would go with the average of:
199+201+199+201+200+202
Because the scale was accurate to a pound. And I can’t think of any other way to do it. Let’s ask tony.
Of course, I get the same number if I add all the results and divide by 3. I hate this.
The measurements are useless when, between the scale and the person using it, the person is the bigger tool.
What do you mean “good to a pound” Mosher? There are two components to the quality of instrument readings. Precision and accuracy. Learn about them and then repeat the question in terms that engineers and experimental scientists can parse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
Let’s make it a fun game.
I have an idea for a post. a competition for skeptics.
He guessed first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
Pingback: Scientists Balk at ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: Ignores Satellites Showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ - Patriot Rising
Sorry there dave, it’s the alarmists making all the false claims with no proof. Try again
Global warming story: “The UK is suffering one of its coldest nights this century with temperatures plunging to as low as -10C,” says MailOnline and guess what? The Russkies just shut of over half their gas supply over their support for the Ukraine.
Wagathon – Don’t worry they got wind, and solar.
Justin
Well at night the solar doesn’t seem to work for some reason…and if its a cold night that will be associated with an anti cyclone so it will be dead calm so that knocks out the wind turbines as well.
We are in urgent need of grown up power stations to provide base load power at a reasonable cost in all climate circumstances but instead we just get expensive green idealism.
tonyb
You just won’t stop distorting, will you?
…another non sequitur?
I am really disappointed to learn that the climate is warming. I really wanted my ice age. If I can’t have an ice age, then I want the climate from 1968. Is the CO2 control knob calibrated?
Pingback: Scientists Balk at ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: Ignores Satellites Showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ | ecoliberty
Judy and her followers are all sitting at the kid’s table. Pounding their spoons and forks. “We want our consumerism”!
http://businessesgrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/loser.jpg
I was asked by my wife to view the NPR interview by Judy Woodruff on NPR and the interview of Gavin Schmidt discussing his determination that 2014 was the warmist in recorded history. Further and stated, there was a global temperature trend over the last 10 years of record surface temperatures of a historical record. Wow!
My wife asked me because, there was no one speaking on her NPR News Hour show that spoke as an alternative explanation. My wife asked me what I thought of what Gavin Schmidt said.
I began by saying that I had had a bad experience with Gavin Schmidt on Real Climate blog and I believed he was a charlatan who professed false, self-serving and misleading information; primarily by neglecting and excluding contrary information. I went on to enumerate his shortcomings until I saw my wife begin to drift off to watch something else on the TV.
It seems that sound bite attestations require responses with sound bites in kind. It doesn’t boil down to content, just rapid fire speech.
I take away from what I saw on NPR, from my experiences with Gavin Schmidt on Real Climate, and the recent attempts to adulterate GISS measurements as signs that the “few” skeptics, can no longer be ignored as the data supports a much different view, i.e., that Gavin’s forte: modeling, is trash and the climate is currently headed in directions that he, nor his colleagues hardly imagined 10 years ago.
When one is stuck in the mud as Gavin Schmidt most assuredly demonstrates, the prudent response is to quit struggling and accept the rescue stick irregardless of who is offering it. We are in a pause which has no model explanation, the near future is uncertain and CO2 is not a control knob. Making predictions of the future are not feasible. We must wait and observe. A 100 years from now is just that, a 100 years away. Prognostications of a 100 years hence is really not believable.
That is not true, even for chaotic systems!
• Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser (KAM) Theory
• Five-Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses (2000 BCE to 3000 CE)
• On the Dynamical Stability of the Solar System
The last of these studies integrates [chaotic] dynamics forward-in-time for … twenty billion years!
RiHo08, it is a pleasure to increase your appreciation of predictive dynamical science!
http://www.keepcalmstudio.com/_gallery/300/kcs_8bbd4a41.png
She was turning to look for the segment with Schmidt and Spencer.
===============
Pingback: You Ought to Have a Look: Record Global Temperatures | The Moral Liberal | The Moral Liberal
For those who find recent and present conditions extreme, two little words (+numbers and inits):
Bond Event 2200 BC.
I guess it was more a regime or big long mess than just an event. One should add that the Late Bronze Age collapse (Event 2?) was no fun for heat-lovers or irrigators.
I’m sure none of this is as neat as Gerard Bond described it. 1,470 ± 500 years between fluctuations in the Holocene reads a bit peculiar to me. Maybe lose the “70”, Gerard, if you can be out 500 years anyway?
One thing is for sure, major climate change is real. It happened not that long ago to the Indus and has happened to everybody trying to make a civilisation since then.
So we know we have climate change. Do we have climate science? Or is everything to be just advocacy, non-Kardashian models and lobster sandwiches at gabfests?
If ‘warmest year ever’ is the KPI, then all the windmills, solar panels and carbon constrained economies are not stopping the climate from changing.
When you think about it, Mark, we are presently implementing climate-dependent technology to resolve climate uncertainty. Imagine trying to wipe the smears from acres of solar panels in the aftermath of a Laki-scale eruption series, basaltic and dirty like Laki. And there is nothing at all alarmist in raising the prospect of another such event. Volcanoes aren’t just for explaining away past climate. They go pop regularly.
The real disaster is the one we are manufacturing: climate-dependent energy. “Warmest ever” was likely eight thousand years back. “Dopiest ever”…that could be us.
Lobster sandwiches? Lobsters! But how is that muchos
ocean heat affecting ’em? …Jest returned from a few days
at Lavender Bay, Sydney Harbour, one of, if not the greatest
of all the harbours of the world.Cool breeze off the water, gold
and green ferries chugging under THE bridge, cormorants
catching fish not five metres from where I stood, beneath a
frangipani tree naturally.) Summer time and the livin’ is oh
so easy. A fortunate serf of the western world.
Up here it’s so hot I can’t be bothered beating my serfs. Wretches are just lolling about like they were me.
In 2005 Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 that the global temperature would be cooler in 2012-2017, compared to 1998-2003. At the time, I don’t know that many people were talking about the pause/hiatus/plateau.
Annan was then publicly cocky about his future winnings, but with 3 years to go he must be less certain of the outcome.
Well James needs a string like 95 to 97 to lose at this point, going by GISS.
I think he can book the band and hire the caterer.
—In 2005 Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 that the global temperature would be cooler in 2012-2017, compared to 1998-2003. At the time, I don’t know that many people were talking about the pause/hiatus/plateau.
Annan was then publicly cocky about his future winnings, but with 3 years to go he must be less certain of the outcome.—
I have no idea who will win the bet. It depends what temperature record they use [and hopeful the record has changed- seems doubtful- one can’t even say that about the satellite record [which seems to be the most accurate and least modified]. And next requires what rules one uses to measure cooling or warming.
It seems to me it a certainty that “the pause” will continue beyond 2017 but whether seems to warming a little bit or heading towards cooling is a bit like tea reading.
What is clear is we have not had the warming over the last 18 years that we have been promised. And it should kept in mind what was promised was regarded by “alarmist” as reckless underestimate of potential future warming.
Lol!
It is possible to check whether 2 C per doubling fits the temperature trend since the 1950’s by scaling the CO2 as if this was true and seeing if it fits the temperature trend. Here is the result.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/mean:12/offset:0.05/plot/gistemp/from:1955/mean:12/offset:-0.05/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.008/offset:-2.6
You might get a better fit by increasing the CO2 gradient a little above 2 C per doubling, but this is illustrative of a consistency with transient rates of this kind, “pause” and all. “Skeptics” don’t like scientists saying that this type of transient climate response fits almost 60 years of data, but it is an inconvenient fact for them that it does. You won’t see this simple comparison of data at their sites.
Jim D.
. .as USUAL, you just show something to fit what you want. How about adding a longer temp series to your CO2 plot. you know, LIKE THIS:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1905/mean:12/offset:0.05/plot/gistemp/from:1905/mean:12/offset:-0.05/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.008/offset:-2.6
So, do you believe the CO2 went UP from around 1900 to a little after 1940; then DIPPED from after 1940 to 1960; THEN started UP again . .? That’s what the chart shows the temperature did . . .
No, I didn’t think you did . . . Oh, I know, next you will claim that, ” . . CO2 only had the effect on temps AFTER 1950 . . ” , won’t you . . . ?
. .give me a break, you . . .(SELF SNIP) !
OR, better YET Jim D. LET’s LOOK AT THIS PLOT, from 1850:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:12/offset:0.05/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:12/offset:-0.05/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.008/offset:-2.6
You think CO2 followed THOSE temperature changes ? So do you REALLY BELIEVE CO2 is the cause of it . .? ? ?
. . no need to repeat that you are a disingenous . . . (SNIP)
( . .Dr. Curry, I apologize if you think this is too much. . .I am TIRED of the ALARMISM by these WARMISTS ! )
That’s definitely a cute graph. There can be little doubt that atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global mean temperature have both increased since 1950. What is your latest and best estimate of how long it will take for the global mean temp to increase another 1C from what it is now?
The linear rate is 0.8-1.0 C per 100 ppm, which should decrease slightly due to the log relation, but 1 C would occur not long after we have added another 100 ppm, however long that takes. It is better to scale it with CO2 than with time, because that relation is more predictable. We could add 100 ppm in as little as 30 years in the business-as-don’t-care scenarios.
Jim D: but 1 C would occur not long after we have added another 100 ppm, however long that takes.
that is way sooner than waiting for a doubling. It should not take long to learn whether the log CO2 or linear CO2 is the more accurate.
Martin C, you seem to be angry when confronted with actual factuals. 75% of the CO2 has been added since 1950, and not coincidentally this is the period that is the warmest in the record and still rising despite the pause, which itself you can see is not out of the ordinary. There are variations on top of the CO2 curve that cause things like the pause. Skeptics are kind of reluctant to accept that these variations explain the pauses now and in the 60’s, and prefer to deny that CO2 and temperature could possibly be related to the extent that they are seen to be when you just look.
Also, Jim D, one-third of all human emissions have been added since 1998. Can this be a valid argument against high values for atmospheric sensitivity or not?
Past natural variations have been up to 0.2 C, so this can easily explain a decade or more of much reduced warming, but natural variations have a tendency to reverse and cancel themselves over multiple decades while CO2 doesn’t. Its effect is near 0.2 C per decade and that is relentless, and probably increasing.
Jim D, I have ALWAYS tried to show your graphs are misleading, AS THEY ARE. As Tom Fuller, noted, 1/3 of emissions of all added human emissions have been since 1998. YET very little (if any warming) since then. IF CO2 is such the driver, WHY?
AND IF CO2 wasn’t responsible for the warming from around 1900 to 1940, THEN WHAT WAS ? Why couldn’t that be responsible for the warming from around 1970 to around 2000?
It’s FRUSTRATION with the ALARMISM that I detest.
LET’S WAIT for the next 5 to 10 years. IF warming increases ANYTHING CLOSE to the ‘models’, then I might start to agree with you.
SO, if in 5-10 years, temperatures are about the same or less as now, will you STOP being an ALARMIST ?
Jim D, when Zeke Hausfather did me a favor and ran temperatures on a decadal basis back to 1945 there was one 10-year time span that had a 1.9C rise.All the rest were far lower. How is it possible to claim that CO2 causes a relentless 0.2C forcing per year if it never, ever shows up?
> IF warming increases ANYTHING CLOSE to the ‘models’, then I might start to agree with you.
That’s a big might.
Think, Tom, how cold it would be without that relentless forcing. And there’s only so much of it left we can do.
===============================
It is not alarmist to just present 60 years of data. You can interpret it in your own way. To me, and the scientists who know something about this, there is an obvious interpretation. Warming driven by CO2 was expected to average over 0.1 C per decade in the 60 years, and to rise gradually to 0.2 C per decade in this period, which you can see dominating the observed trend, and this is expected to continue and rise according to what we do with the CO2 driver.
Jim D, in the early 80s there were four consecutive years of decline in CO2 emissions. CO2 concentrations climbed during those years in the same fashion as in years when emissions increased. Can you explain why?
As long as net emissions remain positive CO2 would be rising. The decline did not lead to negative emissions.
The interesting thing is CO2 emissions increased 2.13 PPM in 1983 (about the same as this year) when emissions were half of the current level. That is what you should really ask about. We should be getting 3.4-4.0 PPM/year increases and we just aren’t.
Perhaps older fossil fuel was smokier fossil fuel.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/CO2Emissions/Global_FuelType.pdf
Pingback: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues | Atlas Monitor
Pingback: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims… | The Conservative Papers
Pingback: NASA/NOAA Say 2014 Warmest on Record…Unless it Isn’t…Until it is - Citizens News
There’s one obvious source of heat currently.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png.
Here is the WARMEST YEAR EVAH! propaganda from the pearl clutchers at the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0
On the bright side, it will go almost entirely unnoticed except among the alarmist Kool-Aid drinkers. The newspaper of record would be sliding over the bankruptcy precipice, if not for Carlos Slim’s propping it up to serve his own purposes.
This news will boost the chances for more drastic mitigation efforts, by about 4.024 mm.
(Let’s see if little joshie protests my headline.)
The problem for you is is the march does not end at midnight.
I don’t have any problem. I can deal with whatever disaster you misguided, misanthropic clowns can create. Well-funded and well-armed is how we roll.
You can’t shoot CO2 and you can’t buy it off.
We’ll plant more trees. In the meantime, the pause is killing the cause.
You can satirize it, though.
And the natives will cut them down and the wind-blown heat will burn them.
You forgot about the locusts and cats sleeping with dogs, raining pitchforks, floods and droughts. You clowns are going to worry yourselves to death, well before the CO2 could get you.
I wonder if the stores are still open. All this talk makes we want to go out and buy my wife another fur coat and myself another Escalade. I’ll get those big funny looking wheels this time.
I’m not a bit worried. My family is in the oil business.
Before this comment, the “variability” count (i.e. the number of occurences of the word “variability”) for this page was at 21.
It is now at 23.
That’s amazing, willie. How long did it take for you to learn how to do that? Can you tell us how many words are in joshie’s comments for the last 24 hours? I hear that Judith is considering implementing a warmist troll toll. Five cents a word. I don’t think we would lose many of you guys. You need this.
PS: If I don’t shape up soon, she might hit me for a quarter per digit.
> Can you tell us how many words are in joshie’s comments for the last 24 hours?
Sure. Do you want a coffee with that, Don Don? Five cents a word is not much, but that’s a start. I take PayPal.
There’s already 65 “pause,” 66 with this one. Your slogan with “pause” and “cause” only appears twice, so far I believe.
dont trust willard to count correctly
or anything else for that matter
As Kasparov says, believe it but check it.
willard the first time you tried to count something that I recall, you failed.
straight up failed at counting.
go learn to count.
then learn what to count.
Then come back
count more. comment less
> the first time you tried to count something that I recall
That’s the only time our black hat marketer recalls. Over, and over, and over again. Interestingly, the Moshpit forgets to recall that in that episode he failed to count questions properly:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/14/nic-lewis-on-the-uk-met-office-on-the-pause/#comment-381100
Numbering them may not have been enough.
Pingback: Baseline data for my global warming bet with Bryan Caplan and Alex Tabarrok : Stand-Up Economist
Regarding this statement by JC “The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger.”
Remember the models while using GCMs with the physical processes that can represent the current climate really well, also rely on their specified forcing changes to be correct to represent climate change. The forcing evolution has major uncertainties regarding aerosol effects, as we see in every IPCC report. If the models did not have enough aerosol effects as part of their specified forcing, they would be too warm. Being warm is likely a forcing bias. For example, in AR5 the IPCC says that the net forcing is 30% larger than that from CO2 alone. This is because the other GHGs far outweigh the assumed aerosol effect, but the error bars are large, and these could almost equally well balance each other as they did in AR4. Therefore I would not so readily blame the model warming on their physics of GHG effects itself when the forcing is so uncertain. Observational evidence supports a TCR near 2 C per doubling.
Pingback: Scientists Balk at ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: Ignores Satellites Showing 18 Year ‘Pause - Give Back Our Freedom
Pingback: You Ought to Have a Look: Record Global Temperatures - Citizens News
“Warmest year”? ‘Pause’, ‘Hiatus’, or ‘Peak of Oscillation’?
No, this is not El Nino in Australia. WE have just had record summer rain and that is definitely not El Nino.
Nope, definitely not El Niño. Just warm oceans all over.
ONI is way up now over what it was for the vast majority of 2014, but looks like it might relax on next report.
El Nino is a real observation set, it is not real weather.
Our most lethal natural disaster is still the Big Heat of 1939, which also brought drought and fire. It was a La Nina flanked by neutral years. Yes it was. Indeed the PDO was very pos then, so that may explain a bit; but just remember that our longest drought (Long Drought 1958-68) occurred smack in the middle of that supposedly neg 30 year stretch of PDO between the late 1940s and 1980.
Of the three worst droughts since the turn of the 20th century, two were associated with weak El Nino (Fed and Millennium) and just one (WW2 Drought) with strong El Nino. The biggie Nino of 1983 was indeed severe in effect, though brief; the other biggie of 1998 not severe in effect at all.
By the way, BoM does not recognise any El Nino year between 1926 and 1940. (Others do – so much for precision). Know how dry most of Australia was in that period? When the Commonwealth Superintendent of Immigration in the 1920s wanted to ban the word “drought” he had his reasons. By the way, the 1930s are still our driest known decade, all over. And when you consider the competition…
I really don’t know which infant, male or female, was dominating climate in the late 1830s. But the drought which dried the Murrumbidgee may have been the most torrid of all since European settlement. I’d worry about the drought, not the SOI, the Nino or the Nina.
Until people stop treating El Nino-La Nina as simplistic explanations for the weather in Eastern Australia we may as well stop using the expressions. I recently spoke with a guy who only ever reads the Guardian and NYT. Nice feller. He looked out the window this Christmas time, pointed to the rain falling, and learnedly explained we were in a La Nina. Hence rain. Really.
ENSO is handy and explains a bit of what is going on to the man in the paddock, especially in Eastern Oz. But turning valuable info into a predictive dogma or mechanism just creates another hazard on an already hazardous continent.
With all the attention on the warmest year we just finished, quietly that “other” GH gas, methane, has made a rather interesting jump upward in concentration this past year:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graphs/pdfs/ccgg.MLO.ch4.1.none.discrete.2009.2015.pdf
Like CO2, these methane levels have also not been seen in millions of years on this planet.
These levels seem fairly common in fact despite Randy the video guy’s breathless paeudoscience narrative.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/co2_beck.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/co2_beck.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/steinthorsdottir-fig-9.png
https://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions
Meant to add the reference for the first graph – not repeat the graph.
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/Kouwenberg_2005_Geology.pdf
There are very substantial increases in CO2 flux to the atmosphere with minor changes in temp.
e.g – http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf – http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/13061.full
These result in fluctuations in CO2 in the atmosphere that are lost in the ice core record.
@-Rob Ellison
“There are very substantial increases in CO2 flux to the atmosphere with minor changes in temp.”
Actually that should be ‘…increases in CO2 flux to AND FROM the atmosphere…’
@-“These result in fluctuations in CO2 in the atmosphere that are lost in the ice core record.”
Yes the ice core record smooths out the local variation and short-term changes to give a good picture of the global average level of CO2 as a well mixed gas in the atmosphere.
That measure is more useful to asses the climate impact of CO2 levels than rates of flux in the carbon cycle.
You are incorrect. The flux to the atmosphere increases with temperature as the studies suggest – and mixing is not the problem with ice cores. Putting together the increased flux and the widespread stomatal proxies is the clincher. If you have increases of the same order of magnitude as anthropogenic emissions why would you not expect increases in atmospheric concentration.
Denying inconvenient data one bit at a time seems to be the way they roll.
Rob Ellison
Great read:
http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf
You may have linked this before, but I missed it.
When I think about the OCO2 satellite late Fall atmospheric CO2 map, I found that the Southern Africa significant CO2 and the lack of significant CO2 in Southeast Asia as important factors for the likelihood of plant respiration, especially Forests and Grasslands. This paper with soil respiration suggests that natural variability reflects these CO2 sources. There would also be diurnal variation in atmospheric CO2 as well as seasonal.
“There are very substantial increases in CO2 flux to the atmosphere with minor changes in temp.”
This says to me, that at least on a short term basis, that CO2 and temperatures are not very well related, and that if there is a connection, temperature has a damped response.
Did I get that right?
Pingback: Scientists Balk at ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: Ignores Satellites Showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ | Truth Movement News
So according to UAH satellite data, the world was cooler last year than 2010 and statistically equal to 2013 and 2005. Perhaps that’s why Greenland ice mass loss dropped to 6 gigatons in 2013-2014 from 474 gigatons in 2012-2013. We need more ‘warmest years’ to preserve Greenland’s ice sheet.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
BTW Antarctic sea ice was at record high last year since 1979 and Arctic sea ice in December 2014 was highest since 2005. The ‘warmest year’ had done wonders for sea ice.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
GRACE might be up to the job but it is questionable that the isostatic rebound models are and GRACE can’t get an accurate estimate of changes in ice unless they are.
@steven
GRACE measures neither the vertical displacement nor the thickness of ice. It measures indirectly the change in gravitational force exerted by the ice on the satellites. This depends only on the mass of ice, not on its shape or volume. Isostatic rebound models are not needed for this purpose. The models are for predicting crustal movements in response to changes in mass.
GLACIAL ISOSTATIC ADJUSTMENT DISCUSSION
WHAT IS OFFERED HERE
In order to compute mass trends from GRACE and interpret them as changes in the water content of hydrologic basins, or ocean bottom pressure, or ice sheet mass, one must remove the effect of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA, or PGR) of the lithosphere and mantle. The GRACE-Tellus mass grids described elsewhere in this website have had a reasonable GIA model of secular trends removed, in terms of mass changes expressed as cm of equivalent water thickness per year.
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/
From your link:
IS GIA AN ERROR IN GRACE DATA?
No, it is not an error. It is a signal of great scientific interest in itself. GRACE observations, in particular when combined with GPS measurements of vertical surface deformation, have provided new and more accurate estimates of GIA models, and have led to refinements of ice-load histories. For studies of contemporary surface mass changes, the GIA signal must be removed from the GRACE observations. This is particularly important for estimates of Antarctic ice mass changes. The GIA corrections add some uncertainty for surface mass trends over the GRACE period; a canonical (and rather heuristic) uncertainty range of 20% is often assumed for GIA models.
In short:
The error is in GIA, not in GRACE data. For short-term mass changes (annual) GIA corrections are unnecessary. Remove GIA and the 20% error/uncertainty range is eliminated.
Show me a reference stating you can just ignore GIA for short term changes.
I never said it was an error in GRACE data. I specifically said the isostatic rebound models were questionable.
The link is interesting, especially Fig. 3.3. I wish they would have gone on to explain their theory for such a small loss. Or did I just miss it? I doubt anyone will quote the 6G in any articles.
@ Dr. Strangelove
“Perhaps that’s why Greenland ice mass loss dropped to 6 gigatons in 2013-2014 from 474 gigatons in 2012-2013. ”
6 gigatons represents 0.0002% of the (estimated) icecap mass.
Color me skeptical, but I don’t really believe that ANYONE can measure the total mass of ice in the Greenland icecap with enough precision to track annual anomalies in the range of ten-thousandths of a percent.
Are you kidding? 6 billion tons of ice is the size of 2,617 Great Pyramids of Giza. GPS satellites can track the location of your subcompact car accurately within 3 meters and you don’t believe GRACE satellites can detect an ice block 2,617 times bigger than the Great Pyramid.
“Are you kidding? 6 billion tons of ice is the size of 2,617 Great Pyramids of Giza. GPS satellites can track the location of your subcompact car accurately within 3 meters and you don’t believe GRACE satellites can detect an ice block 2,617 times bigger than the Great Pyramid.”
WWHhhhhhhhhaaaaaaatttt, does ice come with a navigation system? You do realize that “gps” doesn’t have a clue where you’re at, your gps receiver knows where it is.
And then there’s that GRACE doesn’t know what gps is.
@Mi Cro
You don’t know how GRACE works. Of course ice doesn’t have navigation system. GRACE satellites have GPS receivers. While the GPS receiver in your car has an accuracy of 3 meters, the microwave ranging system of GRACE satellites has an accuracy of 0.00001 meter.
Read how GRACE works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment
“Dr. Strangelove commented
You don’t know how GRACE works.”
You’re right I didn’t.
Most Americans say … Yawn….
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/15/shock-poll-57-of-americans-say-global-warming-is-not-a-threat/
The developed world is catching up with the rest of the world. 99% of the rest of the world doesn’t want to waste a cent combating global warming.
According to Chuck Elane
Pingback: Scientists Balk at ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ | conspiracyoz
Pingback: Ya es oficial: El Mundo es tonto, y el mundo no se calienta como preveían | PlazaMoyua.com
In the context of all of this, is there any news from the APS on their new draft statement on AGW? Has anyone seen the text?
Take a look at this. It is a criticism of the sat data. It notes that land temp records aren’t revised even though “people have looked at it very, very carefully.” Hmmmm … land temp revisions are legend and every time there is a revision, the trend steepens.
From the article:
“As far as the data go, I don’t really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up. It’s also worth noting that there have not been any similar revisions to the surface temperature data, despite the fact that people have looked at it very, very carefully.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html
Here’s a question for anyone. Below are screenshot from Wood for Trees and the AMSU interactive web site.
AMSU:
http://s14.postimg.org/9uajbriht/14000_AQUA_Ch5_200320102012.png
WFT:
http://s13.postimg.org/n9o07nr93/WFT_2010_UAH_HC4.png
Note that the AMSU chart shows a fairly smooth annual variation during the year, with a peak in the middle of the year. This makes sense because of the asymmetric distribution of land. The greater land area in the NH causes global temperature to peak in the middle of NH summer. However, the WFT UAH and HADCRUT4 chart shows something entirely different.
Is this because months are compared to months in the base period or something else? If it is a month-to-month comparison, I’m not convinced that’s a good way to present the data.
AMSU:
http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
WFT:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2010.0/to:2011.0/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010.0/to:2011.0
Note the orange chart in AMSU is 2010 and the WFT chart is also for 2010.
Or is your second chart twin peaked for the two hemispheres?
==================
Yes, the more typical way to show changes over long periods is to look at anomalies month by month, which in this case removes the annual 2 C signal. Otherwise you would not be able to see the wood for the trees, so to speak.
TNX
===
That kind of sums up the problems in climate science – we are looking for a statistical needle in a haystack.
Indeed, summer is always warmer than winter, and that is the way it will always be. Climate change will never change that part. If you want plots to show that summers continue to be warmer than winters each year you need to ask for them.
2014 was the year of highest electricity prices EVER!!! It’s GREEN energy alright – taking all our green money.
From the article:
…
Price of Electricity Hit Record High in U.S. in 2014
January 16, 2015 – 12:21 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey
…
(CNSNews.com) – Even as gasoline prices plummeted and the overall energy price index calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics declined, electricity prices bucked the trend in the United States in 2014.
Data released today by the BLS indicates that the electricity price indexes hit all-time highs for the month of December and for the year. 2014 was the most-expensive year ever for electricity in the United States.
The annual price index for electricity, published by BLS today, was 208.020. That was up from 200.750 in 2013.
…
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/price-electricity-hit-record-high-us-2014
This is the bottom line. All the special interests – solar and wind industry, biofuels, NGOs, government agencies (NASA, NOAA, …), politicians, keepers of the magic words and data – they are all lined up with palms open. They will be coming for your money now via their special billing agency – the IRS ( in the USA).
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/oco2-global-2014.jpg
Many were fooled by looking at one month of data in an annual cycle. This is dominated by the spring-time maximum in vegetated areas. Looking at May you would see the northern hemisphere light up.
So you are saying natural cycles dominate CO2 emissions?
And we in the North are burning fossil fuels to beat 60 to keep warm. Verrrrrrrrry Interesting!!!
jim2, maybe you haven’t seen the Keeling curve? There is a 6ppm natural annual cycle. I think this is the main reason why people looking at the OCO-2 picture of a month get fooled, because they don’t have this realization.
Jim remains silent on the question of natural carbon emission. When the industrialized northern hemisphere is max burn mode heating in the winter the southern hemisphere still emits more CO2.
Interestingly the emission pattern follows the intertropical convergence zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone#mediaviewer/File:ITCZ_january-july.png
I do not understand how BEST (or any of the surfaces statistical models) can determine 95% confidence intervals. They are doing area averaging and every grid cell average has its own confidence interval, which will differ from cell to cell. I know of no valid way to combine these cell intervals to get a global interval. Does BEST anywhere explain their confidence interval calculation method?
I don’t know the answer to your question but I have been reviewing all of the data page by page and perhaps Mosher would be so kind as to entertain some questions. I think their work is interesting but some of the graphs and methodology leave me completely baffled.
Mosher
On the BEST page “City Selection” there is a list of cities with their warming rate C/cent since 1960. Three cities interest me. Guangzhua, China warming rate since 1960 of .72 C. Karachi, Pakistan 2.31 C. and Mashdad, Iran 3.71 C. Mashdad is warming at more than 5 times the rate of Guangzhu. The rates of warming vary so much I am not able to rationalize what the reasons might be. The latitudes are not that different while the elevations might be.
To what do you attribute what appears to be significant variance in their rates of warming since 1960?
we are not doing area averaging.
we are not averaging.
cells are not combined
we have a continous field.
spatial uncertainties via jack knife
read more comment less
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-paper-Appendix-sm.pdf
I intended the question above to be under your comment.
What are all the “Error! Reference source not found.” in the pdf, Steven?
Even worse, Steven. Your so-called continuous field is nothing but a vast set of interpolations among a (convenience sample) set of stations. Confidence intervals are based on probabilistic sampling theory. Your continuous field is an artifact, not a sample. It places temperature values in all the places that have no sample value, then averages all these artificial values along with the sparse sample values.. So how do you calculate your confidence intervals? Show me the math.
Mosher: the only mention of 95% confidence in this Appendix is in regard to individual station errors. There are a lot of interesting error discussions in this document, although it looks like they are getting low numbers because they are assuming low numbers. But in any case there seems to be no discussion of confidence intervals for the estimated global average temperature. Perhaps I have just missed it and you can point me to it. Searching on “confidence” does not find it.
The BEST method is area averaging in its most extreme form. Think of each station temp as a pole. Stretch canvas from and over all the poles on the globe. The global temp is the average height of the resulting tent. There are a small number of actual readings from the stations, plus an infinite number of interpolated temps from the tent. This is a crude approximation technique at best (no pun intended), certainly not accurate to tenths or hundredths of a degree. Nor do I see any way to estimate probabilistic confidence intervals.
They probably use anomalies as poles, not temps but it makes no difference. It is all interpolation. There are interesting questions about nonlinear ways to handle the tent near the temp poles but it is still a crude method.
“They probably use anomalies as poles, not temps but it makes no difference. It is all interpolation. There are interesting questions about nonlinear ways to handle the tent near the temp poles but it is still a crude method.”
I think you can get important information by examining how the surface stations cool at night compared to how it Warmed the day before, and how quickly they change temp through the year, this is how you can determine the surfaces response to Solar energy.
Not sure why Mosher has not answered your question. The BEST ‘methods’ is not that clear on the subject. However, CI’s are probably obtained using the jackknife method described in their section 4. Use this to estimate a standard deviation for the global average temperature. Then apply a normal CI with this estimated sd. It’s standard use of the jackknife method.
Well, it all seems to all boil down to how much the ocean is warming. This is not surprising. However. what nobody has ever shown me, is any evidence whatsoever that back-radiation from CO2 could possibly be intense enough to cause a measurable increase in ocean temperature.
What are we talking about here? A tenth of a degree C or so in the ocean surface temperature last year? Could that, by any stretch of the imagination, have been caused by a few extra ppm CO2 in the atmosphere?
No. It couldn’t. I’m gonna stand right here and deny it flat out and I defy anybody to show that it could.
This isn’t about CO2 at all. It’s about how much sunlight reaches the surface of great tropical oceans, and which direction the oceans happen to be sloshing at the time.
You would be surprised at how much 1 W/m2 applied steadily over years can do to the surface water temperatures.
Okay Jim, Surprise me.
How Many K?
It can warm 100 meters of water by 0.7 C per decade.
OMG! He said something about water, but he won’t touch water vapor with a freaking ten foot pole. Nice work, jimmy. I don’t know why these people think they can have a serious discussion with a guy that doesn’t have the guts to address the inadequacies in the evidence for meat of the theory that he pushes day and night, by hook or by crook. Where’s the beef, jimmy dee?
Well, that must cause quite a temperature gradient somewhere. You sure that it all stays right there and that’s what makes this these hottest times ever?
1 W/m²
And how much is that compared to direct sunlight? What does a slight change in cloud cover do? Or evaporation? Or solar output? I think that there are also big forces at work here and it would be great if climate scientists could get a handle on them and understand them.
But they are spending all their effort trying to measure static instead of the big signals.
KenW, well the oceans aren’t warming quite that fast, so a lot must be going deeper than 100 m. The forcing we will add from CO2 could be 6 W/m2 by 2100, so this is why there is a debate. It is like putting your hand on the scale that determines the surface temperature. A steady persistent pressure adds up over centuries as we see in quite obvious ways in the temperature record. None of this is surprising.
Doubling CO2 is like increasing the solar strength by 1%, which is more than an order of magnitude greater than natural solar variations to put it in perspective.
How much surface temp increase would result from increasing the solar strength by 1%. Don’t forget to include the big dangerous increase from the alleged positive water vapor feedback, that you don’t want to talk about.
Okay Jim, you say 1 W/m² is 1 percent of solar strength. I’ll just let that stand.
And that’s all going into the oceans, and not coming out. I’ll just let that stand too.
Now, since 2014 was the hottest year ever, exactly how many degrees hotter are the oceans because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere right now? I really want to know because this is what the hype is all about.
Oh yeah, thanks Don. Does water vapor back radiate too?
The big problem they have Ken, is that the world has a lot of freaking water. And if the global temperature is trending upward, for any freaking reason, there ought to be more water evaporating and staying in the atmosphere, causing more temperature increase, causing more evaporation… That’s where the freaking alleged positive water vapor feedback comes from. Where is the evidence that this is happening?
That’s my point Don.
If this whole “Warmest Ever” thing is about CO2 – Then CO2 must have caused a measurable increase in ocean temperature. It just plain hasn’t, because it couldn’t have.
If the oceans are warmer, then something else caused it. They should figure that out first and then go modeling their backsides radiation.
The same thing goes for every notion that CO2 heated the water that is supposedly melting the glaciers in Antarctica from their bottoms– but that’s another thread.
Look here Don:
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/press-releases/2014/new-study-confirms-water-vapor-as-global-warming-amplifier
New Study Confirms Water Vapor as Global Warming Amplifier
Scientists suggest that water vapor will intensify future climate change projections
July 28, 2014
MIAMI – A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming – will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.
“The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere,” said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.
Joseph,
You have water vapor feedback kicking in alongside ever increasing CO2; And it still ain’t warming. GHG Theory is looking more wobbly every day.
Now say Climate Science got the backside radiation out of its head and started looking at the whole picture, something useful might actually come of it. Wouldn’t that be super?!
If someone really developed a dependable method of predicting ENSO, say just 6 Months out, that would be great! Communities all around the Pacific could plan with it. It would save water and crops and lives. That could even be Nobel Prize material (Judith, I’m rooting for you).
But no. People write papers about how CO2 affects ENSO and not the other way around. How can people talk like that if they have no idea how ENSO works in the first place!!!
Ludicrous.
They have plenty of ideas on how ENSO “works”.
They don’t even know if an El Niño happened last year or not.
No one has proved that modern warming has a different cause than the Roman or Medieval warmings. It was warm, then cold, then warm, then cold, it was going to get warm again. It has gotten warm after every cold period in the past ten thousand years. That Natural Variability has not stopped.
That’s the odd thing: you have a wiggly line of nothing but bumps and dips, you get yet another bump after yet another dip…and some want to know what happened to their nice straight line. It, er, never existed, guys.
Of course, civilisations can go on and even forward during the coolings. What we can’t be sure of is how civilisations would cope with a big drop and big rise such as occurred not that long ago in the Younger Dryas/Optimum transition. There’s that question, not unrealistic.
And there’s the question of how aviation, transport, communications, agriculture and modernity in general would cope with a Laki, which occurred less than 250 years ago. When you consider what that Icelandic pea-shooter did in 2010, seems realistic to put volcanism and another Laki at the very centre of climate studies. It’s what adults would do. We are talking about the actual study of actual climate change…and it would be an adult pursuit.
Sadly, the climate kiddies are down at the sea-side with magnifying glasses, looking for a rise that’s barely there. And there’s not an adult in sight.
What? You didn’t know?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/defrauding-the-public-through-baseline-shifts/
The famous line, “Houston, we have a problem,” should tell you all you need to know about how Cruz will shape policy toward NASA. It will not be unlike Bush’s view of NASA vis a vis Clinton’s.
As for CAGW, NASA shouldn’t even be involved in the global warming mess, which was the advice of 49 former astronauts:
http://www.livescience.com/19640-nasa-astronauts-global-warming-letter.html
From the article:
…
NASA chief says agency’s goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
In an interview last month on Al-Jazeera, NASA chief Charlie Bolden said that one of NASA’s foremost tasks is to engage with Muslim nations. The White House disagreed, suggesting that the agency should perhaps focus on space exploration.
…
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0714/NASA-chief-says-agency-s-goal-is-Muslim-outreach-forgets-to-mention-space
Bolden – affirmative action appointment
Jim2 – “NASA chief says agency’s goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space”
Sounds like the beginning of a science fiction thriller. You can’t make that stuff up.
NASA, like academia, has realized that global warming, and not aeronautics and space, is the real “unscrewable pooch”.
Militant Muslims are a bigger problem than global warming. Greenpeace should be protesting them instead.
Ted Cruz will be very good to NASA, he was instrumental in getting more money for them. NASA and the contractors around Houston all vote for him because he likes NASA. If he wants to be president he will have to get Florida to back him and NASA will certainly go a long way to that end.
http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/europa-mission-wins-big-in-new-nasa-budget-141226.htm
I wouldn’t trust him not to try to turn it into a space platform for dropping nukes on Russia though. Cruz slickness is in studying LBJ. So that’s what I really think of Goldman Sachs boy, he is calculated, heartless and cold.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7WrHOjIIAI-c0Y.jpg
To prove there really are zombies, the tropospheric hotspot lives.
In the NOAA information here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12
they note
“The stratospheric temperature is decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations in a greenhouse-warmed world. ”
Is that really what the data shows? I thought it was equatorial rather than global in AR4?
I’ve never been a believer in the ‘pause’ and consider it a rhetorical devise. The overall trend is up. I also don’t believe in ‘2014 hottest year ever’ for the same reason: it’s just spin. That Gavin Schmidt and NASA omits the real temperature record of UAH by satellite shows how disingenuous they are. Hadcrut, Best, and all the rest rely on dubious data sparsely taken under changing local influences. They then use dubious adjustments that introduce bias. The public is being decieved. Time to cut the BS and make it real.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2014_v5.png
Ordvic, If economists told you that they predicted based on their models that inflation was going to accelerate by an additional 1% each year, but it only went up 2% in 10 years, you might reasonably call that a pause in the predicted rate of inflation increase, or you might be more blunt and say the prediction had been proven to be BS. That is not spin.
Don,
Yours is a good analogy since economists are just as often to be deceptive and biased, depending on their political leanings, as Climate Scientists. I didn’t use models to frame my argument. I suggested to keep it real. The period of the ‘pause’ is at the lower end of the models but the trend is still slightly up. Just as when you look at the UAH chart the running mean is mostly below the base line prior to 1997 and mostly above the baseline after 1997. The overall trend is up. That the actual temperature hasn’t kept up with the midrange of the models would suggest the models need adjustment to lower their trend. Either that or wait for more time to see if the temperature stair steps up. I suppose in that case you could argue ‘pause’ but I would still want to stick to overall trend to avoid deceptive language.
I don’t think ‘pause’ is close to being deceptive. When the other side has acquiesced and is offering dozens of excuses for the ‘pause’ or the ‘hiatus’, I think the issue of spin stops there.
As far as effectiveness club consensus has a huge advantage. Also I think this ‘2014 hottest year ever’ is intentional deceptive at least by Gavin and NASA. That the NYTs would be a cheerleader is just expected. I think the skeptic camp uses the ‘pause’ as more of a crutch. I don’t think they have the orchestrated bravado of club consensus nor do they have the deviousness.
Judith, thanks for the Science2.0 ref. on Ted Cruz. It is interesting to see the actual historical data as far on support for NASA.
According to UAH satellite data, 2014 is 0.03 C warmer than 2013. How much energy is needed to heat the lower troposphere by that much?
Half of atmospheric mass is within 5.6 km altitude = 2.5 x 10^18 kg
specific heat of air = 1 KJ / kg-C
sensible heat energy = 7.5 x 10^16 KJ
Greenland’s ice sheet melted 6 gigatons in 2014 vs. 474 gigatons in 2013. How much energy is needed to melt 474 – 6 = 468 gigatons of ice?
Mass of ice = 4.68 x 10^14 kg
latent heat of melting of ice = 334 KJ / kg
latent heat energy = 1.56 x 10^17 KJ
Therefore, the ‘warmest year’ (2014) had
1.56 x 10^17 – 7.5 x 10^16 = 8 x 10^16 KJ
less heat energy than 2013
And we are not yet counting the latent heat of sea ice, Sea ice extent is higher than previous years in both Antarctica and Arctic
Dr. Strangelove,
Are you aware of a rebound of any kind from the 474 Gt reduction in ice in Greenland from 2012/13 preceeding the 6 Gt reduction in 2013/2014? I did not see that information in the offering you presented earlier.
Thanks
In Fig. 3.3 of the link, June 2014 was not the lowest point. There was a dip and rebound between June 2013 and June 2014.
Dr. Strangelove,
Thank you. Rookie mistake on my part. Are you aware of any theory as to why with similar temperatures, there was such a substantial difference between the most recent loss of 6 Gt, from the previous years’ 474Gt?
Pingback: Saturday silliness – it’s the Warmist Year Evah! | Watts Up With That?
What I find interesting is the reaction of people for whom this in confirmation that the models and theories are correct.
Think about it. If the models and so-called consensus is right we’ll be experiencing heat waves, droughts, rising sea level, all kinds of weather disasters and repercussions that would have biblical like impacts on the world.
Putting aside the scientific debate can anyone actually see the political debate going anywhere? We’ve been having this debate for decades and it’s pretty obvious to even the most die-hard activist no one is making any ground. I would go so far as to say that given the domestic and international gridlock in the US, China, India and other large emitters it seems unlikely anything would be done up to and including the (exaggerated) point that you needed bunker gear or a scuba suit to take a jaunt down to the mall.
So when people like FOMD jump around declaring victory… What exactly did you win? If this is about the future and all that then this should be a pretty sober affair given the political and scientific climate. Or is it just about being able to say you’re right, push some social and political reforms then smugly retreat as uncaring as anyone else about the state of the world in fifty or a hundred years. Because, frankly, with the reaction you see from the die-hard we’re all going to die crowd they seem pretty happy for such an empathetic and forward thinking (/sarc) cohort.
There’s plenty happening. Just not along the lines the “most die-hard activist”s want.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Nice graph that puts both “the hiatus” (1998-2014) and 2014 in perspective:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/85000/85083/annual_temperature_anomalies_2014.pdf
Given that the IPO had a big influence on both the big run up in temperatures to “the hiatus” as well as the hiatus, it will be interesting to see how it behaves 2015-2024. Will the long term trend of 0.16C per decade be maintained, or, if the IPO turns postive strongly, will we see an upward turn or acceleration in that linear trend?
Since Climate Etc. began we have been assured the globe is cooling.
So, of course, it’s being disingenuous to report it’s not. The calendar year is not the end of the current heat wave. 1.5 months from now the 12-month anomaly for GISS could easily be over .70C.
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2012/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2012/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2013/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2014/trend".The stadium wave is dissolving.
And,of course, GHGs can’t warm the oceans and they’re getting warmer and oh gawd we don’t know why!
JCH | January 18, 2015 at 12:34 pm | Reply
“Since Climate Etc. began we have been assured the globe is cooling.”
http://melissaagnes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/False-image.jpg
Rgates
I thought this was an interesting picture showing the 2014 anomalies
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/bob-tisdale-is-confused-miffed-and.html#more
I think its fair to say large chunks of the southern ocean are likely to be varying shades of blue whilst the arctic will be a mix of blues and reds. Elsewhere there are normal temperature and some patches of blue and some place we have no information for.. That is to say not ALL the globe is warming.
I would imagine the MWP and LIA would also reflect this sort of patchwork quilt where, with the former, not everywhere would be warm and with the latter not everywhere cold.
We need a decade of deep reds everywhere to know with certainty that it is likely that we are warmer than at any time since the MWP
tonyb
“We need a decade of deep reds everywhere to know with certainty that it is likely that we are warmer than at any time since the MWP.”
———–
I think within the next 20 years it will be more confidently said we are warmer than any time since the Holocene Optimum.
Playing the animation of warming on this page clearly gives you a sense of the “patchwork quilt” of warming, but especially these past 40 years or so, the change toward more warm everywhere becomes clear:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
R. Gates | January 18, 2015 at 1:24 pm |
“I think within the next 20 years it will be more confidently said we are warmer than any time since the Holocene Optimum.”
Why on earth would anyone care what you think?
rgates
nice animation. its great to know that we have the exact ocean temperatures of virtually unexplored parts of the world dating back so far.
Now, which, of the for example, African countries, would you like to bet your house on, that they took highly accurate daily temperatures over the last century? You can add Albania, Cambodia and numerous other countries as well, if you like..
now, where is the same animation for satellites?
tonyb
Ahh Mr Gates, the man who has no logical thoughts of his own. The man who thinks climate sensitivity to increased forcing is on the high side.
So just thinking logically. The IPCC said for a long time that the median increase in global temperatures would likeley be 3.25c for a doubling of CO2. Let’s use that, you can use a ‘higher’ figure if you like. So CO2 has increased from 280 to 400. That means, due to the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 that we should be about half way towards the 3.25c increase. Let’s call it 1.5c.
The warmists reckon that a natural cooling effect is preventing the full increase from showing. So you reckon that without mans ‘interference’ ‘natural’ temperatures would currently be about 1.5c cooler than now.
Now that would put us cooler than the little ice age. Not only that, this ‘pause’ is actually an ongoing natural cooling trend in your warmist brain. Not only that, this ‘natural’ cooling trend seems to be increasing as the measured warming trend decreases.
So brainbox is that what you truly believe? Should the Earth currently be cooler than the little ice age and is it currently locked into an increasing cooling trend? Would that be a good thing? Has man actually rescued himself and other species from a cold disaster because make no mistake, life does worse in cold rather than warm?
The more the measured warming trend drifts away from the alarmists view the larger the apparent natural cooling trend must be.
Its just the logical extension of your beliefs, so presumably you will be happy to confirm.
Alan
Those curves tell a story that is death to alarm, Alan. Gates knows it. We’ve talked about it before. See his attempted dodge elsewhere on this page, and also, months ago.
====================
Pingback: Scientists Balk at ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: Ignores Satellites Showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ | Pod Shelter
If ever there was any doubt that NOAA has been politicized and has an agenda, the latest “science (propaganda) by press release” should remove any lingering doubt.
While loudly proclaiming 2014 to be “the warmest year” because it was 0.04°C (that’s right, folks, ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR DEGREES) warmer than the dubious previous warmest year, NOAA completely forgot to mention that the margin of error is +/- 0.09°C—
in other words, THEY DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW if 2014 was the warmest year or not (but that didn’t stop them from making the claim).
It is a sorry state of affairs when a U.S. government science-based agency makes scientifically INACCURATE statements— but that’s what’s happened to NOAA.
This is just ridiculous.
No, you are.
JCH
I thought I would pull out a mixed metaphor just for you. You have hitched your wagon to a sinking ship.
This anoitment of 2014 as the |warmest” year ever is invalid because the temperature scale they use is falsified. This is easy to show by comparing their temperatures with satellite temperatures. There is no doubt that the warmest year has been and still is the super El Nino of 1998. Falsification started by giving temperature curves an artificial upward slope since the beginning of the eighties. I spotted that when I wrote my book (What Warming) and even put a warning aboout it in the preface. It did not make any difference. They simply continued that artificial upslope into the twenty-first century, with the absurd result that in their temperature curves the 2010 El Nino is higher than the 1998 super El Nino itself. The false warming in the eighties and nineties, involves collusion among GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC teams. Collusion is proven by the presence of traces of identical computer processing in their publicly available temperature records. It comprises sharp upward spikes at beginnings of years. One of them sits right on top of the super El Nino of 1998. They are easy to spot in comparison with satellite temperature records. These data sets should not be used for any serious scientific work on global temperature if you want your conclusions to reflect reality of global temperature behavior. For a starter, all claims of assigning the warmest year based on these data sets should be declared void. There is one more thing about the eighties and nineties you do not know if you use these falsified temperature scales. The period from 1979 till the start of the super El Nino in 1987 was another no-warming period like the current hiatus and it also lasted for 18 years. I determined that and showed it as figure 15 in my book. The ENSO oscillation was active during this period and produced five El Nino peaks there, with La Nina valleys in between. They are clearly visible in satellite temperature records. In a case like this the global mean temperature is obtained stepwise by drawing a straight line from the top of the El Nino peak to the bottom of the neighboring La Nina valley and putting a dot in the middle. When I did that for all five El Ninos in the eighties and nineties these dots lined up in a horizontal straight line. indicating that there was no warming at all during the entire period. This fact was documented in figure 15 in my book but has been completely ignored. Much discussion ofmthe hiatus has proceeded in ignorance of this important fact. It was made possible first by the fake warming in the eighties and nineties shown by land-based tempersature curves and secondly by the incompetence of the self-appointed “climate experts” who simply don’t know how or simply didn’t bother bother to research scientific literature available to them.
@Arno, I assume you are aware of M&M’s work and climateaudit.org. Your data analysis issues would be a great topic for analysis there if not already done. However, the melting Greenland Ice Sheet energy issue brought up in the previous post above is another excellent point.
Pingback: Desperate Hype on 2014 as Record Warm Year | climateequilibrium
Pingback: May Cooler Heads Prevail – waka waka waka
Is this why skeptics don’t trust the alarmists. They lie. Maybe they don’t do it directly but they lie just the same. You have to wonder what made them cough up the truth and why these questions weren’t asked by these 3rd rate journalists who get press releases and just publish them without question. People (the scientists like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, James Hansen and many others) have made an absolute mess of science in general and climate science in particular and should be horse whipped for it.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PEkKQ4Fr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It seems that even with current sophisticated measurements of land and sea surface that there is plenty of room for error. For example, climateaudit.org has a blog on correction factors made for urban vs. rural weather stations and found over 500 worldwide stations marked very rural were typically at airports of developing cities. Even studying the climate science for months I still do not understand why they attempt the enormously complex problems of direct measurement of land, sea surface and deep sea which does not factor in heat of vaporization or ice melt, (which of course is real heat) that does not involve temperature.
Why not simply measure what goes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere with high precision with geosynchronous or Moon-based detectors of solar radiance in and Earth radiance out? But, of course, even if we prove the Earth is out of equilibrium and gaining heat it is only circumstantial evidence pointing to CO2.
What if we forget about CO2 since there is not much we can do except invent alternatives, which we are working on already. Perhaps is the primary problem is preserving Greenland and Antarctic ice we focus a fraction of the trillions we were earmarking for CO2 on mylar summer blankets to reflect radiation and insulate coastal glaciers from melting and seeping into the ocean.
Energy in is easy to measure because it’s a point source. Energy out is very difficult to measure because it’s not a point source, it’s dynamic, and differs at nearly every point.
Compounding the extreme difficulty of measuring energy out is that the difference between energy in and energy out is very nearly 0% in the best estimation: less than 0.1% difference.
If we can measure the 0.00001% change in emission from distant stars to see the shadow of Earth-sized planets crossing their paths of light why can’t we have a detector sensitive enough to measure the total emission of Earth from say the Moon?
U know it makes sense.
So even the Great and Glorious Gavin seems to accept that the surface of the Earth was once molten. This leaves him with a quandary, it would seem.
For the surface to be warming now, it must have been colder at sometime in the past, and have to have warmed since that point. For this to occur, the molten surface must have cooled for some four and a half billion years, stopped, reversed, and warmed to its present temperature.
When exactly did the surface stop cooling, and start to warm? No one seems to know. The present breathless pronouncements of the hottest year ever appear to relate to the start of official reliable records, which might be 1840, 1880, or, in the case of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 1910. This avoids the inconvenient hotter temperatures recorded prior to 1910.
Now Gavin also has a few other problems. Previous atmospheric conditions of up to 95% CO2 at 100 bars or so – quite Venusian – didn’t stop surface cooling. His supposed surface temperature measurements definitely do not measure the surface temperature, as this type of reading, where performed, is generally known as the ground temperature. He no doubt dismisses the fact that seven billion people, all generating heat as though their lives depended on it, and at a per capita rate never seen before, create more heat than one billion.
But no matter. Being a mathematician, his appreciation of the difference between heat and temperature may be wanting. He is certainly not alone. His understanding of physics may also be less than up to the task, given his peculiar idea that the heat of the Sun is somehow trapped and accumulated by CO2 in such a way that each day the Earth’s surface is hotter than the day before. In his view, supported by others, this will no doubt continue without pause or obvious limit.
Oh dear, again the Earth’s surface will melt! What lunacy!
On to supposed warming of the ocean depths. Given that there are an unknown, but ever increasing numbers of undersea vents, furiously transferring heat from the mantle into the depths, Gavin and his cohorts will no doubt fall back on the tried and true excuse that the amount is negligible. How do we know this? Gavin said so, therefore it is true! True, I tell you!
Rising sea levels? Gavin seems to be unaware that tectonic movement occurs in three dimensions, affecting the boundaries of the ocean basins. His precious sea levels are merely relative to land which is in constant motion, laterally and vertically.
As to the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect, this exists only in the minds of people sharing a common delusion. Once again, we must believe in the impossible, because we are admonished to by people whose livelihood depends on the promotion of this pernicious fable. There is precisely no experimental evidence to support this impossible supposition, nor any evidence that stands up to examination.
Analysis indicates there is no logical, scientific, or evidential basis to support the contention that the Earth is doing anything else than what it should, according to our present knowledge of physics. And, of course, that is cooling. Very slowly. Remorselessly. Relentlessly.
Gavin now resorts to more irrelevant and pointless analogies, involving race records for events such as the Marathon. If you accept his logic, the record will become shorter and shorter without limit. Possibly, when I see twenty six miles run in twenty six seconds, I’ll believe the analogy. Until then, definitely not.
The whole CO2 warming saga has degenerated into meaningless and vague diversions – into crusades against pollution, poverty, extinction, and burning stuff to cook food and keep warm. Feel good politically correct fuzzy feelings are all well and good, but I prefer not to pay for them.
If you really believe that the world should be lead by the likes of Death Trains Hansen, Save the Whales Schmidt, and Me! Me! Me! Mann, be my guest. Lead all you want. Don’t blame me if I don’t feel like following – I might prefer to go my own way.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn
“As to the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect, this exists only in the minds of people sharing a common delusion. Once again, we must believe in the impossible, because we are admonished to by people whose livelihood depends on the promotion of this pernicious fable. There is precisely no experimental evidence to support this impossible supposition, nor any evidence that stands up to examination.”
Then what do you say about the work of Arrhenius?
If I google ‘Arrhenius CO2 hypothesis’ I get over 3 million hits. That’s more than I’m willing or capable to wade through to find out what the essential arguments are.
The CAGW folks treat him as an icon and stand a lot of the weight of their argument on his shoulders. I’ve read papers where Arrhenius predicted future warming and others where they thought he got the sensitivity too high but no one who mounted an argument that CO2 did not absorb and re-radiate causing a lesser amount of heat to escape in any 12/24 hour time period. I’ve also read there is a saturation effect that lessens as CO2 becomes saturated in a particular wave length but trying to pursue those arguments leads to a dwindling return where people start to mumble at each other.
A clearing house that would list all the arguments and then list the best responses by skeptics with their work cited and the best work of the CAGW believers with their work cited would be a welcome relief. Just trying to stay on top of all this is more than an 8 hour a day job. In addition to the questions and answers from both sides would be a list of questions that need to be answered. This would be a great help in building an overall architecture of the problem.
–Then what do you say about the work of Arrhenius?–
He thought CO2 levels caused glacial and interglacial periods.
And CO2 levels do not cause glacial and interglacial periods.
He tried quantify the effects of CO2 adsorbing infrared,
So:
“In this book Arrhenius first describes the “hot-house theory ”of the atmosphere, stating that the Earth’s temperature is about 30 degrees warmer than it would be due to the“ heat-protection action of gases contained in the atmosphere,”a theory based on ideas developed by Fourier, Pouillet, and (especially) Tyndall. His calculations demonstrated that if the atmosphere had no carbon dioxide, the surface temperature of the Earth would fall about 21 degrees Celsius, and that this cooler atmosphere would contain less water vapor, resulting in an additional temperature decrease of approximately 10 degrees Celsius. ”
And that is wrong. And/or current greenhouse effect theory does not agree. Wiki, Greenhouse Effect:
“By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
So first Water vapor has greater effect than CO2.
Second, 9–26% of 33 K is 2.97 to 8.58 K
So highest range is for CO2 is 8.58 C as compared to Arrhenius estimate
of 21 C
Now I think think current greenhouse effect theory is wrong, but in terms gases which absorb IR, water vapor is without doubt stronger.
It’s stronger with one comparing 1 H2O to 1 CO2 and stronger because
there is far more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere.
But for the idea that CO2 causes glacier and interglacial period one would need CO2 to be “about 21 degrees Celsius”.
Therefore his need to explain ice ages and their known variation of CO2
to be caused by CO2 lead to this false assumption.
Btw, had Arrhenius conceived of modern fantasy of runaway effects, he would not have had to pick such high value. Or Arrhenius thought a doubling of CO2 would increase global temperature by about 5 C, whereas currently it’s though a doubling of CO2 causes an increase about 1 C [plus a runaway effect, the warming increases water vapor, which increases temperature causing more water, and etc.]
But of course such runaway effects are foolish and have never been observed.
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Or IPCC thinks it extremely unlikely there is not some amount of feedback
and thinks it’s .5 to 3.5 C and unlikely it’s 5 or higher.
Another thing Arrhenius got wrong is related to the name of the theory- Greenhouse effect. He imagine that window panes prevent IR from leaving the greenhouse and that explained why greenhouses were warm. But this was also wrong.
Rather what mostly cause cars or greenhouses to get warm is inhibiting
convection of gases. So keep open the car window of the car and the air doesn’t get as hot.
Now, actual greenhouse does not do much in terms of warming Earth.
Or cover entire earth with greenhouses and it doesn’t do much to warm Earth. A greenhouse stops convection of air, but the atmosphere itself stops the heat loss from convection. Or if greenhouse didn’t stop the convection of heat then goes into atmosphere and warm it.
So greenhouse stops heat from escaping via convection and so does the atmosphere.
So both a greenhouse and atmosphere does the same thing- it’s just the atmosphere is massive and any greenhouse humans make is dinky.
Now if have different types window panes that block IR, can have slight effect in causing the greenhouse to be warmer- but mainly is about convective. Similarly greenhouse gases could have slight effect in warming Earth- but they are not the main [only thing] that keeps Earth warm.
Pingback: De onzin van 2014 als het warmste jaar ooit. - Climategate.nl
Robert Tracinski in the Federalist:
\\But a few folks decided to do some actual journalism, and Britain’s Daily Mail reports that
the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much.
Pause for a moment to digest that. The margin of error was plus or minus one tenth of a degree. The difference supposedly being measured here is two hundredths of a degree—five times smaller than the margin of error. The Daily Mail continues:
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.
This is not exactly a high point in the employment of the scientific method.//
She was turning to look for the segment with Schmidt and Spencer.
===========
With Gavin Schmidt’s latest remarks, once again we can properly observe that the climate science community has moved the goal posts for assessing the validity of the climate models; that is to say, the trend of peak hottest years which occur every four or five years has — for all practical purposes — effectively replaced the central trend of global mean temperature as the basis for evaluating the reliability of the climate models.
See this January 2015 update to a previous graphic posted earlier on Climate Etc. in the fall of 2014.
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GCM/CMIP5-RCP-Hottest-Year-Trend-2015-Update_zps2d49b66c.png
Pingback: Hottest Year Claim: Miniscule Change in Imaginary Number | NoFrakkingConsensus
Pingback: How reliable is NASA’s pronouncement of 2014 as the warmest year on record? | Wintery Knight
Senator Ted Cruz:
“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that—that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.”
Dr Curry:
“So, what is wrong with Cruz’s statement?…… If he is referring to globally averaged surface temperatures since 2000, there is only a very small amount of warming; ”
Really????
The data disagrees.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend
GISS said that 2014 was warmest on record by .02 C over 2010, with a margin of error of .10 C. What a joke.
Pingback: It’s the Trend, Stupid | Open Mind | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: Global Warming hoax or have we got an "Inconvenient Hobby" - Page 89 - Saltwater Fishing Discussion Board Including Inshore Fishing, Offshore Fishing, Saltwater Fly Fishing and Kayak Fishing
President Obama, 2012: “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.”
NCDC’s global temperature dataset for 1880-2014 has 122 changes from their previous 1880-2013 dataset, including a warming of 2013 and a cooling of 2011.
As a result, what would have been a decadal trend over 4 years of about +0.14°C is now +0.51°C, higher that the IPCCs most dire projections.
Isn’t that amazing? Obama knew how global climate was changing even before the NCDC figured it out!
Pingback: Watch: Morano on Fox on ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: ‘It’s statistical nonsense’
Pingback: Watch: Morano on Fox on ‘Hottest Year’ Claims: ‘It’s statistical nonsense’
Pingback: What Obama Got Right and Wrong in the State of the Union
Pingback: Last Year Was The Warmest Year In Recorded History. It Was Also The Greatest
Pingback: And Now For The Facts | There's My Two Cents
Nice! Great perspective on the “pause”:
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/there-is-no-pause.gif
Interesting that the disagree with Gavin’s statement in his recent press conference, that the pause may continue for another 5-10 yrs
I missed that comment of his. But either way, I disagree with simple linear fit anyway as they do a great disservice to underlying dynamics, especially, as you well appreciate, those multidecadal dynamics such as the IPO. In a linear fit, you simply have to make the range wide enough to cover the multidecadal variability…and like magic, some linear dynamic seems to be present! Gavin may be right though that the negative IPO will continue for 5-10 more years, or it could end in 1 or 2. That’s the crap shoot of natural variability!
Well yes, the crap shoot of natural variability is the issue, and how to deconvolute it from human caused variability. Still no convincing answer IMO to how much of the warming post 1950 was caused by humans vs natural variability
Reply to : curryja
You say that we can’t tell how much of the warming post 1950 was caused by natural variability, but the NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC records go back to 1880, so can we deduce how much of the warming over that longer period is due to natural (solar, oceanic) cycles ?
‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025052/abstract
The estimates for the persistence of Pacific regimes is 20 to 30 years.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/verdon-and-franks.png
The question is where to at the next climate shift? Can the 1000 year high in El Nino frequency and intensity persist?
You think there is still too much uncertainty with this kind of “sum of all forcings” approach?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif
Given that we sort of now are getting a handle on what the IPO is doing to GST during its positive and negative phases:
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/EnglandFig1.png
How many sources are reporting that quote? As of yesterday there was only one. The article has no author listed, and there are no quotation marks.
This is because the warming impact, or forcing, due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would keep growing with continuing emissions of greenhouse gases, Schmidt said, and “in five to ten years time it is changes in greenhouse gases that will dominate”. …
Apology on the quotation marks. It appears to be partially quoted.
Still, he does not use the word continue. The 5 5 to 10 years in the quote could just as easily mean the last 5 to 10 years.
““in five to ten years time it is changes in greenhouse gases that will dominate”. …
____
There seems to be confusion by some about what actual forcing on the climate is versus natural variability. Gavin is of course completely correct that GH gas increases will dominate over the longer-term, but ENSO or natural fluctuations in the IPO over multiple decades, for example, don’t represent external forcings. Thus, in terms of actual forcings, GH gases now constantly dominate all other forcings over virtually any time frame. The only exception would be a really big volcano. Even the moderate increase in aerosols over the “hiatus” period, were not enough in and of themselves to cause the hiatus. It really was the natural variability of the IPO plus increased aerosols that reduced GST, even though, clearly energy continued accumulating in the system in both the ocean as well as latent heat of fusion in the melting of global glacial ice.
Yep – nicely indicates the continued lower than expected temperature trend.
Pingback: Fact Checking Obama's Climate Claims in State of the Union
Pingback: Lexington Libertarian | The Best Rebuttal To Obama”s State Of The UNion
Pingback: Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year On Record? Fact Checking Obama’s Climate Claims In State Of The Union | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: Fact-checking the 2015 State of the Union. | Illinois Mirror
I read in the Times newspaper today that the UK’s Met Office has cooled somewhat to 2014 being the warmest year on record, and are now suggesting it wasn’t any warmer than 2010
Pingback: Even climate scientists laugh at claims 2014 “hottest” year | DID You Know Online
Pingback: “Warmest Year” Blather – Distraction from Big Picture
Pingback: Best Year Ever & Again | Skeptical Swedish Scientists