by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
That record high Antarctic temp? It has some really interesting potential climate connections. [link]
Did Antarctica Actually Hit Record High Temps? [link]
Science: Antarctic ice shelves could completely disappear within a century [link]
Scripps: Confused about the relationship between ice shelf decay and sea ice increase in the Antarctic? [link]
More insight into the chicken-egg relation between CO2 and temperature during glacial cycles: [link]. Article in Nature: Causal feedbacks in climate change [link]
“Russian scientist’s new study: ‘Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age’” [link]. A copy of the manuscript can be obtained here [Abdussamatov]. JC comment: Interesting. Shows repeating pattern of coincidence between the strength of the solar cycles during cold spells, Be and 14C production rates, and global climate, with a remarkable pattern for the pre-Maunder, Maunder, Dalton, 1880-1915 cooling, and 1945-1977 cooling. TSI seems to be an indicator, not a primary cause.
As a follow up to recent post Whats up with the Atlantic? Steve McIntyre has 3 posts that DEVASTATES Rahstorf and Mann’s argument:
Rahmstorf and Mann are undeterred; Michael Mann tweets: Will be on @CBCNews @CBCWorldReport tomorrow morning (4/4) talking about #climatechange & ocean conveyor slowdown: http://www.cbc.ca/worldreport/
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat? [link]
Warming ‘hiatus’ reduces most likely value of climate sensitivity from 2.8 to 2.5°C. New in @NatureClimate [link] JC note: I have another post on sensitivity coming early next week.
Nature: Bidecadal North Atlantic ocean circulation variability controlled by timing of volcanic eruptions [link]
Study: ‘Extreme’ Winter Storms Not Caused By Global Warming [link]
Debate over the “drunk Arctic” and loopy jet stream hypothesis is really really heating up [link]
Cooling Europe! Temperature & Vegetation Data Show Central European Springs Starting Later [link]
New article on satellite observations of convection and precipitation finds no trend in tropical rainfall [link]
25 years of satellite data: 7 questions for John Christy and @RoyWSpencer [link]
New paper finds almost half of warming in Athens Greece due to the Urban Heat Island effect [link]
Ocean warming suggests 50% chance of El Nino [link]
Purdue climate tool lets you see impact of past El Nino events – Farm Progress [link]
Soil organic matter susceptible to climate change [link]
Scientific American: Historical tour of the clean energy future [link]. Interesting article on new energy technologies.
Andy Skuce: “The history of emissions and the Great Acceleration” [link]
JC comment: Trying something new, in response to comments on last Sunday’s discussion post. Please keep your comments focused on these topics/articles, or other related items.
Would the research justify the headline reading “Extreme Winter Storms Mitigated by Global Warming”?
Try:
Stormy Legal Weather Unmitigated by Cold Spring
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has just ruled in Mann v. National Review:
“The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, NR Defendants’ reference to Plaintiff as “the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey stick’ graph” was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a member of the scholarly academy and it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of his profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community. […]
Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of such words as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. In addition, whether the NR Defendants induced the EPA to investigate Plaintiff is not critical to this analysis because it is not disputed that the NR Defendants knew that the EPA and several reputable bodies had investigated Plaintiff and concluded that his work was sound. The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct.”
So, what’s next in this legal slog?
Michael E. Mann, Editor and Chief of the National Review?
I think NR gets to to depose Mann to prove their claim.
The deposition should be fun to watch. Popcorn all around. McIntyre as an expert witness? ;)
I was pleased to see Missouri Senator Roy Blunt’s statement on AGW and President Obama’s worldwide climate treaties:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/sharpening-the-message/
Russell Seitz, as too often, is senilely lost in space. As many readers are aware, CEI and National Review have appealed the Superior Court rulings on their SLAPP motions to the DC Court of Appeals. A decision from the Court of Appeals would be news. Seitz’ quotation is from the summer 2013 decision of Judge Combs-Greene, which is under appeal. So when Seitz says: “The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has just ruled in Mann v. National Review”, he’s not reporting “news”, but the result of the decision which is under appeal. As too often, Seitz is providing disinformation.
==> “Russell Seitz, as too often, is senilely lost in space.”
Nice to see that anti-tribalism is held in such esteem by “skeptics.”
Heh, Combs-Greene, the dumbest jurist on the most vulnerable circuit and the most politically connected plaintiff’s counsel possible. How could this have gone so dreadfully wrong? It was a slam dunk.
=========
Joshua, the Seitz comment is so bad it’s not just wrong. It’s not an issue of “tribalism” to criticize it sharply — the claim that “has just ruled” is wildly inaccurate. The only “tribalism” would be from people who pretend that the Seitz comment is to be taken seriously.
Well, Russell’s point is poignantly lost in space, now. It got elderly and wandered into the forest of passing events. But if Russell’s quick, he can follow the trail of gingerbread crumbs before the birds eat them.
==============
Skiphil –
Let’s look at your justification (emphasis added):
==> ” It’s not an issue of “tribalism” to criticize it sharply.”
And then let’s look again at the actual statement that I highlighted (emphasis added):
==> “Russell Seitz, as too often, is senilely lost in space”
Is Russell an “it?”
I love the irony of it being the same firm that defended tobacco company science. Where’s Naomi Oreskes when we need her?
============
Oh, Joshua, ‘it’ refers to ‘comment’. My lord, kindergartners understand that much rhetoric.
===========
kim –
Rather miraculously, you seem to have missed my point. Criticizing a statement is different than calling someone senile.
Hope that helps.
The news is elderly, the adjective apt. ‘Often’ is apt, in my experience. Russell’s phoning in the alarmist talking points of the past. What you phone in bears bringing back the three minute limit.
===================
kim –
Your defense of juvenile name-calling and tribalism is duly noted. Just as it has been the previous (tens of?) thousands of times.
What’s particularly amusing is that Mann is not likely to win on the merits of the case. Steve is careful, and won’t say it, but that ruling was bizarre.
I’ll say, and sign it BiZarro!
=================
I’ll take ‘denially lost in space’. Even rhymes and supports the same point, but even more poignantly.
============
Joshua still doesn’t the the good of tribalism.
Joshua still doesn’t get the the good bits of tribalism.
Mann is the gift to wacko skeptics that just keeps on giving. His consistent publication of badly flawed papers, and their subsequent tacit acceptance, makes the entire field look either incompetent or mendacious.
The best thing for climate science would be a very public, very honest discussion of the flaws in papers like this. But instead, places like RealClimate see any such discussion as an attack on their tribe and end up defending the indefensible.
Could this be where all that clandestine oil money is going?
What JC has to say about Abdussamatov’s study, is exactly why I think if there is a temperature decline associated with this prolonged solar minimum despite CO2 increases, then the solar/climate connection will be in serious play.
On the other hand I have said if my low average minimum solar parameters are meant during this prolonged solar minimum following several years of sub solar activity (which we have had) and the global temperature response is not down then the solar/climate connection will be in serious doubt.
Pingback: Week in review – science and technology edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement
“We have likely been missing a portion of the increasing heat,” said Durack. His study and other recent research, he said, suggests that “we may need to go back and start recalculating the climate sensitivity estimates for the earth.” ..
The anomaly for the first three months of 2015 is at least .78C, and maybe higher. Is it a raging El Nino? No. Australia does not even agree we are in an El Nino.
PDO is positive.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2015_v5.png
Posting RSS and UAH is like worthless. They do not measure the temperature 2 meters above the land surface. The RSS scientist clearly stated that the thermometer series are a more accurate measure of the surface air temperature. After an El Nino or La Nina drives them to the right conclusion, the inaccurate space platforms finally get close to the actual surface temperature.
JCH – Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
The sat temps will follow the surface ones, just with a less pronounced rate of increase or decrease. If surface temps were continuously rising, so would the lower trop sat temps.
JCH – when and how did you come to believe the lapse rate was an invalid atmospheric phenomenon?
The troposphere and surface aren’t expected to warm at the same rate.
The rate won’t be the same, but if one is increasing globally so will the other; that is they both will show the same tread – up, down, or sideways. And they don’t agree.
They measure what they measure accurately. It’s not a measurement of the temperature 2 meters above the land surface.
Right. It’s a measurement uncontaminated by surface effects and where greater warming is supposed to be occurring. I can see why you wouldn’t be interested.
But they are contaminated by satellite drift, orbital decay, satellite changes, calibration difficulties, and other bias corrections.
But toa incoming/outgoing balance is okay?
Or is it only okay because they adjust the accuracy based on gcm calculated balance?
Like all instruments, satellites that measure TOA has biases too. I’m countering the claim that satellites are somehow better at measuring temperatures than are thermometers. The data models used by UAH and RSS are complicated, and their issues are shown by the current significant difference between the UAH and RSS trends, and their different trends in the middle troposphere too.
“The last global decrease of temperature,” according to Abdussamatov, “was observed not only in Europe, North America and Greenland, but also in any other part of the world during the Maunder minimum of sunspot activity and of the total solar irradiance in 1645 to 1715.”
You private/home-schooled alarmists are scaring the c*ap out of people by threatening us with a Koldie future. Why are you so mean?
In the decades ahead we may fall prey to hucksters promising to bring back global warming.
We need to stop burning fossil fuels right now so that our grandchildren will have enough fuel to survive Little Ice Age XX. How can we selfishly burn them now when they’ll need them then.
Would you freeze the babies of the future? I fear the CE denizens are mean enough to do it.
We could go back to the horse and buggy but then… your babies will be picking up a helluvalot of horsesh*t.
My father was a large animal veterinarian. Picking up HS is harmless. Builds strong bodies and clean minds.
JCH: We need to stop burning fossil fuels right now so that our grandchildren will have enough fuel to survive Little Ice Age XX.
A reasonably well thought out progression from plentiful current energy supplies to plentiful future energy supplies is supported by almost everybody. However, it will be impossible if we “stop burning fossil fuels right now”. We need the fossil fuels in order to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants.
I wrote “almost everybody”, but I do sometimes wonder whether some of the green organizations (viz. the Sierra Club, Greenpeace) want plentiful future energy supplies. Didn’t somebody famous write that cheap energy would be the worst thing we could bestow upon our children?
JCH: My father was a large animal veterinarian. Picking up HS is harmless. Builds strong bodies and clean minds.
For the transportation needs of modern society, we could not afford the energy to grow the feed for that many draft animals.
Agreed. Like my ancestors, we would probably have to also use human beings.
“Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum
stop global warming?” Meehl et al, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/ grl.50361, 2013
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_ytd.png
The global temperature anomaly depends on the data source.
**Reference, see–e.g., Bicentennial Decrease Of The Total Solar Irradiance Leads To Unbalanced Thermal Budget Of The Earth And The Little Ice Age, APPLIED PHYSICS RESEARCH, 4(1):178-184
And that is not supported by other data sources.
The anomaly for the first three months of 2015 is at least .78C, and maybe higher. Is it a raging El Nino? No. Australia does not even agree we are in an El Nino
If we are not in an El Nino, the recent high temperatures are even more indicative of global warming.
Short term, months long temperature trends can be indicative of global warming?
GW is when the surface air temperature gets warmer. The current upward trend started in 2011, so it’s 4 years and 3 months long. Will soon be half a decade. It reached record territory in 2014, and 90 days later it has left that record in the dust.
JCH,
All depends on where one choses to look: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cowtan_way_2014_roundup.html?utm_content=buffer13e04&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“The plateau in Arctic temperatures suggests that we should not necessarily expect runaway Arctic warming or a rapid loss of Arctic sea ice; and the rapid Arctic warming events we have looked at in the CMIP-5 models also tend to be of limited duration. The contribution of the Arctic to the warmth of 2010 can be seen in temperature anomaly maps for the two years (Figure 2).”
“The rest of the bias comes from the remainder of the planet, and shows a peak in around 2010.”
“So was 2014 the hottest on record? We don’t know yet, but we know one of the places where we need to look for the answer.”
“the recent high temperatures are even more indicative of global warming”
Short term, months long temperature trends can be indicative of global warming?
Funny. 18+ years of hiatuspause in reported temps tells us nothing about globalclimatewarmingchange. But a few months of warming….
And what happened to surface temps being a poor proxy for global warming?
Except there hasn’t been an 18-year pause in temperatures, unless you cheat and only present a small subset of the data.
David,
Unless one listens to one of them there “climate scientists” to whom we’re all supposed to be listening to at least 97% of the time: “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.”
Typically record breaking years occur during an El Nino. The fact that temperatures are this high, if without an El Nino, is evidence that AGW continues. Even the big El Nino year of 1998 has been surpassed by several years now, without anything like that El Nino.
if there was no warming in the past 18 years, then how on earth did the blue trend end up stronger than the green trend?
.16C to 1999 versus .19C to 2006. years into the 18-year hiatus.
I’ll help you. Because there was a lot of warming between 1997 and 2006.
The cause of the pause happened after 2005, and it can be erased just as fast as it arose, which is what is happening.
David Appell – “Except there hasn’t been an 18-year pause in temperatures, unless you cheat and only present a small subset of the data.”
The IPCC – “[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)”
Dave Appell – science denier.
Danny: Exactly what “hiatus” are you talking about?
David,
A) Gary M showed you here (from IPCC aka grand poobah): http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition/#comment-690158
B) The one Mr. Collins (lead author of IPCC {Nobel winning} 4th assessment and lead author of not yet Nobel winning 5th assessment).
So David, who’s in charge of things here? You, or IPCC? As from this observers view you two seem like you see things a bit differently? (By the way, this kind of discrepancy is why I self label as being skeptical…………how about you?)
There has been a 15-year warming trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1999
GaryM: how is a trend of +0.05 C/decade a “pause.”
The hiatus since the last time the globe was warming is at most 10 years. Because it was clearly warming aggressively to 2006. Whatever caused it to warm aggressively to 2006 is still here. Whatever caused it to cool to the 1998 level is gone.
GaryM showed a positive trend. That does not equal a “pause.”
And data since 2012, which he did not include, shows an even higher trend.
“So David, who’s in charge of things here? You, or IPCC?”
It’s very easy to download the data and calculate the trends for yourself. Then you don’t have to rely on anyone. You should try it.
David,
As stated to JCH, it depends on which source one chooses.”It’s very easy to download the data and calculate the trends for yourself. Then you don’t have to rely on anyone. You should try it.” I have, and this is my answer. It depends on the source. I’m no where near a climate scientists so the best I can do is try to evaluate the level of expertise.
At one point we’re supposed to listen to those Nobel prize winning IPCC “climate scientists”. But I guess it’s one of the exceptions here when you chose to ignore Mr. Collins (presumably a 97 percenter) as it doesn’t suit your needs at this time. Will you also ignore him later when it does? Is this one of the 3% times that we don’t accept the “consensus” authority?
I just want to know and understand the rules. Do I listen to IPCC and it’s representatives all the time; some of the time; none of the time?
.05C? Please tell me the error bars on that. (From GaryM’s IPCC statement).
“Because it was clearly warming aggressively to 2006.”
Right — it was warming *above* expectations. I call it the “anti-pause.” Of course, back then many of the people now hawking a hiatus said the temperature data wasn’t any good — surfacestations.org, BEST, and all that.
Then the data suddenly became good enough when it showed warming below expectations. Funny how that works.
David Appell,
“GaryM: how is a trend of +0.05 C/decade a ‘pause.'”
Because the projected trend of .1 C/Decade would have resulted in an increase of 1.5C over the period, three times the miniscule ‘warming’ claimed. Not to mention the error bars are four times the claimed trend. (But hey, you go with what ya got, right?)
Not to mention that it is sheer fantasy to think that ‘global average temperature’ can be calculated to within five hundredths of a degree of 15 years.
But don’t blame me, I don;t believe in the fantasy reported GAT anyway. Blame your CAGW clergy.
“Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
…
Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.
Dave, you must really hate science is all I can think. Don’t you realize that the IPCC is the gold standard of scientific assessments and only relies on 100% peer reviewed lithchechur?
Whoops, I meant .15, not 1.5, of course.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2015_v5.png
Another data source.
They are not measuring the temperature 2 meters above the land. The scientist at RSS readily admits the thermometer temperature series do a more accurate job of measuring the surface air temperature.
From space, the 2015 thermometer spike apparently makes perfect sense.:
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
Well, given that the consensus now preaches that surface temps are a poor proxy for globalclimatewarmingchange, who cares?
Yes; over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. As Roger Pielke Sr keeps saying, the ocean is the best indicator of a planetary energy imbalance. Scientists Gregory Johnson says “global warming IS ocean warming.”
“Yes; over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean.”
Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
Yes; over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. As Roger Pielke Sr keeps saying, the ocean is the best indicator of a planetary energy imbalance. Scientists Gregory Johnson says “global warming IS ocean warming.”
The lines of evidence are the PDO. SLR, OHC, and GMT. All are spiking upwards.
I was assured here that 2014 would be the highest anomaly ever. The AMO ain’t coming to your rescue, and cooling ain’t right around corner. Get used to it.
Yes; over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. As Roger Pielke Sr keeps saying, the ocean is the best indicator of a planetary energy imbalance. Scientists Gregory Johnson says “global warming IS ocean warming.”
“Yes; over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. ”
This is complete nonsense, at best you have a guesstimates that with a thumb on the scale and squinting eyes, might be anything in reality.
We don’t even know what half the oceans temp is.
As Roger Pielke Sr keeps saying, the ocean is the best indicator of a planetary energy imbalance. Scientists Gregory Johnson says “global warming IS ocean warming.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
We are in an El Nino, and have been close for many months and still no rise in the global temperature trend.
Take your argument to the Australians. I mean, what would they know about ENSO?
The last 12 months have been 0.11 C warmer than the previous 12 months, according to GISTEMP.
It’s like a…
When do people stop buying temp series that are more made up than measured?
And when do we start to ignore those who still try to get influence over us by changing the truth, Whether by intent or ignorance?
Bummer that the CO2 temperature paper is pay-walled, sounds interesting. But all I gather from the abstract is that ‘we’ve got a cool new method that gives us insight into this!’ which I guess is fair enough for an abstract of course.
It looks like the method depends on ‘Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems’ (Sugihara), which can apparently be found in PDF form for personal use if you care to go google it. I get the sense that I’m not supposed to link it. Also looks like it’s going to be slow going for me, chewing on that this weekend! :>
Looks like a 900 year lag +/- 400 years or so on figure 3 (time displacements maximizing CCM skill corresponding to causal relationships)? What do folk here make of that? Reasonable? Horse hockey? Or something in between?
Sorry, I was talking about the ‘Causal feedbacks in climate change’ paper in case that wasn’t clear. ~blush~ Wasn’t clear to me in re-reading my comment anyways.
One of the linked articles says that the melting of Antarctic ice shelves is due to warmer water:
whereas this other recent study says that there is insufficient evidence to say that:
I think you will find if you look that upwelling has “always” been occurring around Antarctica. OK, there could be a bit more now, but I suspect that the main driver is the THC and therefore winds will have little effect on the amount of upwelling.
On “melting parameterizations that are poorly constrained by observations“. What that means is that the people who create the models do not know how melting works (what factors drive it), so they use some arbitrary parameters to obtain melting in the models, and their results bear so little resemblance to reality that they can’t even get closer by adjusting the parameters. So the fancy language is just there as a diversion from the painful truth that they know nothing. But it gets worse – this applies to many many more factors than just melting. They, or many of them, are identified in the IPCC report.
[I can supply links for the above if needed]
Since the BAS radar survey in 2008 it’s been known about the old ash deposit the size of Wales just near PIG. While one is not looking for yet another simplistic explanation for anything, it’d be nice to keep volcanism in mind when discussing Pine Island. The big blow occurred about 300BC but things are likely still pretty active down there.
Glaciers being the volatile and complex things they are, I’m sure there’s lots to check out and volcanism is only a piece of it all. But if scientists felt a little freer to talk about off-dogma subjects…?
I bet that was the un-profound part.
Again…huh?
That landmark paper, utterly profound I believe, said the energy imbalance is .6, and that all of that energy is being stored in the SH oceans.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
Looks like below normal Southern Ocean Temperature Anomalies
Nice graphic. I assume that is a comment on the Antarctic ice. The graphic is SSTs, which could be above where warm upwelling is thawing ice shelf, both landed and floating, from below. It would depend on how deep the SST measurement is made in the waters by Antarctica.
JCH- I am just presenting the data.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/average.png
JCH- More data.
No, you’re not. That ends on August 31, 2013.
This the last 7 data points on GISS, which is now the only regularly updated temperature series on Wood for Trees:
2014.58 0.73
2014.67 0.81
2014.75 0.77
2014.83 0.64
2014.92 0.71
2015 0.75
2015.08 0.79
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2014.58/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2014.58" .09C above the warmest year in GISS record of .673
The end of August 2015 is 5 months away. By then, regardless of El Nino, the 12-month running mean could easily be above .80C.
The only thing that can prevent it is a miracle return of the KoldieKamiKaze : AkA, the KimKimKim wind – a wall of poetic BS.
The average of those three datasets is +0.56 C of warming since January 1979. How did that happen?
But the science is “settled,” right? That’s what Obama, Kerry and Gore have told us repeatedly.
“Climate science is settled *enough*” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Slate 10/1/14
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/the_wall_street_journal_and_steve_koonin_the_new_face_of_climate_change.html
Is it possible, David, that NASA has evidence for systematic changes in the Sun’s surface temperature and surface composition over ordinary solar cycles:
1. Less heat is conveyed away from the Sun when there is low sunspot activity
_ a.) The Sun’s surface becomes hotter and more iron-rich; (Solar mixing diminishes)
_ b.) Earth’s surface becomes cooler (E.g., the Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age)
2. More heat is conveyed away from the Sun when there is high sunspot activity
_ a.) The Sun’s surface becomes cooler, more hydrogen-rich; (More H reaches the solar surface)
_ b.) Earth’s surface becomes hotter (E.g., the well-known link of Earth’s climate with sunspot activity) ?
It is awesome to have a science only post. I will be reading some of the links over the weekend.
Jim2,
Save yourself some time. Based on these offerings the digested version is “the science is unsettled”.
Antarctic ice is growing and melting.
Antarctic temps hit record warmth if you measure it from over there.
Mann shows it’s warming when it is and doesn’t when it’s not.
Generally it’s warming but we’re heading in to the next ice age.
Oceans will hold heat until they won’t.
Volcanos change ocean flows.
Global warming causes extreme weather except when it doesn’t.
CO2 is………..aw, forget it.
Think that’s sorta a Reader’s digest version. Have a great weekend!
I personally liked the way how much upper oceans ‘hold’ heat – it for a moment sounded like the author does not make any distinction between the heat content contained, and the heat uptake of the said upper oceans.
Also I like the large percentages when heat uptake assumed could be negative or zero. You could end up with large and possibly negative percentages.
‘Globally, their findings suggest that the upper oceans hold 3.3e16 to -4.2e16 percent more heat than previously reported.’ This kind of sentence can well be true, but percentages should not be used like this.
Group of solar scientists have undertaken major task of revising historic data for the International sunspot number SSN ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3231v1.pdf ) the data set of major importance for assessing climate natural variability due to the solar activity, often contested by both sides of the climate change discourse.
Further aspect is that the EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet) solar radiation flux is strongly correlated to the SSN data, hence the past (pre-instrumental) EUV values can be estimated from the SSN.
Groups leading expert Dr. L. Svalgaard from Stanford University considers that diurnal variability of the East Geomagnetic Component (rY) variability is a reliable metric for reconstruction of both the SSN and EUV
http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Number-Corrections.pdf
Having previously done some research into geomagnetic data and found that the three-annual variability of Geomagnetic East Component at the 60 deg N latitude, has some resemblance to the AMO
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMEC.gif
I revisited the geomagnetic data (there are two data bases for geomagnetic data : ETHZ and NOAA) this time plotting the annual variability of the geomagnetic Y component
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-GMY.gif
at a location within Subpolar Gyre (recently subject of the Rahmstorf-Mann paper ‘..slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation’ discussed extensively on most of the major climate blogs).
Since the AMO oscillation follows the geomagnetic Y component, the more familiar AMO’s time scale is maintained while the Y component’s graph is moved to the right along the time scale.
When it comes to whether AGW theory is valid, we know what the Left wants to hear. But, what should that have to do with science? Under the Leftist scheme of things humanity is always waiting for the next champion mesmerizer to do the thinking for them, like creating a new economy by brushing capitalism aside and replacing it with the liberal fascism of Euro-communism that runs on symbolism like raising gas taxes to save the world from Americanism.
Nice job of staying on topic
“Russian scientist’s new study: ‘Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age’”:
“If the 19th Little Ice Age follows the pattern of the previous 18, Earth slipped into an ice age in the winter just concluded and will become progressively colder over the next 50 years, reaching its depth around 2060. Another half century, taking us to the 22nd century, and we’ll arrive back at today’s temperatures.”
It won’t. Solar minima occur roughly every ten solar cycles, there isn’t a 200 year cycle. My model of sunspot cycles has this minimum shorter like Dalton and Gleissberg, recovering in solar cycle 26. The coldest period of it will follow the same pattern as the last two minima, between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak cycles, +1 year. Roughly 2015 to 2025. Starting in the 2090’s is a longer deeper minimum that will cause profound regional desiccation.
What is the cause and effect relationship between sun spots and the global temperature in your model?
Europe will go cold when the solar wind is weak, like during the colder years of Dalton when there were no aurora sighting in most years:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
Look at how cold Europe was in 1836-1845 during the larger SC8 and you’ll see that sunspot number is not always a useful measure, and they have no effect as such.
Global mean surface temperature doesn’t follow forcings directly, El Nino are more frequent with weaker solar wind, and the AMO becomes warmer.
I read an article recently about all the extra greening of the Earth due to more CO2. Then, I found this:
…
High resolution maps from Global Forest Watch, tapping new data from a partnership between the University of Maryland and Google, show that 18 million hectares (69,500 square miles) of tree cover were lost from wildfires, deforestation, and development the year before last. The maps were created by synthesizing 400,000 satellite images collected by NASA’s Landsat mission.
The big surprise is the huge amount of forest loss in Canada and Russia. While Indonesia, long a global leader in deforestation, finally slowed its rate of destruction, northern boreal forests in Russia and Canada were literally burning up. Between 2011 and 2013, Russia and Canada jointly accounted for 34 percent of worldwide forest loss, according to the data.
…
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-world-lost-an-oklahoma-sized-amount-of-forest-in-2013-satellite-data-shows
Steven Goddard has an Easter message from Barack Obama:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/easter-message-from-bho-to-bitter-clinging-crusading-terrorist-climate-deniers/
Let’s see (4/60) * 100 = ~7%. That’s significant in my books.
From the article:
…
BANGKOK – The world’s vegetation has expanded, adding nearly 4 billion tonnes of carbon to plants above ground in the decade since 2003, thanks to tree-planting in China, forest regrowth in former Soviet states and more lush savannas due to higher rainfall.
Scientists analysed 20 years of satellite data and found the increase in carbon, despite ongoing large-scale tropical deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, according to research published on Monday in Nature Climate Change.
Carbon flows between the world’s oceans, air and land. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main climate-changing gas – and stored as carbon in trees.
Through photosynthesis, trees convert carbon dioxide into the food they need to grow, locking the carbon in their wood.
The 4-billion-tonne increase is minuscule compared to the 60 billion tonnes of carbon released into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and cement production over the same period, said Yi Liu, the study’s lead author and a scientist at the University of New South Wales.
…
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/despite-deforestation-world-getting-greener-scientists-150214323.html
That is only the terrestrial portion. Something like half. Ocean photosynthesis is the other ‘half’. And results in more permanent sequestration via formation of calcium carbonate, e.g. by coccolithophorids. The end result is massive chalk and limestone. Which, without volcanic recycling in tctonic subduction zones, woild result in insufficient atmospheric CO2 for photosynthesis in something like (peer reviewed swags) 2.5 million years.
“TSI seems to be an indicator, not a primary cause.”
Solar spectrum changes a great deal despite TSI changing very little.
See here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/#comment-686431
“TSI seems to be an indicator, not a primary cause.”
Solar spectrum changes a great deal despite TSI changing very little.
See here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/#comment-686431
“Nature: Bidecadal North Atlantic ocean circulation variability controlled by timing of volcanic eruptions.”
Simply back to front. Volcanic aerosols are a reduction in forcing of the climate, that will decrease the AMOC not increase it.
Dumb question of the week:
Heat records are being broken continuously over the last decade – “Weather”.
Yet there is a plateau in global average land-sea temperatures – “Climate”.
Does this mean there are an equal number of cold records for the same period – in other words the two extremes cancel each other out to make for the plateau or pause?
If so, what does that mean – does it confirm classic model predictions? Or does it represent some other kind of climate dynamic?
Not dumb. Very smart, and very complicated. The pause in the average says nothing much statistically about extremes, except they are averaging out. Example: Last year Antarctica recorded coldest ever at one place. This year, recorded warmest ever at a different place (Esperanza, tip of the penninsula, caused by a brief foehn.
Heat records are not being broken, except within statistical uncertainty (NASA GISS kerfuffle).
The climate models cannot do this regional stuff. They provide only ‘global envelopes’ of what might be. But all the analysis of the models said (until not true) that temperatures not rising for now 18 years or so when CO2 has, was not possible. That is Popper’s falsification. Giving warmunists much heartburn.
It probably means we’re actually in a cooling trend if the average temperature of the globe shows no global warming because the temperatures that are being averaged include a systemic warming bias. The official thermometers are located where people live and as a result, the data that is collected is corrupted by the UHI (the Urban Heat Island) effect.
Wagathon,
Wagathon,
Hmmm. Can’t see that cooling is actually occurring giving the other (non catastrophic) evidence including SST, slight SLR, and NH ice reduction.
Were you just taking a shot at the temp series’, or do you perceive cooling?
The increase in global warming hasn’t changed in 100 years. The absence of warming going on 2 decades tells us climate change is not alarming. NASA’s most recent radar map also shows us warming is not alarming: the Arctic Ice Cap was larger than on any December 28 in the past five years (more than 4,000,000 square miles); and, at the other pole, the extent of Antarctic ice coverage has never been so great (at least since 35 years ago when radar measurement began). So, when is the right time to start worrying about the Left’s belief in a fearsome climate tempest in a teapot? 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:
Wagathon,
So it was just a shot at the temp series as opposed to stating warming isn’t occurring. Sorry, but I missed the sarc.
W/R/T teapot worry? When science removes the word unsettled before the word tempest. And I don’t see it yet.
The pretense to knowledge is all that keeps the government-sponsored Ponzi scheme afloat. Voters are not as smart as they used to be. They believe those who work for the government when they say, “we have modeled your future” (Any model, including those predicting climate doom, can be tweaked to yield a desired result. I should know. ~Robert J. Caprara, WSJ: Confessions of a Computer Modeler). Finally, when reality can no longer be ignored, people are confused upon learning that, Global warming computer models are confounded as Antarctic… (It’s unprecedented: across the globe, there are about one million square kilometers more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began).
Wagathon,
As always in climate. Up is down and left is right (or right is left?): http://glaciology.weebly.com/articles.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html
According to NASA, “On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979.”
As soon as we were able to accurately measure it — using satellites (beginning in 1979) — global warming stopped. Amazing.
Wagathon,
But only in the Antarctic? What about SST’s, Arctic/Greenland?
(I’m leaving “global temps” alone as I think we share concerns over that).
Somethings going on, but I (and I’m certainly not alone here) can’t get a grasp on it.
You can see the beginning of the transition in the rate temp change over the warming and cooling potion of the year from the 70’s to the late 90’s and it’s going back to where it was.
https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/global.png
“As soon as we were able to accurately measure it — using satellites (beginning in 1979) — global warming stopped. Amazing.”
Not amazing — wrong. UAH’s trend since they began is +0.14 C/decade (over 36 years). RSS’s is +0.12 C/decade.
Thx for the comments.
It just puzzles me that you see both trends mentioned all the time, but they are rarely put side-by-side. Or if they are put side-by-side, by a warmist, the Plateau is then dismissed on some basis or other. The heat is coming back out soon, etc.
No one seems to go around touting record cold temperatures for some reason. Well, other than the last two years polar vortex.
There must be a lot of below freezing records being set all over the place.
RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES FAR OUTPACE RECORD LOWS ACROSS U.S
I’ve read that 2014 saw more record lows in the US than record highs.
JCH,
Interesting that most of the indicators for percentage of record highs in the U.S. being above average happened during the pause (that isn’t/wasn’t but is). Makes me wonder where the offsetting record lows are. Gotta be somewhere, huh?
There has been no global warming for more than 26 years based on the more accurate satellite data measuring change in the lower atmosphere. More scholarly papers will be needed to tell us it’s not important. How many more papers on the insignificance of the pause are possible if the pause lasts until 2080 or so? Will it take a few volcanic eruptions and quakes along the way, during the course of a natural cooling trend, to trigger a poignant departure away from global warming to a new mass mania about an endless summerless future?
“There has been no global warming for more than 26 years based on the more accurate satellite data measuring change in the lower atmosphere.”
Come on, you know you’re cheating by only referring to one dataset (that gives the result you’re biases like) and completely ignoring the other that measures the exact same thing.
This is a false equality from Appell. Not all datasets are created equal. I think the sat datasets are better because they sample much more of the Earths atmosphere. So, as long as there is a good reason to pick one over the other, and there is, it’s OK to do so.
When I hear the thermometer dependent temperature series advocates decry the satellite microwave series, I detect jealousy of the more reliable data set, and uneasiness as the latter series turns longer term.
==============
if satellite records are so reliable how come they are the records that have had the most mistakes in them, the most adjustments made to them and the records that disagree with each other the most?
I’ll stick to 5 fold verified surface temperature records thanks.
kim reminded me of this. When my father absolutely had to know the temperature of a patient, he would reach for the gold standard: the a*al thermometer.
Can’t be done from outer space.
They bitch and complain about the thermometer series, and they can’t lay a glove on them. Mosher and Muller gave it their best shot. Failure. Mosher says skeptics came up with an even more accurate way to do it. Temp went up, and they dropped it like a hot rock.
As a skeptic who has a better way, I’ll tell you there no warming indistinguishable from 0.0 F
JCH supports my point. Where on Earth do you measure its core temperature with a thermometer?
The thermometer series is like taking the temperature all over the varying surface of the body. The satellites stand off and measure its overall radiated heat. Well, sumpin’ like that.
====================
You do it two meters above the land surface and add in the SSTs, whatever that means.
You’re just dodging. Last seven months is .74C. New territory, and it’s going to be .80, or more, by August 31, 2015.
I mourn all that lost heat from the ocean, forever. We might could’ve used it.
=============
McIntyre’s takedown of Rahmstorf and Mann is breathtaking. How could they have possibly thought that networks and techniques discredited previously thoroughly discredited concerning land paleoclimate can now also represent Atlantic ocean circulation in 2015. Their hubris may in fact become one of the apparently needed silver bullets to stop this stuff. The wholesale corruption of science, and of esteemed journals like Nature, on full display.
Simple – Mannian Statistics.
Mann-ick!
Easy, take Trenberth’s perverted null and convert it to the use of extending man’s guilt trip to include any future cooling. Will Nature co-operate with these shananigans?
Bah, these are humans we are talking about. Narrative always trumps Nature for these unnatural creatures, short term.
========================
The wholesale corruption isn’t going to stop so long as we continue to pay for it. Earning a living by actually providing value to society is hard work and that is not what global warming is all about. Global warming is about pretending you’re saving the world while sipping margaritas on a veranda in Cancun with Al Gore and some Hollywood swells.
Junk in, junk out
‘n junketing seems
a justifiable generalization
for UNFCCC steered
state of climate play.
Sou has a rather clear explanation about McIntyre’s blunder first pointed out by BillH (see below).
Basically Rahmstorf et al look at the strength of the sub-polar gyre which is a function of the Gulf Stream flowing into it. Since the Gulf Stream flows by Nova Scotia, bringing nutrients and warm water into the region where Sherwood, et al gathered their coral samples, the d15N in the corals is a measure of the strength of the Gulf Stream and then by mechanism, the strength of the sub-polar gyre.
McIntyre took the d15N proxy as a measure of the temperature of the sub polar gyre, which, as McIntyre wrote
which as Sou points out has nothing to do with the case. The coldwater corals off Nova Scotia are a proxy for the strength of the gulf stream. It’s a teleconnection in the classic sense.
Eli
You said
‘The coldwater corals off Nova Scotia are a proxy for the strength of the gulf stream. It’s a teleconnection in the classic sense.’
Are they as good a proxy as tree rings are for global temperatures?
tonyb
My comment from CA:
prof. rabbetticus halpernicus says:
“By looking at d15N in Sherwood’s proxy, one can conclude which of these currents dominate at any time”
How do he conclude dat, rabette? Because the d15N is a proxy for the nutrients in the water, which is determined by what rabette? I will help you:
It’s the variations in temperature of the water that causes the variations in nutrients, which causes the variation in the freaking d15N in the freaking corals.
Are alkenones better temperature proxies than corals, rabbette?
Unfortunately for you, silver bullets do not kill the truth, just vampires. AGW is not about Mann, and is not sensitive to how his papers are received.
Ah, but the worse the junk that Mann and crew publish, the easier it is for everyone else to grasp how bad the junk is. This is one of several examples in the last few years. Provided many others in essays posted here previously, and even more in the evook. So, you think that Rocky Mountain bristlecone pines and contaminated Tiljander varves can model the AMOC?
Hopefully you forgot a /sarc.
Bemused by Rahmstorf, let us count the ways …
If McIntyre has proven that there are flaws in the work he can always publish a reply in the journal. Why not give a shot?
Joseph –
It is almost as if you believe there is a level playing field, and that the ethical notions of bygone years are still observed. Here is how the American Geophysical Union’s reviewer put it:
Do you think that these scientists would come to McIntyre’s assistance if he had trouble getting his response published, or that these journalists would be writing articles disapproving of such an action?
New article on satellite observations of convection and precipitation finds no trend in tropical rainfall [link]
Thank you for the link. Since 1997 there has been little or no trend in mean surface temperature either. Is there a definition of “equilibrium”? They write that equilibrium occurs daily, but they are describing what I have been calling “approximate steady-state”. In equilibrium, changes stop happening. In steady state, heat flows into and out of each compartment at equal rates, so the temperature stays the same. In “approximate steady state” the energy inflow and outflow may lack balance for some periods of time, but the temperature always stays within a range — this happens every day everywhere on Earth..
Hi Judith,
Seems like Nic’s re-working of Lewis&Curry with B Stevens’ recent (lower) aerosol estimates has raised some hackels… Bjorn Stevens has issued a signed disclaimer of any implications of his paper WRT climate sensitivity. Will your next post on sensitivity include information from the sensitivity workshop in Germany last week? Nic, Bjorn, and a host of heavy hitters were there… an excellent opportunity for people to express their ‘concern’ about Stevens’ lowered aerosol estimates.
Unfortunately for him, Steven’s fiat won’t change the science. But I guess it does serve to cover his A$$.
A lot of people seem to think a scientist has the last word on the science she produces. Wrong!
Stevefitzpartrick,
Why don’t you explain your points clearly so others can understand you point (instead of making silly, meaningless snarks)? If you’ve got information to impart, why not just explain it (and include links) for others who haven’t read what you’ve read?
From the statement:
…
So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called
into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from
rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are
lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.
…
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf
Thank you Jim2. That’s clear to me, and no change to what I understood Nic Lewis to be saying.
Might be interesting to know who or what induced him to make that statement. :)
$?
Stevens said, “I continue to believe”.
Amen. Gotta keep your head down.
“Might be interesting to know who or what induced him to make that statement.”
Perhaps he didn’t like the way his work was being misrepresented.
Get some sleep, davey. You have a big breakfast ahead of you, in the morning.
What is obvious is he felt he had to do that because blog scientists were lying about his work.
‘nuther nail in the coffin.
Anybody who thought Bjorn Stevens is a “skeptic” is nuts. Same for Graeme Stephens.
“What is obvious is he felt he had to do that because blog scientists were lying about his work.”
Lol, we’re such a vicious bunch!
Perhaps “he was worried he might ‘suddenly disappear’ and not make it home that evening”.
If he felt Judy and Lewis’ work was flawed, he could have published a letter in a journal rebutting it or even a full paper. Stevens must show their science is wrong. Just stamping his feet and closing his eyes doesn’t really mean anything.
Pretty much a foolproof world view. A few days ago, the only reason why he could have the views he has is because his job is secure and thus he’s immune to the climate McCarthyists. Now the only reason why he can have the views that he has is because there’s money he’s corrupt. There’s always an explanation, isn’t there?
By the way, this new eco documentary has some pretty scandalous critiques of big NGOs – makes it look like they are diverting attention from big ag/ranching to the CO2-energy-warming nexus for less than honorable reasons…
http://www.cowspiracy.com/
What’s interesting to me is that big ag/ranching has massive non-GHG but potentially climate-altering impacts, at least on a regional basis – in the Amazon, 91% of deforestation is to grow soy for cattle (at least according to “Cowspiracy” ;-). And how many regional effects does it take to add up to global effects?
I know Pielke Sr has done a bunch of stuff on this.
Also, while on this topic, the evaporation from the Oglalla aquifer transferred to the surface in irrigation — it can’t be minor. Think about the additional surface area from spraying as opposed to just irrigation canals. Tho I met a meteorologist recently and he maintained it is too small to affect local weather.
Local and regional land management practices are extremely important, even if they do not show up in global temperature averages (yet?). Consider that the catastrophic “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s was due to drought PLUS poor agricultural practices. The significant drought today does not cover precisely the same area (yet?) but improved land management still changes the outcome.
That said, agri-business irrigation practices (Central California, Ogallala, etc.) are unsustainable. That California’s latest water use restrictions do not apply to agriculture simply means they will continue to export water from the basin in the form of lettuce, almonds, beef, etc.
The emptier the Oglallah, the more its refreshing water is retained. So it is more efficient to not keep the reservoir topped up. Price of fuel to pump the water to the surface will govern the most efficient set point, for human use.
============
What I’ve learned from this thread so far”
1. While there is no such thing as objective morality, everybody shares the same values.
2. We can’t figure out why people disagree – it’s apparently a deep philosophical question.
3. A one month temperature anomaly record high in one location, proves that there is no hiatuspause in global average temperature, even though that same 18+ year pause tells us nothing about globalclimatewarmingchange.
Again, what “18-year pause?” Six of seven datasets show no pause. You’re being intellectually dishonest by ignoring all of them and only presenting the one whose results you like.
Once again, I quoted the IPCC. I could also quote the Met Office, and any other number of consensus scientists. Why do you deny the science?
No, you’re being dishonest – or ignorant – by denying the existence of the pause, which is now widely accepted in the scientific community.
If you really don’t understand why statistically it’s called a pause then you need to stop posting and catch up. If you do understand you need to get your debating rhetoric back within the confines of reality.
Such pedantic squabbling at this stage of the game should be beneath anyone educated on the subject. Intellectually dishonest indeed.
The last 15 years of the so-called pause are actually already the beginning of the next warming phase.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/trend
3. A one month temperature anomaly record high in one location, proves that there is no hiatuspause in global average temperature, even though that same 18+ year pause tells us nothing about globalclimatewarmingchange.
What is this all about?
From Climate Central: News from RSS.
“The melt, though, wasn’t as widespread or damaging as it might have been because of overall cooler temperatures in Antarctica his [sic] year, he said.”(Scambo).
This conversationalist (Ted Scambo) is a glaciologist, has an association with National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder Colorado which explains why he is part of this story; i.e., to provide credibility. Recruiting scientists to provide credibility to a story even though the science is at best uncertain is a frequent gambit for journalists. Yet in the end, the “yes, but…” is the above quote. This is a normal event (Chinook) wind, recorded more precisely than ever before, and now labeled “record warmth” (in this locale) but not the rest of Antarctica.
Anybody who knows Ted Scambo personally immediately views him as a person, not necessarily so much as a scientist After his remarks, I would not view him as a scientist at all, just another commentator in the climate scene. These kind of interviewing speculations explains why climate scientists have descended into the abyss of distrust by the public at large.
I chalk this story up to scientific laziness, when the situation called for precision and discipline.
The writer wanted to blame the effect of the Chinook on AGW so badly …
Could be, might be, but, cautioned , yada yada yada ….
Judith: Why exactly do you think the McIntyre posts are “devastating?”
The usual reasons, davey. Poor data and bogus methods. Why don’t you go over to CA and regale them with your dogmatic BS for a while. Maybe they will feed you.
No explanation needed for any sentient, objective human who has read the devastating CA posts. Therein lies you many faceted problem.
The posts point out some choices made by the authors over the data that are not explained in the paper and suggests those decisions support the claims of the paper. Maybe the authors have good reason.
Appel, did you read them? Pretty obvious.
He’s too busy eating to bother reading that denier stuff.
thomas, all she said was “devastating,” with no explanation at all. I wonder if she read the posts herself….
thomas, and nothing McIntyre writes is “obvious.” He is a master at using obfuscation, aided by obsession and pedantry. Did you just swallow it all without thinking, not concerned about all the times he’s been wrong in the past?
You could go over there and straighten Mc. out, davey. You must have gotten the memo from alarmist HQ with the debunking instructions. Put down your spoon and take them on at CA, davey.
So you didn’t read them, then?
I personally don’t find McIntyre at all unclear. I think he does the opposite of obfuscation. He unravels the obfuscation of others, in this particular Stefan Rahmstorff.
Nor do I consider him pedantic. He writes clear English, although it helps a bit if you understand statistics. Do you understand statistics, Appel? And you might consider that ‘pedantic’ and ‘obfuscation’ can sometimes be the opposite of each other. As in, if he is ‘excessively concerned with minor details’ than how is he also ‘willfully ambiguous’?
Given the s**t he has taken from alarmist twerps over the past few years, it is hard to argue that he is concerned with minor details. Unless you consider intentionally bad science a minor detail. He has gone after the big picture points.
And he is almost the opposite of ‘willfully ambiguous,’ being very precise about what he criticizes and why.
As for obsessed, like the tallness of aunts the definition is pretty much in the mind of the beholder. As he has been lied to, lied about, frequently mislabeled much as you have mislabeled him here, I wouldn’t blame him for sticking to what he knows is right.
Rather than the general c**p you are slinging about him, why don’t you provide a specific instance of where you believe McIntyre has been obscurantist, pedantic or obsessed?
Fools have been attacking Mac for a decade or more, now. And he has consistently shown them as the fools they are.
He now has three posts up highlighting significant problems with Rahmstorff et al. Go read them, come back and report–or find another obsession to rail about.
Here’s a good example: McIntyre made a bad mistake in his third article, mistaking a proxy for water mass movement for one as one for temperature. See:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/04/steve-mcintyres-big-blooper-mistaking.html
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition/#comment-690911
It would be interesting if Hottie actually engaged McIntyre. That would be the adult thing to do. Mc usually engages civilly and admits clear errors
David Appell, “McIntyre made a bad mistake in his third article, mistaking a proxy for water mass movement for one as one for temperature.”
I believe hottie is mistaken. d15N is a proxy for nutrients whether from upwelling cold water or runoff (fertilizer sewage etc.) and the focus of the Rahmsdorf paper was using Mann’s temperature reconstructions to estimate AMOC. So d15N as used by Rahmsdorf would have to be a temperature proxy for that location and not a generic nutrient proxy. Over fishing in that region would reduce nutrients, fish do poop rather regularly, fewer fish less fish poop.. Rahmsdorf is ignoring confounding factors and assuming higher nutrients means increase cold water flow but there are temperature reconstructions for the region better suited for that purpose.
So Rahmsdorf has treemometers with precipitation and nutrients as confounding factors, varves with land use as a confounding factor and dN15 with precipitation/land use (runoff) and over fishing as confounding factors. Then to boot, the d15N reconstruction has only 4 data points prior to 1930 and only one prior to 1700 which is ridiculous for Rahmsdorf’s analysis.
thomasfuller2 and Don
+100
The article on ‘how long can the oceans absorb earths excess heat’ is written in a style strikingly similar to what you read in tabloids. Everything we are learning is even worse than we thought and getting worse. Despite this unfolding phenomenon occurring on the planetary scale involving the deepest depths of the oceans and jillions of joules of energy spinning wildly out of control…. all we really need is a little political will to reverse it. Amazing.
In case there was any doubt about the origin of the atmospheric CO2, check this out from the Great Acceleration article.
https://criticalangleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/emm7.jpg
Jim D,
And how much of that curve was “land use” related especially prior to 1950? It’s not that CO2 concentrations haven’t increased according to instrumentation at Mauna Loa, it’s from what and what to do about it.
From the article, the landuse contribution has been quite flat. It really is the oil and more lately gas that caused this distinct acceleration phase since 1950.
Jim D,
Come on. What part of “especially prior to 1950″ wasn’t clear? Jim, I respect you, your passion, and your calm level responses. But I also ask for that back from you.
From the article: ” Land use was the largest single source of emissions until 1915. From 1916 to 1967 coal and land use swapped positions as the leading source of CO2. 1967 was the last year that emissions from land use were bigger than those from coal or oil.”
So first 65 years it was land use, then over 55 more years it was in transition highest to approx. 40%, and it fell to a more modest position over the next 48 years.
“105 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from land use and 5 billion from coal to cover the period 1750-1850 ”
“Up to 2010, cumulative historical CO2 emissions have come from: land use 35%; coal 32%; oil 23%; gas and flaring 9%; and cement 2%.”
It’s all in the article. Start with land use Jim, and work from there.
The acceleration refers to what mostly happened after 1950, since which 75% of the CO2 rise has occurred. It’s about the cause of the acceleration, which is the oil and gas that have grown mostly since 1950 to be the dominant contributors. Also note how well the sum of the anthropogenic effects traces the actual CO2 rise rates. This was the point because some (even here) still doubt the major role of humans in the CO2 change.
Jim D,
There is a difference. FF are absolutely a contributor from what I find, but why are you not taking this in to account: “Cumulative land-use emissions exceeded all fossil-fuel and cement sources of emissions combined until 1978.”?
Still anthro., not soley the evil demon oil/gas industry. Coal is a substantial contributor according to this, but the base is definitively land use.
https://criticalangleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/emm5.jpg?w=660&h=517 (just in case the image doesn’t post).
My point is start with that which is politically doable and progress from there.
In terms of which ones have growing emissions, land-use is not one of them. Get the growing emissions flat first, otherwise you are not tackling the source of the problem. Today 85% of the annual emitted CO2 is from fossil fuels, and growing.
Jim D,
I’m arguing that more progress can be made w/r/t land use and this would address a substantial portion of the issue. And if the focus is misguided: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2568.html?utm_content=buffercd942&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
then economic damage focused soley on the FF industry is equally misguided. But, there are alternative benefits to addressing land use issues.
I know you and David don’t see it like this, but have you even considered the possibilities and ramifications? I have.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/0403-yum-brands-zero-deforestation.html
CDIAC has annual land and fossil fuel emissions here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html
Their data says that by 1950, carbon emissions were 139 gigatons of carbon, with 55% coming from land use changes and 45% from fossil fuel combustion.
The two crossed over in 1965, and now FFs are about 70% of the total.
David,
We’re discussing the article presented. But fine, I’ve not “denied” that FF are a substantial contributor SINCE 1950. But prior to, as I stated, it was land use all the way. You chose 1965, the articles’ author states it a bit differently.
“Cumulative land-use emissions exceeded all fossil-fuel and cement sources of emissions combined until 1978.”
Then: “It wasn’t just fossil-fuel consumption that took off in 1950, of course. Just about everything did: population, GDP, dams, water use, international tourism, stratospheric ozone, nitrous oxide, methane, marine fish capture, coastal nitrogen, etc. Just about everything erupted like never before.”
Then:”CO2 concentrations would have continued to climb and in a counter-factual today they would be about 30 ppm less than they are currently, very roughly, 370 instead of 400 ppm.” Had we not gone thru the “great acceleration”. Read that again. We’d still be at about 370 ppm.
From the summary:
3. Cumulative man-made emissions have been more than 50% from land-use until 1978.
7. The Great Acceleration of CO2 since 1950 happened at the same time as similar sudden increases in many other factors, all of them linked to huge changes in population and economic activity.
8. Had the Great Acceleration in emissions not happened, CO2 concentrations would by now lag actual values by about twenty years. Slower, linear emissions growth since 1950 would have postponed, but not cancelled the climate crisis.
So what does this mean? Land use is a largely ignored substantial portion of cumulative CO2. Had the economic/population “improvement” since 1950 not occurred we’d be in better shape w/r/t atmospheric CO2. And had that improvment not occurred, we’d be about 20 years behind today’s position w/r/t “climate crisis” and from my read that is based in land use first and foremost. FF use subtracts 20 years from the “catastrophic” nature of today (assuming it’s in a “catastrophic” state).
The predominance of the conversation is FF while mostly ignoring land use. Land use is where this observer percieves “political hay” can be made.
(I have no idea where you get the 70% from based on the link offered)
Well Danny I Googled land use and climate and found plenty of resources. And it hasn’t been ignored and I think you would find that there would be the same political conflict over policy that you have with reducing fossil fuel use (e.g.restricting land use will interfere with economic activity). Here is one resource:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/land-use-and-land-cover-change
Joseph,
I realize it’s considered in academia, but how often do you see MSM reporting on it as opposed to energy?
Right here is a very low hanging politically “less toxic” fruit. “Cumulatively, USDA paid $10.6 billion—almost one-fourth of total direct payments made from 2003 through 2011—to producers who did not, in a given year, grow the crop associated with their qualifying acres, which they are allowed to do.” http://gao.gov/products/GAO-12-640
Pretty much everything is in place already, with the exception of oversite.
Again, from the article: “Cumulative land-use emissions exceeded all fossil-fuel and cement sources of emissions combined until 1978.”
Especially if one even considers this: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2568.html?utm_content=buffercd942&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Have you put land use on your radar at all? If not, why not?
And the NCAR report is produced by the government and reported by the media. Land use issues are part of the UNFCC and part of the Kyoto protocol. You should learn more before you comment.
Joseph,
I see where it’s reported in IPCC and the like. Show me where it’s discussed in Mass Media and even venue’s such as this, RC, and the like in proportion to contribution and relative to energy. Don’t tell me. Show me in proportion.
Show me where the administration has addressed it. Show me a TV report. Show me where congress addresses it in the farm bill. Show me. Don’t tell me.
Jim D’s comment:”That this has not generated as much controversy as other types of mitigation is a good sign.” is exactly my point. It’s politically more doable.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition/#comment-690258
Danny, land-use is not forgotten. It features in AR5 WG3 under mitigation policies. That this has not generated as much controversy as other types of mitigation is a good sign. Reducing deforestation, encouraging afforestation, and changing agricultural practices are in this part of the mitigation strategy. They project a decline to 50% of 2010 land-use change source by 2050, and possibly to even a sink by the end of the century, so this could be one of the success stories.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
Jim D,
Thanks for that. I’m familiar. As it’s a “success story” we should build on that. The lack of controversy implies political middle ground and it’s all I’m suggesting. If you’ve followed the thread with Joseph, there’s $10.6 bln in the US farm bill recent history that’s low hanging and pickable. As all the pieces are in place it’s a resource that’s quickly modifiable which could be put in to play. Unless we just don’t care about a measly $10.6 bln.
It’s a bit surprising that I’ve had to address you, David, and Joseph when I’m suggesting something that from my view, you guys should be jumping on. And of note, have you seen any resistance from those considered more skeptical than I? Jus’ saying.
You don’t find much blog discussion on agriculture and forestry. It seems that since, as I mentioned, 85% of the current source problem is fossil fuels, that gets more attention deservedly. The lack of discussion means it is an area the world is just getting on with and they don’t seem to encounter anyone to persuade of the correct goals.
Jim D,
Or maybe folks just like to argue. Zero resistance to discuss came from the labeled “skeptics” and all came from those labeled on the other side. Interesting to me. And there’s still that $10.6 bln that I’m mentioned that could be used for: “the correct goals.” All I hear is………yawn. Guess us “breakthroughers” are just being boring.
Google is your friend there, Danny. Learn to use it before you comment, please.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Joseph,
$1 bln. (In 2012………I, for one, have slept since then) for “global” financing vs. $10.6 bln. for using in the U.S alone? I’m sorry, I guess I am confused. I was under some silly impression that the global warming/climate change/climate disruption thingy was considered something along the lines of the most serious problem facing the world. My bad, Joseph. My bad. Maybe it’s not that serious if one has to look back to 2012.
Joseph,
Boy, we underlings do learn so much. Google is, after all, my friend: “For the EPA, the proposed budget of $8.6 billion seeks to further key work in addressing climate change and improving air quality, protecting our water, safeguarding the health and safety of the public from toxic chemicals, supporting the environmental health of communities, and working toward a sustainable environmental future for all Americans.” http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2016
Hmmmm. $10.6 bln. vs. $8.6 bln. Which one is more? Hold on……….gonna go google that. Let me know if you get that answer first.
And how much is this “low hanging fruit” going to do to reduce CO2 emissions. As I said before (which you conveniently ignored) most land use issues are politically controversial.
Joseph,
$10.6 bln of low hanging fruit (US alone). We’ve policy in place to pay farmers (lacking oversight) to plant (or not, farmer’s choice) which could be modified to increase biomass (which I think we all understand has sequestration capability, but volume I cannot state off the cuff). We could appropriately locate food sources, while increasing habitat for wildlife for zero extra taxpayer cost (except for oversight). How is this ignoring political considerations? It’s already in place. Both sides support agriculture. It’s one simple example. And did you ignore the link to the paper offered here by Dr. C and which John points out has indications of CO2 following, not leading temps?
This is not a “be all, end all” but it’s not even in the discussion. Are you as vehement that we should not talk of FF reduction as it’s politically sensitive? (I’d really appreciate an answer to this question). Looking for (partial?) solutions here, not stonewalling as you’re appearing to chose. (Maybe I should have added your name at the bottom: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition/#comment-690211)
Are you going to answer the question or am I going to have add you to the list of people who ignore my questions?
I am not opposed to any efforts to reduce CO2, but I don’t know what good your proposal will do to achieve that goal. And efforts to reduce subsidies to agriculture are not without controversy (and that’s bipartisan).
Joseph,
A) I didn’t ignore your request, I stated specifically I don’t know the volume of impact it might have. For comparison: The entire budget for the US Dept of the Interior for 2016 is $13.2 bln. But I guess we can just ignore $10.6 bln of resources as being unimportant.
B) Who said anything about reducing ag subsidies? Not me. What I’m suggesting is utilizing $10.6 worth of resources from which we’ve received suspect benefit at the whim of a farmer’s choice to not plant. I’m suggesting that resource can be redirected to increase biomass. Guess I wasn’t clear. (But not sure how that wasn’t).
C) And finally as referenced in the paper to which I linked (and maybe you ignored this?) there are indications that CO2 follows and doesn’t lead temps.
D) You can add me to any list you chose. I’ve offered up a topic on which I see little traffic especially relative to the super contentious energy topics. It’s a known contributor to the atmospheric levels of CO2 (most up to 1978!!!!), and infrastructure and actual real live dollars are already available. Farmers like to grow things and certainly like to get paid to do so. I see win win and don’t quite understand the blowback………..and note it’s only coming from the “non-skeptical” side. Hmmmm.
Danny, And I said I am all for reducing any measure that might reduce CO2 emissions, but you can’t even tell me if this proposal is going to make any difference. So what is your beef with me again? Andt by all means lobby Congress and or start a petition. Do something besides whine about it.
Unlike you, Danny, I am smart enough to try to avoid wading into the technical aspects of the scientific debate.
Joseph,
Nicely done with the ad hom. But unlike you, I don’t have a “list” and will interact with anyone. I’m not the smartest nor most educated, and maybe my worst feature is I’m not bashful or embarrassed. Those “in the know” who comment about my knowledge level (or lack of), even indirectly, help me focus.
Of note, I wasn’t the only one to have read the abstract the same way: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition/#comment-690253
Danny I am not really questioning your intelligence, just your judgement in this area, ok? We all should recognize our limitations. I might have my own opinion about the evidence but realize that I don’t have the requisite knowledge to defend it in a comprehensive way or completely understand a lot of the details. I think some skeptics are sometimes unaware of their limitations in this area
Did Antarctica Actually Hit Record High Temps?
Not measured in the Antarctic Circle? I recorded record Montana highs from my home in CA.
If the warmists run out of record temperatures for the Antarctic, they could always enlist the support of Putin and have him by royal decree annex one of the islands of Tierra del Fuego closer to the equator, and voila, you have yourself a few more “Antarctic record warming temperatures”.
The complicit journalists, never wanting to get into the weeds with messy details, will always be counted on to carry the water and, just like the global warming records, will deliver the appropriate headlines.
blew that joke…..enlist the support of Putin by naming himself Czar of Antarctica and have him by royal decree annex one of the islands of Tierra del Fuego…….
Tends to happen on 3 hours sleep
I like it. Putin, Czar of Antarctica! It has a nice ring to it.
The odd thing about the anti-Rahmstorf skepticism is that it is backwards from normal. Here the warmists say that an area of the North Atlantic cooled in the 20th century, especially since 1970, and this is supported by the long-standing GISTEMP data, by the way, but the skeptics are having none of this. It can’t be cooling they seem to be saying, or maybe not. I am not actually sure what they want the North Atlantic to be doing. Perhaps they sense that it is a sign of the AMOC doing something if it is cooling, but they don’t want people to suggest that for some reason.
You are missing the point, yimmy. It’s the poor data and methods, as usual. Why don’t you go over to CA and discuss it. Oh, I forgot. You are scared of those people. Why, yimmy? You aren’t doing any good here.
The paleo stuff is in the weeds as usual. What is clear from even GISTEMP is the cooling. Something is happening there, just off Greenland, and that should have been the discussion, not paleo, which misses the main point of the Rahmstorf article. What is going on there? AMOC slowdown? Greenland meltwater? It is cooler there now than in the 1901-1950 period, making it a globally unusual region. No discussion on that at CA, I guess.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1901&base2=1950&radius=1200&pol=rob
There is not alot of AMOC data. So you need paleo data to look at long-term trends.
Big davey is telling you that you need the bogus paleo data, jimmy. I think he’s right. And you also need the BS methods of interpreting the data. But you should go over to CA and straighten those guys out about the cooling. They would enjoy that.
The main point of the paper is the AMOC slowdown which is from measured temperature data in the 20th century. The paleo millennium stuff is just one sentence of the abstract, but all the skeptics gravitated to that, and forgot to talk about the actual 20th century record, which is the interesting part. Whether it didn’t happen before is less interesting than the fact that it is happening now in my view.
Don, appell is worth reading. Don’t be so personal
Did you see where I said davey was right, Young? I read him. I don’t like his nasty attitude and his frquent attacks on Judith. He’s a slightly more sophisticated version of joshie. By the way, do I know you? Why you trying to tell me what to do?
The freakin’ water boiler invoked the slowdown/shutdown of the AMOC on this website about a billion times, and nobody said a word in protest except me. Mann gets involved and the skeptosphere goes to DEFCON 1. It’s a hoot.
Don, re challenging McIntyre I’ve visited his place myself today. Didn’t take me long to spot a howler in his third “devestating” article (to quote Curry, who still hasn’t bothered responding to JCH’s challenge on justifying this claim: not impressive at all) on Rahmstorf et al. You can see my comment under his article. Carrick ( a pal of yours?) attempted unsuccessfully to defend his hero, Stephen.
Heh, Don, why don’t YOU come over to Steve’s place too. You might do better than Carrick.
Heh, Bill, Keith’s on the case. You’ve given false promise.
================
Congratulations on having the courage to go where the alarmist cowards fear to tread, billy. I don’t have much interest in following a discussion of the same ole discredited climate proxies being used over and over in bogus alarmist climate papers. Let us know how it turns out, after Mc. responds.
Kim
Looks like bill is getting his schoolyard team together.
Richard
Can’t wait to see Steve’s take. Mine is that they are arguing over speculative interpretations with little connection to the actual rushing water.
==========
So who is moving the pea under the thimble, Stephan, Steven, or Bill H?
===============
Whether or not billy has a point, he has already made a fool of himself:
Bill H
Posted Apr 6, 2015 at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Reply
Ooh the moderators are after me. Just as well I’ve made screen shots of all this.
Steve: please do not think that your observations are particularly challenging. One of your comments went into automatic moderation because you used a blacklisted word. Surely you should be able to discuss coral d15N without using the word “xxxx”. Pathetic.
He’s off snarling about Wegman, now. Doesn’t he know that’s canned snarl from an echo chamber?
==============
The point is about the distinction between correlation and proxies. That right axis is not temperature, but the graphs were fabricated to show correlation. So, a nit, and no false premise at all.
Bill’s wound himself up like a clockwork Stokes, but hasn’t any pressure relief valve like Nick.
==========
Race to the chase,
Mace to the face.
============
Hotel Doctor to Room 8111, Stat! Guest having a fit in a closet after finding one mismatched coathanger.
================
Billy is dancing around over there like a june bug on a hot griddle. He’s making himself the example that reveals why smug little warmist types rarely have the guts to venture into the Steve Mc. den. Funny character.
I just went over to CA to take a look – painful nonsense, reminded me of CE
Thanks, Judith. We try to raise the CE banner, wherever we go.
Here’s a good explanation of McIntyre’s error that was found by Bill H. (Also in the comments at Climate Audit.) Devastating:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/04/steve-mcintyres-big-blooper-mistaking.html
Here are more links on McIntyre’s basic error: to Bill H’s original comment on Climate Audit, and Eli’s here:
http://climateaudit.org/2015/04/01/rahmstorfs-third-trick/#comment-756753
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition/#comment-691035
Davey, please explain how the d15N in corals is a proxy for water mass movement. Tell us about the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream. Don’t forget the part about the Lab being cold and the GS being warm. Does the d15N in the corals vary because water is moving, or is it because of nutrients in the water that varies with water TEMPERATURE?
Rahmstorf 2015: “This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.’
It’s all about TEMPERATURE, davey. That’s what they are measuring.
Don, please calm down.
Lol!
It seems unlikely that the AMOC has been slowing for any great length of time:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Lee_etal_2011_grl_amoc.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n6/fig_tab/ncomms1901_F5.html
Joshie, I have seen you act like a deer in the headlights, when your foolishness get’s a little pushback on CA. It’s a blog, joshie. They can’t bite you. Don’t let them intimidate you, joshie. Here:
Don Monfort
Posted Apr 7, 2015 at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Reply
I’ll calm down. I can appreciate why you deleted some of my comments. And I suggest that you calm down, Steve. I haven’t put any words in your mouth. And I don’t see why I can’t make assertions that you don’t necessarily agree with. Is there a blog rule I don’t know about?
Doesn’t the d15N in the coral vary because of the availability of nutrients in the water? Isn’t the availability of nutrients largely influenced by water temperature?
Steve:”In the specific location, ocean temperatures depend in part on the interplay of the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream, a point already made at CA, though ignored by Bill H’
Yeah, that’s why Rahmstorf et al was interested in the coral d15N. They used it as a proxy for temperature.
halpern:“The source of water flowing off Nova Scotia is a balance between two currents, the cold Labrador current and the Gulf Stream. By looking at d15N in Sherwood’s proxy, one can conclude which of these currents dominate at any time.”
There’s the confirmation from the warmist camp. The d15N tells them whether the warm current or the cool current dominates. Warm and cool are temperature variants. Period. I am done here.
Well, I’ve been following the discussion at climateaudit. So far, what I’ve seen is that McIntyre clarified his language and says that Bill H misunderstood it, and Bill H has commented extensively on various people’s comments but has stopped dealing directly with McIntyre’s claims, or explaining how McIntyre actually made a mistake. Doesn’t seem that that will matter to Appell or hotwhopper.
Maybe that won’t be the final word over there, but that’s what I’ve seen so far: a fuss made because Bill H got some wrong idea of what McIntyre meant.
Anyhow, it’s nice that Bill H went there to deal with the source directly. If only others would be as honest.
A later Realclimate article talked about a strong negative correlation between the temperatures off Nova Scotia and Greenland. McIntyre seems not to have taken this correlation into account in his criticism of Rahmstorf.
“McIntyre seems not to have taken this correlation into account in his criticism of Rahmstorf.” Judging by the discussion at climateaudit, those who are criticizing him are the ones who aren’t taking his responses into account. So far it looks like all they care about is drive-by accusations at their friendly websites.
Realclimate has a follow up on the North Atlantic cooling by Rahmstorf. This one talks about a possible connection between the AMOC slowdown, a Gulf Stream shift and the east coast’s cold winter. If you are tired of all the coral and tree-rings talk, this gets back to what actually may be happening in the ocean as of the 20th century.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Also check out Gavin’s reflections on Ringberg there for more up-to-date science.
Did they say anything about the connection of the AMOC slowdown with Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction in the halftime show of the Super Bowl back in whatever year it was?
Fans of McSteve enjoy reading about deep-sea gorgonian P. resedaeformis, but I get no kicks out of that stuff. Anyway, if that is your deal rather than the AMOC slowdown go over to CA for more where that came from.
You go over to CA, yimmy. McSteve won’t bite you. Joshie had the guts to take his act over there. It didn’t take long for him to realize he was in way over his head, but you are a lot smarter than joshie. Show em what you got, jaime.
Science: Antarctic ice shelves could completely disappear within a century
Paywalled. Dang.
Willis Eschenbach checked out the Maunder and Dalton minima last year and couldn’t find a good correlation with temperature.
“And now, for the first time I’m looking at temperature effects of the solar minima … and I’m in the same boat. The more I look, the less I find.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/
A terrific list of topics.
The Scripps article on confusion about the difference between Sea Ice, Land Ice and Ice Shelves was excellent. I understand why the public can get confused. It could be the reader or listener is not paying attention or gets what he wants to get out of the story. Or, just as likely, the story was not made clear enough as to distinguish between the three and when calving of Ice Shelves gets conflated with the loss of Land Ice, and the catastrophic Sea Level Rise gets thrown in there to boot, it is easy to start believing Lady Liberty is under threat to get her robe damp in just a few years.
This goes to the issue of journalists, looking for a great headline, getting sloppy and thinking of headlines first, and informing the public about the facts as only a secondary thought. And then you have the scientists themselves, who may enjoy getting a story about their research in the papers around the globe. This all leads to motivations that don’t always serve the public well.
The predictions do not get the difference in floating shelf and landed shelf wrong. But Dumbborg was confused. You’re right about that. Thanks to Al Gore, a Republican senator actually exhibited command of melting ice in a glass. They can learn. That’s a headline.
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
My comments were generic, unrelated to projections or any particular article. I see these apocalyptic headlines all the time as well as feedback from hand wringing, angst prone Liberals who go through life with predilections toward hypochondriac self induced anxiety attacks who watch a documentary on Antarctica and halfway through are on the floor, eyes rolled up into their skulls unable to control their twitching.
They go through life drooling for such moments.
> Terrific list of topics.
Agreed. I like this format.
This looks like an interesting speleothem paper related to ENSO cycles and paleo reconstructions.
Denniston, et al. (2015)
“Extreme rainfall activity in the Australian tropics reflects changes in the El Niño/Southern Oscillation over the last two millennia”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/03/24/1422270112
For Dave and JCH.
JCH- the satellite temperature data is by far superior , that aside the global temperature trend upwards has come to a pause post 1998 and it will be trending downwards from here from ALL of the different data sources.
David Appell (@davidappell) | April 3, 2015 at 5:46 pm | Reply
Salvatore, the average of those three datasets shows +0.56 C of warming since Jan 1979.
Something for you to think about
My reply: From 1998-present the rise from the late 1970’s-1998 which was due to natural causes stopped.
What were the natural causes from the late 1970’s -1998 that caused the global temperature trend to rise?
High Solar Activity .Very High AP index as an example.
PDO to Warm Phase during late 1970’s (the climatic shift)
Volcanic Activity early 1980’s and 1992 then only to become very quiet post 1992.
AMO to warm phase 1995.
Super El Nino in 1998, with periods of more El Nino’s versus La Nina’s from the late 1970’s -1998.
Since 1998 the natural forces promoting warming( from 1978-1998) have all subsided and are presently trending toward promoting a cooler climate going forward. This should persist for the next 30+ years.
David you have a long wait until global warming will resume.
Leave a Reply
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03a.htm#FiguraA
This shows the correlation between a zonal atmospheric circulation warmer global temperatures (the rule from 1982-1992) and a meridional atmospheric circulation cooler global temperatures which is where the trend has been and will continue to be going forward.
Appel says its ‘cheating’ to talk about a >26 pause in global warming, refering to the 2014 Ross McKitrick study in Open Journal of Statistics: …Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series). As the pause continues, climate-researchers would rather spend more time paying obeisance to a new deep ocean heat sequestration theory than try to explain why the Left’s mathematical climate models are unreliable. In the end, their “explanations,” says Matt Ridley, “have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.” (See–e.g., ‘Whatever Happened to Global Warming?’ WSJ)
This isn’t politics, so I guess it can reside in this post.
A $3 million bet on an oil ETF puts was placed this week. Basically, the bet is that the price of the ETF drops 17% in six weeks. Details in the link.
It appears there will be a deal with Iran, no matter how FUBAR that is. This will bring more oil to the market and will put downward pressure on prices.
The dollar has ceased to rise of late, this is a stabilizing force on oil and other commodities prices in the US.
The WTI futures contango a year out is about $9, still hovering close to $10, putting downward pressure on WTI price.
The jobs numbers on Friday were abysmal. A mere 126,000 jobs added. This number has been on a downward trend for several weeks now and my mean the economy is sputtering yet again. If so this will damp demand push prices lower.
Oil inventories continue to build, although there is a lot of disagreement if it will fill to the point where WTI crashes.
Finally, we are entering the driving season here in the US. This will cause more demand from refineries. This is a significant demand and will tend to slow the growth in storage.
Oil ETF put:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102554949
11/27/14
OIL________68.92
BRENT______72.49
NAT GAS_____4.22
RBOB GAS____1.91
1/30/15
OIL_______45.68
BRENT_____50.11
NAT GAS____2.684
RBOB GAS___1.3641
2/13/15
OIL_______53.17
BRENT_____61.53
NAT GAS____2.686
RBOB GAS___1.6192
3/7/15
OIL______49.61
BRENT____59.86
NAT GAS___2.839
RBOB GAS__1.8819
3/13/15
OIL______44.84
BRENT____54.60
NAT GAS___2.727
RBOB GAS__1.7623
4/4/15
OIL_______49.14
BRENT_____55.13
NAT GAS____2.713
RBOB GAS___1.7613
I’ve read the Abstract to the Nature Climate Change article about new insights on the historical relationship between temperature changes and CO2, e.g., feedbacks. I had thought, from the press release, that maybe they were saying that the Vostok ice core was incorrect, and that CO2 increases preceded or occurred at the same time as the temperature increases. That would b contrary to my current understanding, which is that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by a few thousand years.
But the last sentence of the Abstract seems to confirm that CO2 increases occurred after the temperature increases. Here is that sentence:
“We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice-core data that, over glacial–interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse-gas concentrations.”
If someone has read the entire article, and thinks that I’m misinterpreting, please reply!
“But the last sentence of the Abstract seems to confirm that CO2 increases occurred after the temperature increases. Here is that sentence:”
It’s more worse than we thought science, saying there is a positive feedback where warming causes even more ghg’s! Which of course causes more warming.
So it looks like they are recycling what we already knew, that external changes cause temperatures to rise, which causes CO2 levels to increase, which has a positive feedback on temperature.
So….probably nothing new here, other than a scary headline and a very murkily worded press release designed to make the uninitiated think that something new and scary has been discovered?
CO2 outgassing provides a positive feedback to the Milankovitch cycles, which are essentially albedo-driven cycles. This effect is about 10-15 ppm per degree of warming, so we may have had 10 ppm of the 20th century increase of CO2 that way too.
Yes, that is my understanding as well.
It seems the outgassing should be a fairly immediate response to the temperature of the oceans, so the delay, if any, may be related to an ocean delay.
The delay may partly have to do with circulation, meaning that deep waters, enriched in CO2, take hundreds to even thousands of years to reach the surface.
The related question is why do atmospheric CO2 levels drop after temps drop? One theory is that in a drier world, iron rich dust blows more readily off Argentinian deserts, causing plankton blooms which over time sink and sequester carbon (there was an article in Science around 1997 about this). Another, not mutually exclusive explanation is that as the world cools, going into an ice age, ocean surfaces also cool and as a result can hold more gases, like CO2.
I think CO2 levels are closely tied to ocean temperatures by gas equilibrium considerations once you remove net sources like volcanoes or fossil fuels, or long-term sinks such as geological sequestration. Changes in the biosphere can also modulate CO2, but they would also be closely related to the temperature, so they may be hard to untangle from the ocean effect.
“I think CO2 levels are closely tied to ocean temperatures by gas equilibrium considerations once you remove net sources like volcanoes or fossil fuels, or long-term sinks such as geological sequestration. Changes in the biosphere can also modulate CO2, but they would also be closely related to the temperature, so they may be hard to untangle from the ocean effect.”
So you agree that temperatures regulate the equilibrium pressure of Co2 in the atm, you’re making progress Jim D!
This is an area where skeptics and mainstream agree. It is known that warmer water holds less carbonate. Warming has a positive feedback in this way that maybe the skeptics don’t like to admit, even though it logically follows.
For at least a decade I know I have as well as many others have suggested that the increases in Co2 could wholly be from the planet warming, that warming leads Co2 increases, but until someone wants to claim this will lead to more warming, then all of a sudden it’s “Yes we thought it did this all along”!
It is chemistry. Henry’s Law is part of it, and that goes back two centuries, then Roger Revelle’s work which helps to explain where half the emitted CO2 goes. I think the skeptics have rediscovered this, and soon will rediscover what Arrhenius did a while back too. It is a learning process.
Yep, the ocean’s chemistry and biology, along with the shear volume and some of the long current cycles, make the ocean the joker in the deck.
In which case they’re both wrong. Whatever solution-based “feedbacks” exist are probably overwhelmed by the biological pumps. And nobody knows how they’ll respond.
There are three pumps in the O/A interaction,the soft tiisue pump often gets overlooked.
http://www.climate.be/textbook/chapter2_node12_2.xml
If the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases steadily even as the global average temp (or SST) does not increase steadily then the linkage between temps and natural sources fails to explain much/most of what we are seeing, correct?
But the question is moot because it has been warming for the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1999
So atmospheric CO2 concentrations respond to ordinary least squares linear trends rather than actual SST?
They mostly respond to emissions, of course.
Perhaps I misunderstood your “closely tied” reference. We probably agree that the increase in atm CO2 since 19th c is due to anthro-emissions.
Yes, the majority is from the emissions, and the net is into the oceans as a result, hence acidification. However, in the absence of emissions, there is the chemical equilibrium to consider, but that effect is relatively small in the last century.
“Acidification”? You must be trolling for a record number of skeptic responses. ;-)
Skeptics don’t like that an increase in H+ ions equals acidification by definition. It’s just chemistry.
Acidification? Just say greening instead. There, that’s the ticket.
============
Jim Steele posted an overview on the oceanic carbon cycle – from what I saw, it is FAR from clear that atmospheric CO2 levels are the driving factor.
In addition, the data and trends in “acidification” are from from complete or conclusive; once again, seasonal and regional variations are enormous compared to so called “long term” trends much as daily, seasonal, and regional variations in temperatures are orders of magnitude greater than “warming”.
More tempest in a teapot brewing support for a political agenda.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1990/mean:12/offset:0.3124
In the above graphic, the green line is RSS from 1990 with a mean of 12 which means that you continually see the average of 12 values. It has been offset so that the average red height equals the average green height. The red line is GISS with a mean of 12. If HADCRUT4.3 could be shown, it would be similar to GISS. And if UAH, version 5.5 were shown, it would be similar to RSS.
There’s been an interesting article in Science last week:
“Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?”
“Our analysis of the three major models used to set government policies in the United States and Europe suggests that ethanol policies in effect are relying on decreases in food consumption to generate GHG savings . ….”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1420.full
Both RSS and GISS in the temp. graph I posted at 12:01pm show a pause from 1998-present in contrast to a global temperature rise 1980-1998.
What caused the pause look at my post at 11:12am Apr.04.
The reality is GISS ,and RSS show the same temperature trends and this is what it will be all about going forward.
25 years of satellite data: 7 questions for John Christy and @RoyWSpencer [link]
Christy and Spencer get it. CAGW is not the most important problem facing the world, in fact it doesn’t make the top 50. But, then again, recognition of this fact would deprive the progressive green mafia of their most potent weapons of mass destruction.
Man you hate Mann.
Irrespective of whether one thinks that ACO2 emissions have contributedin any way to the current drought in Cali, this is pretty dang interesting:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/03/california_drought_the_state_s_snowpack_is_a_new_record_low_by_far.html
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/04/150403_SLATEST-Snowpack_2010086_lrg.jpg
You gotta go to the link to see the “slider.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadrought
Unless you think aCO2 contributed to similar megadroughts 1000 or more years ago then mention of it is hyperbole.
Yes, one drought of 200 years and two of 150 years in the last 1100. Nothing new. What it really means is that instead of spending huge amounts money on mitigation – Teslas and solar panels for rich people – we should be solving the water supply problem. Adaptation, humans are good at it.
The resort closed early but the white that can be seen appears to be snow rather than clouds as there is still 4 foot of snow at height.
http://www.sierraattahoe.com/mountain/conditions?quicktabs_4=0#quicktabs-4
I note the rsort was re located to this site in 1968 so the record low quoted appears to be a relatively short record.
It would be interesting to know what the snow conditions were like in the 1920 to 1940 warm period
Tonyb
Mmm..Mr Appell seems to have a lot of time on his hands on a lot of sites.
Anyway…he has missed the Gore directives..move on tiger..
No “pause” re…reframe it and call it a “slowdown”..its one of the $CAGW$ sites admitting through gritted teeth …use of the word “denier” so its a valid source right $CAGW$ clones.??
“Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid?”
REMSS data set..
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatureshttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
So your out of that one.
here is the UK Met off ice showing the error bars.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
So thats two times your out
And my favourite..the mind boggling hypothesis..
“Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. …”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
Game set and match..$CAGW$ blog commentators can argue against their own side.. :)
Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/03/week-in-review-science-and-technology-edition :
‘“Russian scientist’s new study: ‘Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age’” [link]. A copy of the manuscript can be obtained here [Abdussamatov]. JC comment: Interesting. Shows repeating pattern of coincidence between the strength of the solar cycles during cold spells, Be and 14C production rates, and global climate, with a remarkable pattern for the pre-Maunder, Maunder, Dalton, 1880-1915 cooling, and 1945-1977 cooling. TSI seems to be an indicator, not a primary cause.’
Sun is the primary source of warmth for our globe. However, a mere level of TSI alone does not seem to be able to control global climate temperature. Usually it is a result together with many kinds of complicated feedback issues.
JC reflections http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/01/road-to-paris-tracking-climate-pledges :
”The emerging INDC commitments appear to be sufficient for some kind of political success at the forthcoming Paris COP. Apart from the feasibility of actually meeting these commitments, there are several elephants in the room here, that people don’t seem to be talking about:
1. We don’t know how the 21st century climate will evolve
2. We don’t know, and whether reductions in emissions will actually alter the 21st century climate in beneficial ways.
3.The unintended consequences of these policies could act to increase vulnerability to extreme events
4. Deep, international focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an opportunity loss to deal with other more pressing and easily solved problems”
The issues on the expression of Abdussamatov and on JC’s statement ‘elephants in the room’ above question AGW based on hypothetic results of climate model calculations. E.g the results of climate models adopted by IPCC have not made possible forecast the climate change during the last nearly two decades. According to pragmatic logic, the recent, global temperature plateau expresses that changes of CO2 content in atmosphere do not dominate changes of climate temperature.
According to natural laws, by striving for dynamic balance, all CO2 emissions to atmosphere, and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks together determine CO2 content in atmosphere. As the anthropogenic share of the recent total CO2 emissions to atmosphere has been only about 4 % at most, the anthropogenic share of recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been only about 4 % at most, too. For instance the anthropogenic share in the recent, atmospheric CO2 content of about 400 ppm has been only about 16 ppm at most, and as the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been about 2 ppm a year, the anthropogenic share in that 2 ppm is only about 0,08 ppm at most.
Since even any total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere does not dominate global warming, it is understandable, why any influence of the minimal, anthropogenic share in total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere on global warming can not be distinguished in reality.
Read more in my comments http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 and http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/28/week-in-review-51/#comment-687827 .
Recent research focuses on ocean dynamics:
“From 1920 to 2012, there are roughly two warm IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) phases (1924–1945 and 1977–1998, with warm SSTs in the central and eastern tropical Pacific) and two cold IPO phases (1946–1976 and 1999–2012, with cold SSTs in the same region). The most recent cold IPO phase is still continuing. We found that phase switches of the IPO are concurrent with major climate transitions over the globe, including abrupt shifts in SST, SLP, T and P.”
Living on our water world means our temperatures and precipitation fluctuate according to ocean circulations and oscillations, especially ENSO and IPO patterns in the Pacific basin.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/climate-report-from-the-water-world/
Anyone who uses the words “hottest” and “Antarctic” in the same sentence is probably alarmist.
Either that or camped out in shirt sleeves on the Antarctic Peninsula 15.5 C (63 F) on a recent balmy day. There are places in Scotland where that would be a record.
I understand Magellan was found frequenting the Peninsula beaches, topless no less, since it was the Club Med of his day. Nothing like kicking it back with a Corona after those hellish
currents.
Eli
Where in Scotland?
Tonyb
The Esperanza base is not even within the Antarctic circle.
I’ve been in warmer places which are further north than it is south.
Oh, and you do know you can find palm trees growing in Scotland, don’t you?
And you still wonder why there are so many sceptics.
But back to normal today with lots of snow next week. Weather’s like that, always something to hyperventilate about.
Meanwhile for perspective, on the mainland, station 89577 reports a balmy -97F.
Both are real, neither are significant.
Funny — on this page, the “Twitter” notice contained this tweet:
Twitter — Report from @TheOnion: Majority Of Earth’s Potable Water Trapped In Coca-Cola Products goo.gl/aeZTsh 1 day ago
A terrific April Fools joke that – apparently – no one on the web got. Reposted over and over as real news!
Judith
Whilst hugely sceptical of the accuracy or value of Global SST’s back to 1850, there are some limited areas where sufficient data exists to provide a useful snapshot of a specific time and place. In this context one would think that the North Atlantic and the Gulf stream had never been measured before.
Here we have a study from 2006;
“The Gulf Stream and Atlantic Sea-Surface Temperatures in AD1790-1825”
G. van der Schrier and S.L. Weber
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt
http://www.knmi.nl/~schrier/IJCrennell2007.pdf
The gulf stream warms and cools, speeds up and slows down and corresponding parts of the ocean reflect these changes. The Rahmstorf study seems to suggest that nothing much has changed over the centuries
tonyb
A new narrative for every turn of the stream. Whitewater ahead, yup, turbulence.
=============