Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Large reductions in solar energy production due to dust and particulate air pollution [link]

Towards a new estimate of “time of emergence” of anthropogenic warming –  [link]

Melting and cracking – is Antarctica falling apart? [link]

A novel proxy and the sea level rise in Venice, Italy, from 1350 to 2014 [link]

Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5 simulated multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century. [link]

Carbon dioxide emissions have leveled off, but atmospheric CO2 continues to rise: That’s a problem, and a mystery. [link]

Lightning as a major driver of recent large fire years in North American boreal forests [link]

Precipitation, temperature, and teleconnection signals across the combined North American, Monsoon Asia, and Old World Drought Atlases [link]

Major correction to RSS satellite temp data more than doubles warming since 1998. Now TLT warming faster than land: [link]

Dependence of drivers affects risks associated with compound events [link]

 Climate change vulnerability for species—Assessing the assessments [link]
.
Another paper on OHC by Cheng et al [link]
.

The Maritime Continent may be a switchboard for teleconnections between climate systems. [link]  

Using global tide gauges to validate/improve representation of extreme sea levels in flood impact studies [link]

When will current climate extremes become average? [link

Sea level rise is accelerating, 2.2mm/y in 1993 to 3.3 mm/y in 2014 – mainly due to Greenland melt [link]

STUDY: Antarctic Sea Ice Loss Driven By ‘Natural Variability,’ Not Global Warming [link]

Consensus and discrepancies of basin-scale ocean heat content changes in different ocean analyses [link]

Sea ice trends in climate models are only accurate in models with biased global warming [link]

Strong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from volcanic eruptions [link] And Bjorn Steven’s opinion about it [link]

Antarctic Ice Mass Stable, Recently Published Studies Show [link]

Exxon makes a biofuel breakthrough [link]

New Study Finds Winter Arctic Sea Ice “To Increase Towards 2020” [link]

The influence of autumnal Eurasian snow cover on climate and its link with Arctic sea ice cover [link]

Could geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest questions in climate science? [link]

“ENSO and the recent warming of the Indian Ocean” [link]

Looking at all the ocean basins to understand multi-decadal fluctuations in global warming [link]

Researchers look to the ocean for decadal predictability of NW Europe and  [link]

A look at the new Santer et al study on why troposphere warming differs between models and satellite data: [link]

Role of forcings in 20th century N Atlantic multi-decadal variability: 1940-1975 N Atlantic cooling [link]

NatureClimate study looks at global risk of deadly heat [link]

‘Observational Large Ensemble’ to compare observed and modeled temperature trend uncertainty [link]

Relative importance of radiative and dynamical heating for tropical tropopause temperatures [link]

Abrupt North Atlantic circulation changes in response to gradual CO2 forcing in glacial climate [link]

Apparent limitations in ability of CMIP5 climate models to simulate recent change in surface T [link]

Assessment of sea ice-atmosphere links in CMIP5 models [link]

Eastward-propagating decadal temperature variability in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans [link]

Changes in the climatology, structure, and seasonality of northeast Pacific atmospheric rivers [link]

Biospheric feedback effects in a synchronously coupled model of human and Earth systems [link]

New GISS – study evaluates efficiency of oceans as heat sink, atmospheric gases sponge:

Reconstructing the South Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (SAMOC), an area of limited observations [link]

Model under-representation of decadal Pacific trade wind trends + link to tropical Atlantic bias [link]

Hiatus‐like decades in the absence of equatorial Pacific cooling and accelerated global ocean heat uptake [link]

International open-access project gathers hindcasts needed to study biases.  [link]

Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation [link]

.
Pacific decadal climate variability: Indices, patterns and tropical-extratropical interactions [link]

Social Science and Policy

Does information matter for completing the 1,000,000 piece climate change jigsaw puzzle? [link]

A bitter scientific debate just erupted over the future of the American power grid [link]

Peter Gluckman: ‘The changing need for science advice”.[link]

Risk Analysis When Probabilities are Not Enough

Stranded research? Leading finance journals are silent on climate change [link]

The role of ‘standards of evidence’ in ‘evidence for informed policy making [link]

Pierrehumbert:  The trouble with geoengineers hacking the planet [link]

Why agribusiness knowledge of climate diverged from scientific [link]

Political commitments disable our critical faculties – and the smarter you are, the worse the damage [link]

About Science

Academics strike back against bad science [link]

Pressure to publish in journals drives too much cookie-cutter research [link]

David Spiegelhalter:  Exaggerations threaten public trust in science [link]

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? [link]

Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare [link]

‘Beware the Rise of the Post-Factual Expert’. [link]

“An epistemic pluralist claims that …there are many different but equally valuable ways of interrogating reality.” [link]

Uncertainty analysis comes to integrated assessments [link]

Fascinating piece on the nature of time by ; [link

A debate over the physics of time [link]

Empty rhetoric over data sharing slows science [link]

131 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Steven Mosher

    How science works

    “This result will reduce uncertainties in future climate projections, because we are now able to reject results from climate models with an excessive liquid-water-path response.”

  2. I know they’re in the oil business but why would exon be spending so much money on research for another biofuel? Especially since it won’t be ready for another generation? Does it still emit CO2?

    • Steven Mosher

      They are smart.
      1. It emits c02 but is carbon neutral. It doesnt add c02 through burning,
      the organism converts sunlight and c02 into a fatty oil.
      2. They realize that they need to spend money to hedge risks and possibly exploit opportunities

      Risks: dwindling supplies of oil;
      stranded assets if governments tax FF heavily
      Opportunities: a renewable source of cheaper FF

      Look at the amount of money they risked.. and all based on the unproven idea that you solve this problem. weird how business sees uncertainty as a REASON to take action.
      we do it every day

  3. A a long time reader but not a poster I just want to say thank you Judith for the time and effort you put into this site. I particularly enjoy the Week in Review Science Editions, always lots of fascinating articles there. I know you are very busy in your “retirement” and they are not really weekly anymore, but perhaps that just makes me appreciate them even more. Keep up the great work!

  4. “Towards a new estimate of “time of emergence” of anthropogenic warming”

    This has a bad link. The correct link is http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0792.1

    For an ungated copy see http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/submitted.lehner.toe.apr17.pdf

  5. Curious George

    A debate over the physics of time [link] links to a Model under-representation of decadal Pacific trade wind trends.

  6. Another bad link. Good link here: “Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century” by Sergey Kravtsov in GRL, 16 June 2017.

    These weekly linkfests are invaluable! Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to do them.

  7. No mention of this yet?

  8. The only problem I find with Pierrebumbert’s argument of not hacking the planet is that what if that becomes the only solution? We are being told that the situation will be terrible 100 years from now and so far mitigating CO2 has been an utter failure.

    • David Springer

      Technological revolution(s) in coming decades will make climate modification, if necessary, cheap & easy. Robotics alone is enough to guarantee it but I foresee synthetic biology being the really transformative technology that makes everything else today look like the stone age.

    • «We are being told that the situation will be terrible 100 years from now»


      The so-called Representative Concentration Pathway RCP 8.5 by IPCC seem to be wildly exaggerated. Here is an interesting analysis by Willis Eschenbach that is based on the paper The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-driven analysis Here are the conclusions of Willis:
      «Here’s the takeaway message. Using the most extreme of the 16 estimates of future CO2 levels along with the higher of the two TCR estimates, in other words looking at the worst case scenario, we are STILL not projected to reach one measly degree C of warming by the year 2100.

      More to the point, the best bet given all the data we have is that there will only be a mere half a degree C of warming over the 21st century.

      Can we call off the apocalypse now?»
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds – Willis Eschenbach

    • Ah, I thought that was the whole problem. We are already hacking the planet, only in an unplanned way. Is the underlying assumption that man changing his environment, even when it is thoughtful and aimed at helping nature, is inherently bad. Must he be an intentionally impotent god whose goodness is demonstrated by having no evident existence. The moved unmover as it were.

  9. Here’s the bottom line in “Towards a new estimate of “time of emergence” of anthropogenic warming” by Flavio Lehner et al in Journal of Climate, in press (open copy here):

    “In a longer-term perspective based on the CESM LE simulations, all areas in North America and Europe in both winter and summer show robust emergence of anthropogenic warming by approximately the 2040s-2060s under RCP 8.5.“

    While knowing the worst case emergence date (i.e., earliest) is useful, knowing that date for the more likely RCP6.0 scenario would be useful. The relentless focus on the worst of the scenarios in AR5 seems exaggerated, especially when the result is usually given without framing it as such (exactly as in this paper).

    • Speaking of worst case scenarios, global debt is now $217T and growing even faster than global economic output. I assume we will be borrowing the money to compensate for any climate related disasters at negative interest rates or there won’t be any GDP left after debt servicing.

  10. Regarding RSS. Funny, because UAH6 just adjusted from UAH5 to agree with RSS, but now with the RSS adjustment, it agrees better with UAH5, so are we to expect a UAH7 now, or a scrapping of UAH6? What will Spencer and Christy have to say about all this? This whole thing is a reprise of Spencer’s well known blunder of the past when he kept insisting on no global warming and it turned out to be a whoops with his satellite data.

    • Nonsense, your characterization or character assassination of Spencer is biased and pathetic. I’m surprised by you.

      • He admitted to the first error. Maybe he made another one with UAH6. We’ll find out.

      • At least he does admit to them. UAH was not showing the heat from El Nino in 2015 and early 16. That should be expected since it takes the heat a while to accumulate higher in the atmosphere. I’m sure he saw it coming and wasn’t surprised.

    • Each new version of rss and uah is to fix the “blunders” of the previous version.

      • David Springer

        You can’t swing a dead cat in climate science without hitting yet another big blunder.

      • These people usually complain about adjustments. They keep mum on this one.

      • Can we question the link to a blog like carbonbrief as a source of reliable, unbiased information?

        Satellites have come of age as far better sources of data for many things – not least the tropospheric temperature changes. It is far better than the surface record that not only has its own sources of error and adjustment – but has intrinsic problems with a changing latent heat flux (a component of total energy at the surface) due to changes in soil moisture.

    • While this only now got published, it has been adjusted since 2016.
      http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated

  11. “That raises a conundrum: If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever?”

    The only consistent feature of climate science is its failure to anticipate changes. The only consistent feature of climate scientists is that the capacity of their models to anticipate changes should be trusted.

    • Another journalistic beat up. Emissions haven’t stopped rising although the airborne fraction has declined this century.

      https://images.nature.com/m685/nature-fs/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2016/161108/ncomms13428/images/ncomms13428-f1.jpg \
      https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

      Short term ENSO mediated variability has very little relevance to global warming.

      • Robert
        The chart in the Nature article only goes to 2012, there are four large increase years following to 2016, therefore the conclusions are seriously questioned, i.e. wrong.

        The primary reason for a higher CO2 annual increase is the NH temperature profile from November through to May. This controls the atmospheric volume / adsorbent capacity of the atmosphere and the residual ppm. The winter atmosphere in the NH is cold an dense and unreceptive to uptake. Warmer years change this position.

        The other articles relating to increased annual biosphere uptake having an influence, are pure speculation.

        ALL of the CO2 curves from sampling stations are “mechanical” (yes mechanical). They are the result of atmospheric circulation and transport timing and patterns. Yes the effect of the biosphere oxygenation cycle are included.

        Finally, the carbon sink, biospheres and the fluid (air) that transports CO2 between them have a relative saturation relationship. One cannot responsibly use ppm without the temperature value being present.

        When the CO2 warming discussion started, if some bright spark had raised this – discussion over.

        Two FACTS
        1. During the change of state between glacial to interglacial – atmospheric CO2 RELATIVE SATURATION is LOWER
        2. During the change of state between interglacial to glacial – atmospheric CO2 RELATIVE SATURATION is HIGHER
        Regards

      • Nonsense. Of course an increase occurred – it was warmer. Short term ENSO mediated variability has very little relevance to global warming – as I said – or the longer term trend in CO2. In general examining the entrails of a few years of data is very silly.

      • Robert
        Exactly what is nonsense

      • David Springer

        SciAm says emissions didn’t rise last year. They’re not the only one reporting it I picked it because they’re climate change apologists, owned by Nature, and it hurts them to have to say this.

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rise-in-global-carbon-emissions-slows/

      • I will accept a decrease in emissions and an increase in concentration in the atmosphere.

    • Javier, I think you missed a NOT in your last sentence.

      • Yes, I realized. For non native English language users not having the capacity to correct the comment after sending it is a limitation.

    • Gillis is a frustrated novelist, as is made clear by his constant overdramatic representation of supposed alarming impacts of climate change. To call him a science journalist is a joke. Hell, he’s not much of a journalist, period, since sticking to the facts is optional

  12. Thank you very much for your dedication to climate science, Dr. Curry.

    I’m going to take a break from these ongoing debates over every aspect of climate science. Partially, my decision is related to Mear’s latest revision to history that will take some time to wash out of the debate, and I don’t want to waste my time. Partially, I want to wait for the climate to settle out after the latest Super El Nino. Temperatures in the 2021 to 2025 timeframe will help in my understanding of the various camps’ arguments.

    About the only thing I have learned over the last few years for sure, IPCC climate models are bunk and the IPCC is a political institution run by activists and SJWs of every stripe. Oh, and that the world is indisputably better off from the warming arising from the depths of the Little Ice Age.

    • Roger Knights

      “the IPCC is a political institution run by activists and SJWs of every stripe.”

      It would help to buttress that point to have video clips available somewhere to show the standing ovations given to Chavez and Mugabe (after their over-the-time-limit speeches) at the Copenhagen COP.

  13. Pingback: Novedades sobre aerosoles (menos alarma climática) | PlazaMoyua.com

  14. “Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.” Albert Einstein

    Philosophy is the application of convoluted syntax as a path to credibility in an wannabe elite grouping. It is amusing in teens but nor especially fruitful. A philosophy of time should not neglect the mechanisms of time described by science on the spurious ground that a unified theory may change our notions of time – and then assume that the arrow of time is the unchallenged paradigm – however convoluted it’s expression here is.

    Based on the invariance of the speed of light between inertial frames – it is indeed possible for inertial frames to follow different timelines – to emerge in different futures depending on the velocities of the inertial frames. It implies that time – like space is a continuum – and not an arrow – and opens up new metaphysical vistas.
    .

  15. Roger Knights

    Judith: The “link” in this line isn’t active (clickable):

    NatureClimate study looks at global risk of deadly heat [link]

  16. “Based on this multi-model analysis we find evidence for a significant influence of anthropogenic agents on multi-decadal sea surface temperature (SST) fluctuations across the Atlantic sector, and suggest that anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases might have played a key role in the 1940-1975 North Atlantic cooling.”

    Greenhouse gases may have played a minor role, otherwise the AMO would not have warmed from 1995. And if it takes an increase in climate forcing for the North Atlantic to cool, then it would take a net decrease in climate forcing for it to warm.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

  17. David Springer

    Ventor/Exxon Biofuel Breakthrough

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/genome-decoder-s-fatty-algae-is-biofuel-breakthrough-for-exxon

    I’ve been waiting and marking progress in this for 30 years. It was predicted in the 1997 seminal work “Engines of Creation” by K. Eric Drexler and MIT. the timeframe given was 30 – 50 years. It’s running perfectly true in sequence of events and right down the center of the alley in time frame.

    Hydrocarbon fuel is just the first big transformative technological fruit from synthetic biology. It’s the easiest and most visibly desirable. Production of energy in a form suitable for distribution and consumption by current infrastructure at a cost cheaper than fossil fuel ever was is around the corner.

    The big ticket products of synthetic biology are constructed around nature’s most versatile building block; carbon. Ironically the most accessible source of carbon is atmospheric CO2.

    I’ve been saying for many years that ultimately the global agreements we’ll need is not how much carbon a nation can put into the atmosphere but rather how much a nation can remove. Atmospheric carbon dioxide will become a commodity and subject to scarcity. Mark my words.

    • David Springer

      Correction “the 1987 seminal work Engines of Creation”

    • I understand the algae absorbs CO2 but when the fuel is used does it then emit CO2?

      • David Springer

        Yes but synthetic organisms will be making more than biofuel. Think of them as a self reproducing robotic workforce the can be programmed to build anything from microscopic to macroscopic with atomic precision. Durable goods take carbon out of the carbon cycle for arbitrarily long periods of time. There are houses made of wood a thousand years old still being used. The carbon in that wood was once in the atmosphere and a natural organism took it out and made wood with it. Wood is a carbon composite. Synthetic organisms can be programmed to build things out of carbon composites and there’s a shiit-ton of carbon composites with all kinds of material properties.

      • Thanks

      • Peter Lang

        Think of them as a self reproducing robotic workforce the can be programmed to build anything from microscopic to macroscopic with atomic precision.

        Have you considered outsourcing to Marsians?

    • Before I retired from XOM (2012), the big brains in corporate research told us that if they replaced everything inside the beltway with an algae farm, they’s get 25 kbpd yield. Miniscule in the larger scheme. With this breakthrough maybe they get 50-60 kbpd, certainly better; but think of the knock-on benefits!

      • aporiac1960

        Berne: “think of the knock-on benefits!”

        US oil production is currently around 9 mbpd, so based on 60 kbpd for the beltway biofuel farm (approx. 300 sq.miles), you would only need to find another 149 similarly unproductive regions to repurpose. This could be a pleasant task if you set about identifying these potential sites following the attitude of Socrates, who reportedly enjoyed visiting the agora (marketplace) in order to look in wonder and amazement at the sheer number and variety of things he could do without.

    • 30 years of no progress and suddenly, wait, tomorrow it will power the world. Dream on!

      What are the answers to these basic questions?

      Q1. How much land area would be required to supply the world’s energy needs of 2020, and of 2100?

      Q2. On what land will they be located?

      Q3. How much water per year?

      Q4. Cost per litre (or barrel or gallon) of product (and give the current cost of the equivalent)?

      Can’t answer these basic questions? Go do your homework.

      • aporiac1960

        Peter,

        All valid and important questions. I believe they have been working on algae that can grow in seawater, so I guess the idea is to have coastal farms – although that raises a whole other set of questions about availability of suitable sites. However, whether fresh or seawater, there is another question to be added to your list: –

        Q5. What are the potential ecological impacts of releasing this genetically engineered super-weed into the wild?

      • I would like to suggest to aporiac1960, among others, that we consider the following coastal sites for algae farms first before all others: the Occoquan in Chesapeake Bay, where the Feds berth their expensive yachts, tax free; Martha’s Vineyard; the Hamptons; Malibu and just for bi-partisanship, Palm Beach/Mar-a-Lago. I’m sure these locations would welcome the chance to be cutting edge green.

      • What could possibly go wrong with replacing the bottom of the planet’s food chain with a wildly different kind of algae engineered to make precursors to gasoline?

        Surely some desolated planet on Star Trek did something like that.

  18. https://www.iceagenow.info/sun-might-change-climate/

    Global cooling began this year and should continue going forward putting an end to the AGW fraud.

    Solar parameters finally reaching the criteria which should result in lower global temperatures.

  19. Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub – solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another.

    This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.

    TERRESTRIAL ITEMS

    global cloud cover

    global snow cover/sea ice cover

    volcanic activity major

    sea surface temperatures

    atmospheric circulation

    LOW AVERAGE VALUE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING

    SOLAR FLUX – SUB 90 – IS IN PLACE

    SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC – GETTING TOWARD THIS

    COSMIC RAY COUNTS – 6500 UNITS + – IS IN PLACE

    AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER – COMING DOWN OF LATE

    EUV/UV LIGHT- EUV 100 UNITS OR LOWER – IS IN PLACE- UV LIGHT DOWN

    IMF 4.2 NT – NOT REACHED YET ON A REGULAR BASIS.

    SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet.

    All given solar effects enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

  20. A great video which shows it is the sun not CO2 which determines the climate.

    • Oh come on. The great fusion ball in the sky cannot possibly affect climate, which, as mankind has known for many thousands of years, is determined entirely by two things: human gluttony, and human greed.

      We went through a dark period of science where we thought that maybe the fusion ball, orbital cycles, cloud feedbacks, and heat transport were strong determinants of climate, but thankfully science has gone back to the wisdom of our ancient ancestors, wisdom confirmed by countless ensemble runs of climate models. Gluttony and greed determine climate, although sin and heresy are responsible for most short-term extreme weather events.

  21. Acting like a massive sponge, the oceans pull from the atmosphere heat, carbon dioxide and other gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons, oxygen and nitrogen and store them in their depths for decades to centuries and millennia.

    This gem of GISS-produced “climate science” shatters in the face of a fundamental question: how can heat from a globally cooler atmosphere be “pulled” into a warmer ocean and be stored there without dispersal by various mechanisms? The inclination of oceanographic novices to dump their dynamic ignorance into ocean depths has become commonplace.

    • Of course the reality is that a warmer atmosphere reduces the loss of heat from the oceans that is overwhelmingly from warming in the visible spectrum.

      This tracer study highlighted the role of AMOC is transport of gases and heat into the depths although this is probably not a dominant source of deep ocean heat transport. It is inefficient as they say themselves – heat is lost to the atmosphere in far northern climes which is indeed a driver of thermohaline circulation.

      I suspect that the overwhelming source of heat to deeper levels in the oceans is turbulence in the warm surface layer creating eddies that transport heat to lower levels. But being buoyant warm water will rise to the surface again in short order. Everything is dynamic and is never static – our snapshots obscure that.

      But what is evident here is activist crowing about some fairly basic science that yet again exposes the skeptic delusion. What it exposes is the basic level of activist understanding and misunderstanding of climate science that is then used to grandstand with unswerving confidence. It then descends into anger, recrimination and obfuscation when it is suggested that there really is a better interpretation within a wider perspective.

    • The inclination of oceanographic novices to defend claims that are physically nonsensical on their face as “a better interpretation in a wider perspective” is proportional to the time they spend writing blog commentary.

  22. Are the activist journalists who endlessly intone the warming, cracking and disappearing of Antarctica 🇦🇶 aware that, on this map, blue means cold anomaly. Yes that’s right, not democrat voting penguins but anomalously cold SSTs all around Antarctica for more than a decade.

    The only crack is what the journalist-activists are smoking.

    Antarctica is where interglacials begin and end. Thus it’s surprising how deafening the silence is about this persistent cold anomaly all round the continent.

    • Some time ago Judith linked an interesting PhD thesis that said increased CO2 should decrease the amount of heat reaching Antarctica. The reasoning was that Antarctica is warmed by heat coming from the north at high altitudes, whereupon it descends onto Antarctica, warming the continent, before being pushed back north at low altitudes. If the air has more CO2 at high altitudes, it radiates more heat to space as it heads south, and so has less heat when it descends. That would also mean it would have less heat when it moves back north over the southern circumpolar ocean.

  23. Curious George

    Large reductions in solar energy production due to dust and particulate air pollution. Dusty panels produce less electricity, that’s understandable. I wonder how do plants clean themselves?

  24. Does information matter for completing the 1,000,000 piece climate change jigsaw puzzle? [link] …

    The only thing that matters is whether or not global warming would be harmful. Yet no one seems willing to seriously investigate that issue. It'[s continually dodged. The alarmists prefer assertions of their beliefs, innuendo and reference to 97% of scientists believe [global warming is dangerous].

    The important science that is needed for rational policy analysis is not being done.

    • What if the existence of humans turned out to be an overall benefit to the biosphere?
      Without humans the question would never be asked.
      That we continue to consider ourselves an aberration is one of the tragedies of religion and the great failures of science.
      It is also the Achilles heel of Climatology.

    • NOAA says that in the late evening cities can be up to 12F warmer than surrounding rural areas, and cities are significantly warmer throughout the day. So if artificial warming was bad, why did cities fill up with so many people? It’s like alarmists flock to the artificially warmest places they can find, yet keep carping about the extreme danger of being in a place that’s been artificially warmed.

      I’ll bet the Florida and Mexican tourism boards could answer a lot of important questions about how people react to warming, and I’ll bet it involves beer and bikinis.

      • Heatwave fatalities are worse in cities because they just can’t cool off as much at night, and it is the night-time minimum not getting low enough for recovery that is the killer.

      • “heatwave fatalities”? Why yes, check out this article (“NatureClimate study looks at global risk of deadly heat [link]”). It doesn’t even have to be all that hot for a “lethal event” to occur.

  25. Judith,

    This link is broken:
    “Uncertainty analysis comes to integrated assessments [link]”

  26. This link did not open for me just now

    Towards a new estimate of “time of emergence” of anthropogenic warming – [link]

  27. This is really good!!!!

    Melting and cracking – is Antarctica falling apart? [link]

    • It is surprising that The Guardian is publishing climate articles from scientists that are trying to combat baseless alarmism.

      After so many years there appears to be some change towards less alarmistic positions.

  28. Global risk of deadly heat https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322.epdf

    “Sporadic heat events, lasting days to weeks, are often related to increased human mortality, raising serious concerns for human health given ongoing climate change”

    This looks like another alarmist-biased analysis of impacts of warming. I’ve only glanced at it but it doesn’t seem to take into account that 3C of global warming does not mean 3 everywhere, nor does it mean 3 C increase to the maximums. 3C GMST increase means about 1.5C increase average in the tropics. This is virtually unnoticeable. The average annual temperature changes by nearly that amount in a year and by that amount over a number of years. Who notices. Outside the tropics any in crease in average annual temperature would be benefical (over decades).

  29. Carbon dioxide emissions have leveled off, but atmospheric CO2 continues to rise: That’s a problem, and a mystery. [link]

    Atmospheric CO2 continuing to rise is a blessing and not any kind of problem. It causes no harm and it causes much good. Observe real data and do not go by flawed model output and flawed media spin.

  30. Major correction to RSS satellite temp data more than doubles warming since 1998. Now TLT warming faster than land: [link] …

    So, data corrections cause the most warming, it is applied as needed to help keep the alarmism alive..

  31. When will current climate extremes become average? [link] …
    Average is in the middle, extremes pass through the average but spend very little time there. It is a rare event when a climate extreme is an average event. Now, I will read the information on the link.

  32. When will current climate extremes become average? [link] …

    At the regional level, a new normal can be delayed through aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Using this specific case study to investigate a climatological new normal, our approach demonstrates the greater value of the concept of a climatological new normal for understanding and communicating climate change when the term is explicitly defined. This approach moves us one step closer to understanding how current extremes will change in the future in a warming world.

    They clearly have zero understanding of what are the most important factors in the extreme climate stability that does exist.

    Most future extremes will be inside the extremes of the past ten thousand years.

    Some future extremes will exceed the extremes of the past ten thousand years.

    That is how a natural, normal and necessary cycle works.

  33. Red-Blue? This whole thing will end up in the Supreme Court. Then the lawyers will make more money than funding any climate data collection network or any climate change research project. We did ourselves in.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/30/scott_pruitt_wants_to_use_a_red_team_to_sow_doubts_about_climate_change.html

  34. Don’t they go hand-in-hand (See link, ‘Beware the Rise of the Post-Factual Expert’)? Despite the difference assumed below, Michael Mann and Al Gore go together like peas and carrots…

    After all, there is a fundamental difference between the politicization of facts and promoting political fiction.

  35. Or, as a new report in E&E News’ ClimateWire put it, Donald Trump’s EPA chief is “leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science:”

    That is why we elected Trump. This needs to be done. Science that promotes models that produce forecasts that are always wrong is not proper science. It must be challenged, big time!

  36. gallopingcamel

    We need a “Climate Science Panel” to select the papers that contain real science.

    We need Judith Curry to head the CRP.

  37. “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams

    I am going to give believers a leg up. Poor little darlings are generally clueless. This is a Tim Palmer lecture. It has it all – equations of state, grid parametisation, Navier-Stokes. I have two quibbles – how dare I. Climate may be inclined to converge on a warmer state but models do not converge – model solutions continue to diverge exponentially – and net feedbacks are negative no matter what happens with cloud. Palmer as well lands credibility to the IPCC opportunistic ensembles – this is little disappointing given the enthusiasm with which he talks about the necessity for probabilistic forecasts.

    “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.”

    The IPCC charts are aggregations of single solutions of different models that are each chosen by a modeler on the basis of qualitative expectations of how climate will evolve. The methodology leaves a little to be desired. I have described it indelicately as pulling it out of their arses.

    Let’s put it formally.

    “Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.

    So how much will uncertainties in climate-change predictions of the large-scale reduce if models are run at 20, 2 or even 0.2 km resolution rather than say 100 km resolution? Equally, we may ask whether there is a certain resolution (e.g. 20 km), where it might be feasible to represent small-scale motions using stochastic equations, rather than trying to resolve them? These questions urgently need answering as the pressures grow on the climate science community to estimate, and if possible reduce uncertainties, and provide more reliable and confident predictions of regional climate change, hazardous weather and extremes.

    Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.” Slingo and Palmer 2011

    Palmer describes the vagaries of the surface temperature as random – they are about as random as Hurst phenomenon in Nile River flows – and for the same reason. They are more unpredictable than random events – as we have discovered elsewhere on this page.

    Let’s steal a graph from Steve Gaddard. And yes I know it stops at 2009 – it’s just that a global warming proof that is based on a couple of years of EL Nino in a drought affected surface record is disturbing and I would rather not contemplate it.

    Forcing and TSI increases in the early warming were 0.135W/m2 in the early – it seems a little under-powered to drive 0.5K warming. I suspect something else was happened in the energy dynamic at toa.

    Cooling in middle period was enough to offset global warming – but here we start to have some data from thousands of humble heroes of science in shipping lanes.


    Amy Clement et al 2009

    We have cloud and surface pressures changes in sync with cool and warm regimes in the north-east Pacific – with a modest shift to colder sst, more cloud and higher slp late last century. A pattern of persistance in ocean regimes seen across millennia – certainly not cyclical. The 20th century saw a 1000 year high in El Nino frequency and intensity. We are due for another multidecadal shift within a decade – we are due for a reversion to more normal La Nina dominated conditions in a more uncertain timeframe.

    Cloud feedbacks in the late century warming were at most 0.3W/m2. Satellites show net cloud radiative effects of 1.4W/m2.

    It is a part of a globally connected network from the poles to the equator. The problem with climate is that it is chaotic at all scales – more unpredictable than random events. I will be the first to admit that there are catastrophic – in the sense of Rene Thom – potentials in a chaotic climate. But the solutions to the feared cataclysm put forward are tainted by neo-socialist aspirations to societal and economic transformation. Just because you are a conspiracy nut – doesn’t mean they aren’t conspiring. There are much better ways forward.

    • Curious George

      An excellent lecture, thank you for the link.

    • An interesting talk as much as for what he didn’t say as what he did.

      As so often happens, the interesting talk did not provoke any particularly interesting questions, such as: –

      1. Given your qualifications and the various scenarios you’ve laid out, how can you morally justify not demanding a set of policy measures and instead surrender that ground to a general audience with the statement “It’s up to you?” How can you claim to be a scientist when other scientists insist explicitly or implicitly that such a position equates to a denial of science?

      2. We are rightly concerned that the wedge might bias the climate pendulum towards significant global warming. However, what are the comparative hazards for humanity associated with lower probability events, such as the climate being tipped into another ice age? If we have reason to fear this much more, should we not regard the wedge as a great blessing?

    • gallopingcamel

      I can’t think of someone as a scientist who only looks at one side of a question. Not a single moment devoted to the positive effects of increased CO2 emissions such as the greening of the planet.
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/benefits-of-co2.pdf

      Stephen Hawking is another scientist who is “All In” on CAGW:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/stephen-hawking-flies-off-the-scientific-reservation/

  38. It’s good to see Mark Jacobson’s snake oil getting some scrutiny. Energy buffs should not underestimate his influence. There’s a lot of politicians who are enthralled with him:

    Michael Shellenberger has put it succinctly, “his assumptions are his conclusions”.

  39. MY SOLAR/CLIMATIC PLAY IS PERSISTENT VERY LOW SOLAR CONDITIONS TRANSLATES TO AN INCREASE IN ALBEDO /LOWER SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES HENCE GLOBAL COOLING.

    EXPLAINED IN MY EARLIER POST.

  40. “The utility-scale Aurora project named “West Waconia” is the only other one in Carver County now under construction and is located south of Highway 5, northeast of Norwood Young America. It will produce enough electricity to power about 1,530 homes.”
    “The owner and operator is Aurora Distributed Solar, LLC of Edina, which is a subsidiary of Enel Green Power North America, Inc. of Andover, Mass., which in turn is a subsidiary of global energy giant Enel S.p.A. of Rome, Italy.”
    “The roughly $290 million Aurora project is unique because the Carver County site is one of 16 solar power plants being built simultaneously in 12 counties scattered throughout central and southern Minnesota. The combined total of more than 476,000 solar panels will produce enough electricity to serve more than 17,000 homes.”
    http://www.swnewsmedia.com/chaska_herald/news/local/solar-power-shines-its-way-into-carver-county/article_d2d113d0-06ac-528a-b4c0-883aee00c0fd.html

    17,000 homes for $290 million or $17,050 per home.
    A home is assumed to use 24 kilowatts per day.
    $710 per kilowatt produced upfront cost.
    Solar purchases in Minnesota are exempt from our 6.875% sales tax.
    “In lieu of a property tax on large solar energy generating systems, a production tax is set beginning with taxes payable in 2015. The production tax for electricity generated by solar is $1.20 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for systems exceeding 1 MW (AC); systems 1 MW (AC) or less are exempt from the production tax. The solar energy production tax is considered to be a personal property tax.”
    8.6 megawatt hours per house per year X $1.20/ X 17,000 homes = $175,000. This amount is a joke. On my small commercial building, I pay at least 2% of its market value each year in property taxes.

    • Yes, but when you get snowed in up there for weeks on end, the electricity from the solar panels with keep you from freezing.

      Oh wait.

      • We have a saver’s switch program. We have Summer rates that are higher. Most of us heat with natural gas or propane. I am moving a bit towards solar but am not there yet. All that related government revenue is drying up some. Our property taxes pay for a lot. I don’t see why solar shouldn’t care its weight. We have school to funds, roads to maintain, and police to hire. Anyways, yesterday was taking a joy ride on the bike and drove past this deal. Am going to visit it before too long.

  41. Judith,

    The link to the Integrated assessments is still broken:

    “Uncertainty analysis comes to integrated assessments [link]”

  42. RSS update. What’s the deal? I had been under the impression that the surface was supposed to warm more than higher up. Now it has according toe Mears. Now that it’s warmer, will it emit more to the TOA? I love this. Maybe that’s where the missing heat is.
    Please transfer some of the increased OHC to closer to the TOA.

  43. Carbon dioxide emissions have leveled off, but atmospheric CO2 continues to rise: That’s a problem, and a mystery.

    Doesn’t that merely mean that the rate of generation globally is greater than the rate of sequestration?

    • It is always larger, but it is well observed that in warmer years sequestration is less efficient and the gap widens, so CO2 levels always rise faster in warmer years even though emission varies smoothly. The CO2 time derivative looks a lot like global temperature.
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/mean:6/plot/gistemp/from:1955/mean:12/detrend:1/scale:0.5

      • Jim D:

        OT, but we discussed this before:

        “The new study uses a statistical method to separate “fast” and “slow” climate modes in the models. According to Proistosescu, when greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, a “fast” warming effect begins to take place almost immediately in certain parts of the planet, mainly over the land masses in the Northern Hemisphere. Indeed, these are the parts of Earth where the most rapid warming has been observed since the Industrial Revolution.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/05/scientists-are-starting-to-clear-up-one-of-the-biggest-controversies-in-climate-science/

        Fast: Line by line radiative transfer models. That worked.
        Slow: Oceans.

        It’s fast because it can’t be absorbed by land. And they are slow because it can be absorbed by the oceans.

        When do the oceans catch up? At the link it is generally portrayed as a long time. The time frames studied are assumed to be a number of decades. I imagine a level of emission was expected from the oceans, and they said no. Will the oceans change behavior in this regard?

      • This is a bit related to the work by Armour who also explained that short-term estimates of sensitivity may be underestimated. The main issue is that the ocean doesn’t warm as fast and so the water vapor feedback that depends on its surface temperature is also delayed when that is less than the global temperature. You don’t get an accurate ECS estimate unless the ocean and land are warming at the same rate because of that delayed feedback. In this paper, they seem to be saying the delay is because of the upwelling regions in the East Pacific and Southern Ocean, which is where deep water comes to the surface, and that deep water takes longer to be affected by climate change, so while Armour just said it was the ocean, this one seems to be specifying regions. That’s my take.

      • Global heat content is 90% oceans, 4% atmosphere, practically zero in the first 2m and 4% as enthalpy of state changes.

        What we clearly have is an almost instantaneous change in atmospheric temperature accompanied by an increase in downward radiative flux and less loss of energy from the surface of the oceans. This is an extremely fast process. Rather than slowly warming – the heat stays in the oceans.

        Thinking about climate as a dynamic process rather than repeating explanations learned by rote would be liberating for Jimmy – but that would be a miracle.

      • The oceans warm too, but only at half the rate of the land. This is because both are driven by external forcing, mostly GHGs, and the land keeps up better because it has a lower thermal inertia. I think RIE said that, but he can correct himself.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:240/mean:120/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1985/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1985/trend

      • Jimmy is talking surface – 2% of the global energy content – and clearly the land
        /ocean divergence is due to the relative balance of latent and sensible heat. It is of course utterly irrelevant to the question of – what was the question?

        Thee is certainly an energy imbalance – caused by the radiative properties of greenhouse gases. The warming response in the atmosphere is very fast – and the change in the energy balance at the surface is very fast. More downward – less upward in equal retaining solar heat in the oceans. There is nothing mysterious about it. The oceans are constantly warmed by forcing that is many orders of magnitude greater than changes in greenhouse gas forcing.

        If he is going to trot out the pot analogy again – it is like having an industrial furnace under it and an IR lamp shining on the surface.

        Climate is driven by sunlight. Even the instantaneous rate of warming from the Earth’s interior in many times greater than greenhouse gas forcing.

        ECS for a 7W/m2 increase in forcing – btw – is 1.4K. Climate is much more stable than the science of assumptions believes.

      • The question was about the response to forcing changes. The response of course occurs at the surface. Water and land surfaces behave differently because of thermal inertia. I think RIE is again agreeing, but casting it in his by now familiar indecipherable phrasing.

      • Jimmy finds it impossible to agree to disagree and goes to extreme lengths to get the last word by repeating the same titbits over and over – while asserting that skeptics are dumb and admitting that he can’t understand plain English. Perhaps it is rather that Jimmy – and most of the urban doofus hipster fanatics – fails to cognitively process information at odds with his memes.

        And I am happy to drop this sort of pointless point scoring if Jimmy is. We’ll take it as read. And that I am better at it because I am so much better at putting words together than Jimmy boy.

        Was there anything new or relevant? Well – no. It has all been rehearsed endlessly before.

        Land has practically no thermal inertia. It heats and cools quickly. It doesn’t store much heat. The higher trend – the so-called land/ocean divergence – is due to a drought artifact in the surface temperature record. The truth can be discerned clearly by comparing the satellite/surface temperature divergence.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004EO210004/abstract

        That Jimmy fails to explain his mechanism in any detail at all simply seals the case. I’ll leave him to correct his error – however unlikely that seems.

      • Which part do you need me to explain to you? I thought I did, but perhaps you missed some aspect of it. You may be disappointed that my explanation would be like the consensus one on the GHG forcing dominance, but maybe you didn’t understand that one either.

      • Jim D:

        I think the paper’s ‘slow mode’ oceans are consistent with there being a second TOA for the GMST. Warmer air over cooler oceans. To the extent the joules are gone from the GMST for a century or more, this suggested 2nd TOA will have an impact. Various vertical circulations in the oceans are needed to sequester the joules at depth and shift them into the distant future.

        If I was accounting for joules, I’d say, this amount of joules went away. You have a note/receivable payable to you in 100 years. The note pays no interest. The books balance.

        Increased CO2, and an increased Land to SST ratio shown in your plot, will help to keep the slow mode slow.

      • This is where the concept of the imbalance is important. As long as the surface temperature isn’t warm enough to cancel the added greenhouse effect, there will be an imbalance that warms the deep ocean, and as long as the ocean keeps warming, even if slowly, it adds to the water vapor feedback and tends toward the full ECS. It is expected to only take a few decades to get to, maybe, 90% of the ECS value once the forcing has stopped increasing, but we won’t know for sure until that happens which is when emissions mostly go away. One things is for sure is more emissions mean more warming. Note also, to get the full ECS, you only need the surface ocean to warm enough to remove the imbalance. The deep ocean can remain colder as it doesn’t impact TOA flux.

      • JCH:

        Thank you. From the above plot I get 10 for land and 250 for the oceans.
        Willie Sutton was asked why he counted joules in the oceans?
        He said, that’s where the money is.

        I minimize the land because it’s pretty good insulation in most places. So good that temperatures rarely drop below 0 C at 6 feet of depth in Minnesota. In really cold Winters the soil temperature loss is usually made up for by the following Fall. In a hot drought, the temperature gain will probably be lost by about the following February. I don’t think this insulation has much of a long term memory. What you give the land, will be given back, generally. I agree, the land has warmed because of CO2.

        If the goal was to warm the atmosphere, I’d say we’ve not been too effective. Look, most of the stuff goes into the oceans anyways.

        The question is, what can hang onto to stuff?

      • The ocean surface is warming at 70% of the global rate, which isn’t nothing, and that is where the water vapor feedback comes from for the full ECS.

      • Jim D:

        “…even if slowly, it adds to the water vapor feedback and tends toward the full ECS.”

        I think you’re saying, even if it’s slow, there is more evaporation.
        And we say that that occurs over the ocean at various distances from land with different wind directions. There is some ratio of this additional evaporation that actually makes it over land. While over the oceans, it would help warm the oceans at the expense of the atmosphere. We can ask, each time the additional water vapor swats a joule back into the ocean, does this ocean plus one joule feel the need to fire one shortly thereafter back out? If it does, the atmosphere is warmer, increasing its ability to warm the ocean.

        To try something simpler, the suggested increase in water vapor does what to warm the oceans? If I am going to try to warm the oceans, I want water vapor. The suggested amplification may be warming the oceans and the land. But the land has hardly budged in the above plot.

        We try to warm the land, and the oceans ruin it all. Pushing a lot of it into the future. CO2 can warm the oceans. And it warms them, by counting joules, much better than it warms land.

        What I am seeing is a decreased GMST upward slope with a continued OHC gain.

      • The land surface warms very efficiently. It is currently warming at 0.3 C per decade. The heat doesn’t have to penetrate far into the land for its surface to warm so much, so it doesn’t show up as heat content. This is a function of conductivity which is low for land, part of the reason for its low thermal inertia. Heat put in at the top stays at the top and doesn’t conduct down very quickly, so the surface heats efficiently. If we look at land alone, its TCS would be about 5 C per doubling if you divide its current warming rate by the forcing change rate. Why is it so high? Because the ocean isn’t doing its part to eject the excess heat. Yes, it absorbs a lot of it, but that doesn’t help with offsetting the CO2 in the energy balance. The other place that is warming fast is the Arctic.

      • A simple thought experiment. Imagine the ocean didn’t warm at all and occupies 2/3 of the area. Then to cancel the energy imbalance, the land would have to warm three times as much. You wouldn’t get as much of the water vapor feedback unless it rained more on land, but the land would get hotter than if the ocean was warming too. That’s the extreme case. As it is, the ocean is warming slowly, so we are not at the extreme where the land has to warm three times as much.

      • Jim D:

        We did an experiment. Where would the joules go? We figured that out. Then later, they will come back. I am suggesting for the next 100 years, they will not come back. The experiment was decades long. Why would we get a break point where they do come back?

        I am way out there. Put anything on the 3 lower kilometers of average ocean depth water and try to warm it with increased insulation. It will warm as it has. But it will take a long time. As the upper ocean is stealing more joules from the atmosphere than before, the deep oceans are doing the same from the upper ocean. From the above plot they are doing a pretty good job, stealing a third of it.

        Deep oceans: plus 80
        Atmosphere: plus 10

        The deep ocean insulted the atmosphere. If I was in charge of warming the atmosphere, I’d be fired for letting the deep oceans for having 8 times as many joules. It’s supposed to be here in the atmosphere, not under a kilometer of ocean water.

      • As I explained, if the ocean surface doesn’t warm, the land surface has to do all the work to offset the forcing. This is not good news for land-dwellers. The reason the land is warming at 5 C per doubling is because the ocean isn’t doing its part. The ocean can delay the ECS, but can’t stop it.

      • Correction: today it is 3 C per doubling for land.

      • Jim D:

        “I explained, if the ocean surface doesn’t warm, the land surface has to do all the work to offset the forcing.”

        And it’s doing a good job, emitting to the TOA at the fourth power of something. For good emission to the TOA, we want imbalances because of that fourth power thing.

      • It’s not working because the land has warmed a degree C since 1980 trying to keep up with the forcing change with less help from the ocean that has only warmed a half degree in this time.

      • I am going out on a limb and saying there’s more water vapor over the oceans than over the land. I think I found another pathway to the TOA. I think it’s easier for joules to find the TOA over land. We are a water based planet. The land is an after thought. In this case, helping the oceans not warm so fast.

      • Restricting it to land is just the problem. That’s where the heating happens preferentially. The paper you linked says why ECS is underestimated by those types of studies, and why it is worse than they thought.

      • Jim D:

        I looked at 3 news stories. It seems that the paper confirmed the IPCC’s ECS even though observational studies sometimes showed a lower ECS. It’s not worse than AR5 said is was. One news story said something like, in the final decades of this century, it’ll be bad. So in 2070, we got a problem. In 53 years, the Southern Ocean gives up (53 years is not bad for a marriage). The author mentioned 300 years, but was unclear as to when that started. Maybe 1950, maybe at the end of the LIA. Here’s what I saw, the CMIPs need to take the slow processes into account. I don’t want to know what it’s going to be without them. Why can’t they adjust the CMIPs down? I want them to be useful, given the summary for policy makers goal. If the ECS comes substantially later, I want to know that. Let’s find the bright side. Antarctica should be safe. The paper suggested slow processes, that almost looks like a negative feedback to the GMST. That’s good.

        Where the heating happens preferentially, that’s a tip-off. At the surface, high anomalies indicate the system cooling. (Arctic excluded for now.)You walk around the outside of your house with an IR gun in Winter. You find your house cooling through pathways. We found where the system is cooling to the TOA. We changed the system, and the circulations changed. We have more ocean to land joules, and more land to TOA joules. The system speeds up when it warms.

      • Nothing is cooling any time soon. We are bathed in increasing amounts of infrared from the sky, and it is the “increasing” part that we are attempting to do something about. From CO2 it is about 2 W/m2, so can we stop it from getting to somewhere beyond 5 W/m2? A gradual transition away from fossil fuels over several decades guarantees we can. This is why that effort has already started.

      • I expected a flattening of the GMST trendline and continued OHC gains. I think you’ll agree, the system slows when it gets cold.

      • Taking 30-year temperatures, no sign of flattening yet. Land and ocean shown here. Neither is flattening.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:240/mean:120/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:240/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1985/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1985/trend
        The forcing is countered by two terms, surface warming and heat absorption (mostly OHC). Warming is 75% of it and absorption is 25%. The bigger response is surface warming.

  44. Risk Analysis When Probabilities are Not Enough https://goo.gl/bH4Tp3

    Risk assessment under deep uncertainty: A methodological comparison

    “Abstract
    Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has proven to be an invaluable tool for evaluating risks in complex engineered systems. However, there is increasing concern that PRA may not be adequate in situations with little underlying knowledge to support probabilistic representation of uncertainties. As analysts and policy makers turn their attention to deeply uncertain hazards such as climate change, a number of alternatives to traditional PRA have been proposed. This paper systematically compares three diverse approaches for risk analysis under deep uncertainty (qualitative uncertainty factors, probability bounds, and robust decision making) in terms of their representation of uncertain quantities, analytical output, and implications for risk management. A simple example problem is used to highlight differences in the way that each method relates to the traditional risk assessment process and fundamental issues associated with risk assessment and description. We find that the implications for decision making are not necessarily consistent between approaches, and that differences in the representation of uncertain quantities and analytical output suggest contexts in which each method may be most appropriate. Finally, each methodology demonstrates how risk assessment can inform decision making in deeply uncertain contexts, informing more effective responses to risk problems characterized by deep uncertainty.”

    This is all very well. It would be a substantial refinement on what policy analysts and Treasuries have been doing for centuries – i.e. routine cost benefit analysis. However, we don’t have even the basic data to do the standard approach properly. So there is even less of the data needed to do a PRA or other sophisticated approaches. And, as I’ve said many times previously, I would be concerned that “robust decision making” is not robust at all. It would be taken over and run by ideologues with an interest in the outcome – groups like the IPCC. It cannot be properly reviewed by most competent organisations that specialise in economic analyses of policies.

    Therefore, the first step should be to gather the required data needed for the basic cost benefit analysis as have been done for centuries (and improving all the time and is the standard way to justify expenditures).

    Clearly the analysis can be done for climate policies (and no policies) because the IAMs do it (DICE, RICE, FUND, PAGE, etc). And these analyses are used to generate the Social Cost of Carbon used to justify policies. However, the issue is that the data used to derive and calibrate the damage functions is sparse to negligible. The necessary research has not been done. We’ve spent the past three decades focusing on climate science instead of analyzing the impacts of global warming.

  45. “They used advanced cell engineering to more than double the fatty lipids inside a strain of algae… When Exxon Mobil announced its $600 million collaboration with Synthetic Genomics in 2009, the oil company predicted it might yield algae-based biofuels within a decade. Four years later, Exxon executives conceded a better estimate might be within a generation.”

    Venter is just playing mad scientist with Exxon’s $600 million. Why wait a generation? A simple biofuel technology is already commercial. Bullshit! Literally. Microbes in anaerobic digestion turn bull’s shit into methane. This can be converted to liquid fuel via gas-to-liquid (GTL) process. Shell has the largest commercial GTL plant in Quatar.

    Venter, we don’t need your genetically engineered mutant algae coming out of your high-tech lab. Just get the shit coming out of cow’s asses!

  46. Didn’t see this listed above.

    From: “WATCH: Stop saying you “believe” in climate change”
    http://www.salon.com/2017/07/07/watch-stop-saying-you-believe-in-climate-change/

    “Deniers believe that the Holocene period of climatic stability for the last 10,000 years will persist indefinitely”

    Isn’t he saying that a significant part any recent warming is due to natural variation?

  47. From WNN Newsletter http://mailchi.mp/world-nuclear-news/wna-weekly-digest-7-july-2017?e=a3b55276e6

    “Environmentalists appeal to President Macron to maintain nuclear capacity
    A strong letter from 45 environmentalists, many of them high-profile, warned him that closing any French nuclear power plants would be retrograde and unhelpful environmentally. The appeal was spearheaded by climate scientist James Hansen and Francois-Marie Breon, the lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment report. “Few nations have done more than France to demonstrate the humanitarian and environmental benefits of creating a high-energy, nuclear-powered, and electrified society.” In fact “The French nuclear program has historically been the envy of the world. It demonstrated in the 1970s and 80s that the decarbonization of an industrialized country’s electricity sector is in fact possible.” Germany is detailed as an example of going backwards due to delusional policies, despite massive expenditure.

    Any wind and solar investment in France “should add to France’s share of clean energy, not inadvertently reduce it. …. “Shifting from nuclear to fossil fuels and renewables would grievously harm the French economy in three ways: higher electricity prices for consumers and industry, an end to France’s lucrative electricity exports, and – perhaps most importantly – the destruction of France’s nuclear export sector.” A review of long-term energy policy is expected in 2018.
    WNN 4/7/17. France”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s