Week in review – science and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

New J.Clim paper: hi res model finds fewer but stronger, wetter, and larger tropical cyclones with global warming [link

PNAS:  the biosphere has become less constrained by water stress globally [link]

Glacier shrinkage driving global changes in downstream systems [link]

Himalayan Glaciers Have Been Melting For 400 Years, Scientists Discover [link]

How fast is Earth warming? Ocean heat content and sea level rise measurements may provide a more reliable answer than atmospheric measurements. [link]

Mann and Oreskes: assessing climate change impacts on extreme weather events [link]

Model v. observation differences in western US show need to bolster mountain area datasets. [link]  

“When the polynyas occur- roughly every 75 years…release valve for the ocean’s heat, said the researchers.” [link]

Arthur Petersen on notions of reliability, Relevant Dominant Uncertainty [link]

SST response to anthropogenic and external forcing + impact on AMO and PDO [link]

North American wintertime temperature anomalies: role of El Niño & differential teleconnections [link]

Interested in probability of during ? paper highlights new work on this: [link]

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming [link]

New article: Highly variable Pliocene sea surface conditions in the Norwegian Sea [link]

Indicators of climate change adaptation from molecules to ecosystems [link]

New review of climate sensitivity estimates from Knutti, Rugenstein and Hegerl [link]

Denmark faces first ‘summer-less’ July in 38 years [linkHappened during the Little Ice Age also.

Monitoring ocean change in the 21st century [link]

Extreme reversals in successive winter season precipitation anomalies in Western United States [link]

Mechanistic drivers of re-emergence of anthropogenic carbon in the Equatorial Pacific [link]

Saturn unveiled: Ten notable findings from Cassini-Huygens [link]

Social science & policy

The effect of population growth on climate change impacts: [link]

Richard Tol: There is a climate signal in US hurricane damages [link]

Disaster risk expert says population growth and urban coastal development have created a ‘ticking time bomb’ [link]  

“The most important thing we can do to prepare for weather extremes” [link]

Rethinking the ‘infrastructure’ discussion amid a blitz of hurricanes [link]

A good overview of the National Flood Insurance Program and its problems [link]

Winton Capital sets up climate change prediction market [link]

6 rules for rebuilding infrastructure in an era of ‘unprecedented’ weather events [link]

About science

Is intimidation the new campus threat? explores in a ed [link]

Poisonous science: the dark side of the lab [link]

PETA is smearing a young scientist because she researches climate change effects on birds [link]

413 responses to “Week in review – science and policy edition

  1. Indicators of climate change adaptation from molecules to ecosystems
    Mander et al.
    includes this line in their introduction:

    “For instance, global change is associated with rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), and this is possibly responsible for elevated temperature.” (my emphasis)

  2. PETA is smearing a young scientist because she researches climate change effects on birds [link]

    Oh my!

    I guess my momma was sane all along. Les bien penstants eat their own, she taught me.

    I never did understand her at the time. But isn’t that always the way?

  3. Re “Poisonous science”. A friend of mine will frequently say “You can always tell an academic by the number of knives in his or her back.” It’s so true.

  4. ya somewhere around here I said we dont even prepare for the weather of the past.

  5. PNAS water stress. An indirect confirmation of the satellite observed greening with higher CO2 levels. An inconvenient truth for Al Gore.

  6. EOS OHC and SLR. Pre Argo, we have exactly zero reliable OHC observations. That leaves SLR. And since SLR is essentially unchanged for a century, that means Earth is NOT appreciably warming from AGW. QED.

    • ristvan — “How fast is Earth warming? Ocean heat content and sea level rise measurements may provide a more reliable answer than atmospheric measurements.” This OPINION piece from Trenberth and pals grossly misrepresents our current knowledge concerning Ocean Heat Content. Our available-data vs. what-is-needed-for-the-task, as a fraction of one, approaches zero.

      Calculating the Heat Content of the world’s oceans is a far more complicated and complex task than calculating something as relatively simple as Earth’s average surface air temperature at 2 meters above the surface, which seems to be just beyond our technical reach.

      I do not believe that we have any real understanding of how much water is at what temperatures, thus, OHC claims probably simply represent the prevailing bias of the field.

      • Kip, completely agree. And even Argo post 2003 is probably grossly undersampled given all the complex upwellings and downwellings. As you know, old maps had large regions labeled Terra Incognito. Why Jefferson commissioned the Lewis and Clark expedition. They were honest, where modern ‘climate scientists’ are not.

      • Kip
        Maybe you can help me out. I read that long wave radiation like that absorbed and then emitted by CO2 does not efficiently heat water as it cannot penetrate it more than a few milometers. If this is true , how does extra CO2 in the atmosphere warm the ocean? Further how can we know what part of the warming is caused by CO2 and what part of that is from CO2 generated by burning fossil fuel? It doesn’t make sense to me that the CO2 induced heat in the atmosphere could do much to warm the ocean.

      • DMA ==> Sunday afternoon here — doesn’t look like anyone answered your specific question about infrared (IR) peneration into water and heating of the ocean.

        IR does not penetrate into water to any depth, as you have noted, unlike most of visible light, that penetrates up to 80 meters (in very clear water).

        However, the question is not penetration where IR is concerned — the question is absorbtion of the energy of the IR. IR, like other radiation in the frequency bands on either side of visible light, is a form of energy that can either be absorbed or reflected – it can not simply cease to exist because it hits something. The heating of the painted surface of your car is an example, darker surface absorb more radiant energy and reflect less.

        The ocean skin surface (upper few mms) can be heated by direct absorbtion of IR energy — and where waters are very still, in shallow lagoon with no currents and no wind, the skin (measured in millimeters) warms appreciably. Once is is warmed above the temperature of the water below it, energy flows from the warm water into the cooler water. If the air temperature is below that of the now warmed water, energy flows from the IR warmed water into the air as well. If the air is already warmer than the now-sun-warmed water, energy from the air flows into the water. These flows of energy based on relative temperatures are very basic physics.

        This story is the same story as asking how warm air can warm the oceans, by the way. Energy only flows ONE way — from a high energy source to a lower energy sink (in the same way that water “always” flows downhill).

        The ocean is not, on the whole, a quiet, still lagoon baking in the tropical sun. At the same time our still lagoon water is transferring heat to cooler air or water, it is itself being cooled by the evaporation at its surface, which is continual. Evaporation transfers energy to the atmosphere in the form of the state-change of water from liquid to vapor. Water vapor is a higher-energy state of water, even water at an identical temperature. (Some physics-geek correct me here if I am technically wrong).

        The ocean surface is thus cooled by evaporation, which increases as its temperature increases. The same surface water is cooled by mixing with cooler water (this is, strictly, just the same energy flow mentioned above, speeded up by mixing) — mixing is caused by current in the water, waves and wind, interaction with the shore, birds splashing in and out, etc — any disturbance of the surface. Wind and waves of course kick all this energy transfer into high gear — the end result is that in usual circumstances, the air near the surface of the water and the water near the interface wth the air, even our to approximately the same temperature.

        It is the vey slow cumulative uptake of energy by the oceans from the air, and from direct absorbtion, that account for what is being called “an increase in ocean heat content”.

        The hypothesis being advanced is that increased concentrations of GHGs causes the Earth system to retain more energy than it would without the increase in GHGs — that energy has to go somewhere. If it heats the air, then the air will flow some of that energy into the cooler ocean, which will act as an energy sink, almost inexhaustible (as a sink). If it heats the ocean surface, some of that energy will flow into the water below, into the same energy sink.

        I hope this answers your question.

      • “…..could do much to warm the ocean”

        Especially the abyss which could take hundreds of years to make vertical and horizontal circulation. Only now, molecules of the deep in Henry VIII era could be seeing the light of day.

      • It’s about the energy balance. More absorbed means more has to be emitted to preserve the net. More emitted means it has to get warmer to get back to net zero.

      • CO2 warms the oceans if all other things remain equal.
        “When passing from land to water, this will see all of the available heat energy taken up by water if the temperature of the air mass exceeds that of water (Morton, 1983, 1986), with the temperature of the overpassing air mass reaching equilibrium with the water beneath within a very short time.”
        – Jones and Ricketts
        If you follow the above, where did the joules go? If there is a temperature differential, joules will flow across it. If the atmosphere about the sea surface is 0.5 C warmer than before, the transfer across the sea surface will be slower in the upwards direction or greater in the downwards direction.
        It is also true we have a moderating ally.
        “Below the sea surface, historical measurements of temperature are far sparser, and the warming is more gradual, about 0.01°C per decade at 1,000 meters.”
        https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/voyager-how-long-until-ocean-temperature-goes-few-more-degrees
        The 1000 meter level, sits on average on another 3000 meters of cool water.
        That CO2 warms the oceans, give us more time.

    • It is clear that volume-integrated quantities are much more robust to short-term fluctuations than surface-only quantities, so that the signal to noise ratio is higher and trends can be isolated in as little as 4 years versus more like 30 years for surface temperatures. These are therefore more valuable datasets to have when looking at trends on decadal scales.

      • Jim D, look up the precision of XBT diving darts and then get back about your volume intregrals claim. You make such a ‘sciency assertion’, at least provide some references as it is apparent you yourself are clueless about the pre Argo observational basics.

      • Show what uncertainty you think the global OHC has relative to its annual change. The article gives you the error bars. Dispute that. From a physics perspective, volume integrals are much steadier quantities than those at the surface where the short-term changes are mostly confined. ENSO, for example, has a much larger effect on the surface temperature than on the total OHC because it is mostly just a redistribution of ocean heat.

      • Jim D, jousting with you is always a pleasure. You refer to the uncertainty estimate asserted by EOS table 1 line 2 for OHC. Unreferenced. Compare that EOS assertion to Levitus 2012 (footnote seven in essay Missing Heat in ebook Blowing Smoke). Off by more than an order of magnitute according to THE pre Argo OHC expert himself (and I have no reason to believe Levitus was not putting lipstick on the OHC pig).
        Your problem in part is that you lack sufficient context. Hence my XBT uncertainty research suggestion. Nope, you come back relying on a patently flawed EOS article I was criticizing from first principles. Stop bringing rubber knives to a gunfight. Go find yourself some guns and real bullets (metaphorical). Hard to do, cause there aren’t any. I already looked just to make sure.

      • I refer to the uncertainty in the article. You so far have not given one. I can’t argue with your unsupported assertions. How does your XBT uncertainty affect mean trends? The article says this trend is ten times more robust than the surface temperature trend, and that is no surprise because it is a volume measurement. A volume measurement is like measuring the volume change in a swimming pool, compared to a surface measurement which is like trying to measure the mean wave height on it. It’s much better because volume changes have much lower frequencies than surface changes.

      • Jim D: It is clear that volume-integrated quantities are much more robust to short-term fluctuations than surface-only quantities,

        That would only be true of OHC if there were lots of temperatures measured at a reasonable sampling grid throughout the volume, throughout a reasonable epoch. That has not happened.

      • The coverage is very good. Skeptics may believe odd things are hiding in the gaps, perhaps?
        https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/65

      • By all means, let’s use 4 year trends to predict the future climate.

      • You can read it again, but I don’t think they are saying that. It is a robust way to detect ongoing climate change with less noisy data.

      • Marler’s objection is toast: waterlogged toast.

      • I was responding to you Jim, not to the article.

      • I was only saying what the article was, and if people have their own error analysis of Argo’s OHC, they need to come up with it because mudslinging isn’t an argument by itself.

      • The prediction is based on physics. The trend is the outcome. It is affirmed by several observations.

      • It is clear that this is very poor science. Coverage to depth pre-Argo was in the order of 10%. Records were averaged over 5 years to provide sufficient density of data points. But smoothing doesn’t improve precision of an inherently imprecise record. And it is a great way to miss ‘noise’.

        In the 1990’s an annual record was devised by Josh Willis and was used by Wong et al to compare rates of changes of ocean heat with net radiant flux at top of atmosphere.

        Most ocean heat change was caused by cloud cover reduction with a warmer Pacific sea surface temperature associated with low frequency – 20 to 30 year – climate regimes. All of the warming was in SW – with cooling in IR.

        In more recent times the Scripps Argo climatology shows some cooling in the early record and a warming in recent years – again prominently in SW frequencies.

        There appears to have been a local max in ocean heat content in 1998/99 and it is not clear that this has been exceeded since. Splicing with questionable early data and using a competing Argo climatology notwithstanding. Yet this is what is promulgated as proof of anthropogenic global warming.

        “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

        The large natural variability in TOA radiant flux makes a nonsense of the claim that trends can be discerned against ‘noise’ in 4 years. It is exceptionally poor science not helped by Jimmy D’s motivated narratives.

      • The OHC, coming from thousands of measurement sites globally, is a more reliable measure of the imbalance than the TOA satellite-derived data, which is why it is less noisy. People who like noisy data from a few limited short-duration instruments with their own peculiar hard-to-correct biases will prefer the satellites, however.

      • There are 3900 odd Argo floats.

        Δ(heat and work) = energy in – energy out

        Energy in varies a little – energy out varies a lot with changes in IR emission and reflected SW. These latter are measured with relatively high precision.

        Radiant flux changes at toa are reported as anomalies – no direct comparison with energy in is possible. It is the inter-calibration problem. But the changes are large and directly influence the global energy budget. The difference between energy in and energy out is reflected in global heat content.

        Now you may assume that changes in ocean heat content are all anthropogenic – but that would be an obvious error. Nor can we control for inter-annual to decadal and millennial changes in toa flux associated with changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation. There is a large ‘noise’ that cannot be conveniently removed from the record over such a short time.

        The various approaches to establishing the EEI are discussed in Trenberth (2009) and von Schuckmann et al. (2016). We use monthly TOA CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) edition 2.8 radiation on 1° × 1° grids (Loeb et al. 2009, 2012); see acknowledgments for data access. These, or an earlier generation, have been analyzed in many studies. Observations from CERES begin in March 2000, constituting a 15-yr-plus record. “However, while the EEI at TOA net radiation RT is too small to measure directly from satellite, instruments are far more stable than they are absolutely accurate, with calibration stability less than 0.3 W m−2 decade−1 (95% confidence) (Loeb et al. 2009), and hence there is considerable confidence in the changes from year to year. Therefore, the absolute value of RT has to be established from an inventory of the energy and, in particular, estimates of mean ocean heat uptake (Trenberth 2009; Loeb et al. 2012).” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0339.1

        While ocean heat change is central to estimates of Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) – it is not even close to being all anthropogenic.

      • Energy in and energy out are two very large numbers measured by different satellite instruments. Lots of noise is created by canceling large numbers with a residual that is less than one percent of each of them. OHC on the other hand integrates the difference directly over time, which is why it is much cleaner.

      • The changes in TOA radiant flux are measured with relatively high precision – and cause changes in ocean heat content. What it shows is large natural variability associated with ocean and atmospheric circulation.

        Ocean and atmospheric circulation is a 4 dimensional spatio/temporal chaotic flow field in which quasi standing waves – PDO, AMO etc – shift on decadal to millennial scales.

        God I am bored with Jimmy D’s picayune quibbles.

      • Integrated net quantities are always cleaner than the 1% differences between two large canceling independently measured numbers. You don’t agree, but there it is.

      • Net outgoing flux at toa integrates other factors into the equation. Like large natural variability. To distinguish between natural variability and a mooted anthropogenic imbalance is beyond our capacity. And it does not produce a ‘clean’ anthropogenic signal in the oceans. You may choose to delude yourself otherwise but this is not my problem.

      • It is beyond your capacity to understand that the imbalance can only come from changing external forcing factors, the largest of which are all anthropogenic.

      • The imbalance comes from a simple difference between incoming and outgoing energy. There is large natural variability in these things. You may deny this is you wish – but it is nonetheless demonstrably real.

      • So, when the positive imbalance lasts decades on end, it is from the growing forcing outstripping the warming rate.

      • Warming in SW – cooling in IR. Your next circular argument is to posit positive cloud feedback from a none too obvious ‘signal’.

      • The wiggles are back. I have no time to discern what you are talking about from this.

      • You mean the data is back – and I have described it succinctly.

      • The dominant thing there is a volcanic effect, which when looking over the last century ends up being a minor net forcing. Important to look at the century scale for this.

      • The well known Lean and Rind multivariate regression suggests otherwise – countering Jimmy’s latest mad narrative.

        I’d add cloud radiative effect to the variable mix.

      • OK, so can I assume you don’t believe the third of your figures that shows the dominant anthropogenic influence which is 0.5 C in the last 30 years alone?

      • Wong et al have data – Lean and Rind have a multivariate regression. Interesting enough that I made some effort to read and understand a few years ago. But nowhere near definitive if that’s what you are saying. I’d opt for data.

      • If you can read your graph, that looks definitive and rather like AGW would predict.

      • That seems to be the point – it is exactly as predicted but entirely predicated on correlation of a simplified set of variables to the surface temperature record. Got all the relevant variables? Data says otherwise.

        Do I believe that there are other variables? Absolutely – data says so. And as Sir Isaac’s 4th rule of natural philosophy says – inference based on data should be held as very nearly truth – or at least as much as we are capable of. Some less than others.

        The laws of motion came close to absolute truth – climate science not so much.

      • But that’s just the unicorns argument. You need more than that to be taken seriously.

      • There is so obviously something else happening. Jimmy defines it as a +/- wiggle on a rising trend. Ultimately – the weight of consilient evidence on things that Jimmy knows little to nothing about – and wants to know little to nothing about – says otherwise. But his is the purest cognitive dissonance. Keep it to simple memes and circular arguments and everything will be all right. One can easily get dizzy on Jimmy D’s ideological carousel. Especially as he espouses taking any discussion to extreme and ever more irrelevant places.

      • Examine your Lean and Rind figure again. That answers all your questions about the size of the anthropogenic effect. If there are other effects, there is not much room left in the trend for them to explain anything, so it is just wiggles left.

      • This was discussed just above – here we go around again. You have made this claim – and I still prefer data over correlation in a multivariate regression. Ask me again in a minute.

      • You showed the data, and you disagreed with it.

      • Lean and Rind is not data – it uses time series of selected variables and multivariate regression to attribute surface warming to a variables.

        Wong et al is data – and says that there was low frequency natural variability that strongly warmed the planet in SW in the last decades of the 20th century.

        What we are mostly interested in is ocean heat and outgoing energy in SW and IR. Although subject to teething troubles in the early record – the data has been corrected to within an inch of it’s life – the independent records are consistent and there are corroborating observations. Including ocean ocean heat in the 1990’s. Solar activity varies little – but may have more subtle influences on climate.

        Jimmy D is decades behind the climate science curve and obstinately clings to that using non-sequitur to return to one or other his memes. This succeeds in derailing any reasonable conclusions to a dialectic.

        This last is the making a claim that is not in evidence fallacy. Next he returns to the skeptics are stoopid meme?

        And I am not even close to being a skeptic – except perhaps in the limited world views and science illiteracy of urban doofus hipsters.

      • Explain why you think Lean and Rind are wrong. You showed it without comment. I pointed out it supported me. You had an oh crap moment and started to backtrack. Fun times.

      • So removing all other forcing factors and internal variations, they find a growing signal that looks like rising CO2 forcing. You say it can’t be CO2 even though it looks a heck of a lot like it, and you base that on your own sense of disbelief. Do I have that right?

      • You assume the data is wrong and the immensely simplified linear procedure is right? Is that right.

      • The raw data is inconvenient for you. The data shows that 75% of the warming has occurred in the period since 1950 when 75% of the additional CO2 has been added, and both started rising faster at the same time. You have to say it is just coincidence. It must be those unicorns that are somehow proportional to CO2.

      • The surface temperature data shows warming from around 1910 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to 1976, warming again to 1998 – and little evident warming since. They are coincident with multidecadal climate shifts and not the monotonic CO2 increase.

      • Sure. but your case is tough to make given what the data shows. The temperature’s only been doing this monotonic thing for the last 60 years – maybe it’ll turn around soon, eh? OHC is not cooperating with your wishes either.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2

      • Jim D clueless? Who’da thunk?

      • It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

        I am not arguing for one thing or the other – this is not either or. But the case for vigorous internal variability on multidecadal scales has been made.

      • Internal variability does not increase the OHC, so try another one.

      • To reiterate – there are large changes in TOA radiant flux associated with shifts in atmospheric and ocean circulation. The CERES data shows this – and Wong et al compared their earlier data with an improved version of XBT ocean heat data. Most warming in the last decades of the 20th century was SW – with cooling in IR.

        It is clear as well that riding on Jimmy’s carousel is ultimately monumentally pointless.

      • To reiterate, the largest changes you showed were volcanoes, and they are quite small on the century-scale picture. CO2 on the other hand stays one sign, year on year. Net forcing effect so far 3 GJ/m2 and counting. Far bigger than volcanoes and solar, and anything else you care to quantify.

      • You told me that the radiant flux wiggles were all volcanoes. The Lean and Rind graphic shows two volcanoes that cooled and not warmed of course.

        The instantaneous rate of increase in greenhouse gas forcing is some 1E-9 W/m2 – and the planet slowly warms to a new radiative equilibrium.

        But the strongest source of warming in the last decades of the 20th century was a cloud radiative effect. Only in the satellite era is there any data to quantify the CRE – but it doesn’t look good for you in the long term Jimmy.

      • Positive cloud feedback, OK, so what have you shown so far? The dominant GHG forcing has a positive cloud feedback. The models do this too, so no surprise there. What else have you got?

      • We have been through how screwy this rationalization is.

      • For a low CO2 sensitivity you need a negative cloud feedback to oppose the greenhouse gas increases otherwise you are left with high values that explain all the warming and more to come. The low-sensitivity folks are probably telling you to shut up about your observed positive cloud effect because that is highly contradictory to their deeply held hopes about negative feedbacks to CO2.

      • Net AGW feedbacks are negative.

      • List them and show a reference, or is this just your own assertion again?

      • Check it yourself in AR5 – don’t forget the Planck response.

      • The Planck response is just the warming itself. Yes warming opposes the CO2 forcing change, but yes it warms a lot to do that, which is the point, and now finally you see the problem. Forcing causes immediate warming, over 2 C per CO2 doubling according to the data.

      • I see nothing but mad narratives.

      • You see that forcing causes warming, and that a lot of forcing causes a lot of warming from the AR5 that you now want to reference as your source. It’s a start. Don’t sell yourself short.

      • I stopped reading the IPPC after 2007 – and rely on primary sources instead. I did look up net negative feedbacks however.

      • Planck response. Yes indeed. That worked as a diversion from my question. Well done.

      • I don’t play games Jim – I will leave that to you.

      • yet you do divert – clouds positive, negative, indeterminately small? Positive supports AGW, mind.

      • The cloud feedback is relatively small at some 0.5W/m2/K Total feedbacks – and you should be inclusive – center around 2W/m2/K. The Planck response is the result of exponentially increasing IR emissions with warming and is some -3.2W/m2/K.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-8-14.html

        Cloud feedbacks are way too small to have the effect you imagine it to have. Cloud feedbacks from mooted greenhouse gas warming is no explanation for the large variability seen in the satellite records of toa radiant flux. But then you really have a scant aqquaintence with any sort of quantitative analysis – it is all narrative with you Jimmy. We have discussed this before – and I resent the waste of time and effort involved in going back over the same ground in some sort of fishbowl game.

      • The cloud feedback is small and there is even uncertainty about the sign. Models have a range that is mostly positive but doesn’t exclude zero. The big ones are related to water vapor, and the physics of that part is more certain, being derived from basic thermodynamics. Arrhenius had this part nailed down over a century ago, and all that has happened since then is refinement.

      • Jim D: The coverage is very good.

        Coverage might be adequate since the launch of the Argo system. But not before then.

      • You can judge from their graph, but the trends look fairly certain for at least 20 years already, and since they only need 4 to determine climate change, that is a lot. It is especially important for the earth’s energy imbalance, the presence of which indicates how far behind the forcing the warming still is. This is a very current measure, and not something that takes decades to update.

      • Damn…here Jim, this aloë vera might help…

  7. Tol paper on climate change signal in TS damage. Model piled on model to find a 2% increase– noise from first principles. In fact, only increase in TS is likely due to better observation (weather satellites). No increase in ACE. Pielke Jr reaches the opposite conclusion concerning economic damages. Another disappointing nonscience nonsense paper in warmunist Nature.

    • I never saw Tol in the warmunist camp. I will be interested in Pielke Jr.’s response.

      • Tol is a lukewarmer only in that his SCC model allows for short term benefits from a CO2 increase. In the long run it is the usual hot catastrophe.

      • What DW said. I have occaisionally corresponded via email directly with Tol for several years now, instigated by my direct written support elsewhere of his critique of Cook 97%. His differing with AR(5?) was not over outcome, only over timing. Style over substance. True colors showing more with this ridiculously bad paper.

      • Ya if you dont follow every last thing Rud demands you are a traitor and have true colors.

        In Ruds world there is no true disagreement.
        There is His way, or you are a fraud.

    • The Tol paper is from a few years ago and I think the conclusion was through 2005? Could be an end effect?

  8. Judith, you forgot to link to the article about declining nutrition to carb from CO2 increase.

    Some implications and insights: salt/metal nutrients get depleted from soil regardless of carb to nutrient ratio. Breeding for taste is also likely a big factor. Easily remedied with processing, refining, and fermentation. Increased carbs fertilize soil and feed nitrogen fixing bacteria, increasing nutrient availability and reducing demand for synthetic fertilizer; this likely may become/is a significant factor in the scaling of organic economy.

  9. The Knutti et al paper on sensitivity is interesting. It notes that

    A striking feature of Figs 2 and 3 is that evidence from climate mod- elling favours values of ECS in the upper part of the ‘likely’ range, whereas many recent studies based on instrumentally recorded warming — and some from palaeoclimate — favour values in the lower part of the range.

    But then tries to find a reason for this sad state of affairs by saying that feedbacks are not really constant so maybe the disagreement is not really inconsistent. This finding of course depends on GCM’s making it less than convincing.

  10. “The model projected that the global frequency of TCs is reduced by 22.7%, the ratio of intense TCs is increased by 6.6%, and the precipitation rate within 100 km of the TC center increased by 11.8% under warmer climate conditions.”

    These numbers can be no more accurate than the underlying GCM.

    Does this GCM erroneously create a double ITCZ as the CMIPs do? Does this model erroneously hindcast a Hot Spot over the satellite era as other models do? These things matter to TCs.

    Further, the same shear which weakens and disintegrates TCs also weakens and disintegrates intense TCs. Fewer TCs mean fewer opportunities to become intense TCs. ( a 100% reduction of TCs means a 100% reduction of intense TCs – would a lot of warming get rid of all tropical cyclones altogether? ).

    This meme appears to have been constructed to justify some harm coming from AGW and has induced modeling to confirm it.

  11. Oceans control the climate and the what controls the oceans? The SUN not CO2.

    I am on record as saying year 2017 is a transitional year due to very low solar activity, following 10+ years of sub – solar activity in general.

    Let us see how much AGW we have from here, the answer will be none.

    I have made a prediction for the present ,not some meaningless time into the future which is all ,almost everyone does.

    The only condition I have is solar meets my low average solar parameters on balance moving forward from here.

    By next summer 30 year global mean temperatures according to satellite data should be at or below 30 year means, but the climate I think likely changes in a step like fashion when it really changes ,rather then slow gradual change which so many subscribe to.

  12. Regarding the paper entitled ‘Himalayan glaciers melting for 400 Years’

    I have mentioned before that Gordon Manley, who constructed CET, reckoned glaciers generally started melting from around 1750 and we can trace the upwards swing in temperatures back to around 1700 .

    The global temperature record showing a rise from its start in 1880 is merely a staging post of warming and not it’s starting post.

    Tonyb

  13. My latest: “Climate.gov rivals NASA in climate alarmism.”
    Or “Death trains” Hansen versus “King” Karl
    http://www.cfact.org/2017/09/16/climate-gov-rivals-nasa-in-climate-alarmism/

    Here is a clip: “Mind you, NASA is just as alarmist as NOAA, but NASA’s extreme alarmism takes a different form than NOAA’s. The differences may trace back to the personality differences between their respective leaders. For decades NASA’s climate guru was James “death trains” Hansen. He was a flamboyant publicity hound, which is just how NASA’s climate stuff mostly looks today — flashy and shallow alarmism.

    Until recently NOAA’s guru was Thomas “King” Karl, who was more into power than publicity. His primary goal, thankfully as yet unachieved, was to create and lead a National Climate Service along the lines of the National Weather Service. This would institutionalize climate modeling (some argue that it is the modelers who need to be institutionalized, but I digress). Bogus climate warnings would be issued like weather warnings.”

    There is more of course.

    David
    https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education

  14. Don Don might need to have a word with teh Donald:

    • The fake knews it all along.

    • Uh Willard, Trump gave a televised Rose garden speech saying he was withdrawing and will continue to do so unless renegotiate Paris. Go review it again. UNFCCC and EU said hell no to Paris renegotiation. Some EU powerless bureaucrat says maybe? Color me unimpressed, and calling fake news on you and this uncredentialed report.
      What Trump should have said (I am disappointed) is am withdrawing from UNFCCC under article 25 (one year notice now) to remove any Green Climate Fund obligations, and because a 1994 US law requires I defund and cease all UNFCC participation since it recognized Palestine in April 2016, and by operation of Paris Article 28 section three this means a one year for Paris also.
      If Trump reverses himself on a televised Rose Garden decision speech, he knows he is toast. Get real. His evident ego demands he be history, not toast. You apparently cannot think clearly even in checkers, let alone Trump’s chess.

      • > Color me unimpressed

        What else is new.

        Let’s hope Maggie won’t be sad.

      • I should have been clearer. If in fact EU blinked, Trump wins–Art of the Deal. If some low level functiinary only hopes that will be so, Trump also wins.
        And who and what does Maggie have to do with either?

      • > And who and what does Maggie have to do with either?

        Perhaps you could be clearer there too, Sir.

        Please read back the tweet.

        Teh Donald always win, except when he loses, but even then he wins.

        Teh Donald’s a bit like Humpty Dumpty, but with fluffier hair.

      • Ristvan

        The EU has lost the US in their climate change crusade, Australia is now questioning it’s energy policy and the UK is also beginning to question it’s climate policy thanks to Brexit. We will be free to determine or own climate imperatives on leaving the EU free from the threat of arbitrary fines. China and India pay lip service to climate change whilst building fossil fuelled power stations at an impressive rate. And the alarmists point to the ‘massive’ solar farms they are building, as window dressing which will become inconsequential as fossil fuelled energy grows to dwarf it.

        This statement by an EU official is nothing more than clumsy spin in a futile attempt to circle the wagons. They are facing the prospect of re-energised, competitive industrialisation beyond their control because the climate change tactic is now failing.

        I give it less than 5 years to crumble entirely

    • “The White House on Saturday said it has not changed its position on the Paris climate accord and will withdraw from the agreement that President Trump has called unfair to the United States unless it can be re-negotiated.”
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/16/reports-trump-administration-may-not-pull-out-paris-climate-agreement/673988001/
      President Trump, 24/7.

      • Trump is well capable of saying two opposite things at the same time (healthcare, DACA, the wall funding, right-wing groups, big hurricanes…). We’ll see how it pans out. Usually it depends on who he last spoke to or who last gave him a question. He’s a bit wobbly.

      • Jim D:
        It’s more difficult to target the wobbly.

      • Eventually their statements are ignored as meaningless. Many of us are doing that already. I think Bannon quitting on him was a big blow.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        You appear to be swayed by the media, which seems incapable of listening and comprehending; the president has merely said that he is not linking funding of the wall to legalizing DACA. And he has said that border security must be part of a DACA compromise. This is not inconsistent with his past statements; remember that his statement on dropping DACA on the lap of congress is only 1-2 weeks old. Also, the GOP already has a new border security bill on the shelf; it does not include the wall and may be what is now being considered for the DACA compromise.

        Richard

      • So when he spent the whole campaign saying build the wall and the Mexicans will pay for it, along with all his supporters, and complete Muslim ban, that was just saying stuff, which is my point. He just says stuff. Take with a pinch of salt.

      • Jim D at his best.

        “ban on quitting on him”

        Jimmy obviously doesn’t live in the real world, where people know the difference between quitting and being fired.

      • According to Trump’s press secretary it was mutual, but according to the mainstream media, he was fired according to multiple WH sources. Who are you supposed to believe, the official WH that speaks for Trump and also agrees with Bannon’s version of events, or the leaker WH? It’s a bit murky.

      • No Jim, it isn’t murky or difficult. Bannon was fired.

        You playing games just advertises your simplistic, self supporting arguments.

      • Not according to Trump or Bannon, but yes I am also inclined to think they make things up sometimes even though they were there when whatever it was happened. It’s good that some on the right are starting to see through their crap statements.

    • W keeps his streak alive. He got scammed………again. More wishful thinking, much as is the motivation for believing in AGW by the true believers. Fake news raises its ugly head. Is CNN around?

      • > Is CNN around?

        Only WSJ and AP, Kid. They both haz sources.

        Teh Donald’s playing the Paris Accord like his Wall. Freedom Fighters are getting gaslighted, so who cares really.

  15. Slate being reasonable:
    “In the words of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “Most studies of long-term disaster loss records attribute these increases in losses to increasing exposure of people and assets in at-risk areas, and to underlying societal trends—demographic, economic, political, and social—that shape vulnerability to impacts.””
    And then we trot out insurance companies that know that, people are moving to at risk areas. Let me argue that we should move to ask risk areas, and then engineer the climate to make them less so. Talk about privileged.

  16. Poor wee willie’s freedom fighters is meant to disparage – to distract from his big government, central planning agenda which if realized would be the embodiment of UNfreedom.

    “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage…. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.”

    Poor wee willie’s delight is in the endless repetition of silly slights and – no that’s it – silly slights in service of a fringe ideology.

  17. A Valuable Lesson For A Happier Life

  18. Another poster got me interested in the gentleman. Thank you.

    This 45 minute video shows a speaker who would not be cancelled. One of his points is things we cannot even discuss. And that at this time of polarization, we should be.

  19. The article on finding that Himalayan glaciers have been in retreat for the last 400 years begins by saying, “Global warming and climate change are serious issues,” but wouldn’t it have been more accurate to say–e.g., not as serious as some may have thought…?

  20. This article, “Himalayan glaciers melting for 400 years, finds BSIP study…,” seems to be more even handed than we usually see… We’ve actually got a ‘however’ to explain things–e.g.,

    Melting of glaciers is not only caused due to industrialization and global warming but natural factors like oceanic currents and total solar irradiance (TSI), which means total sun energy coming to earth, are equally responsible. Oceanic currents affect monsoon and since glaciers are dependent on monsoon precipitation in the form of snow, any change in it affects glaciers. TSI affects temperature and other climatic factors which affect glaciers.

    What is unclear is why ‘global warming’ and ‘natural factors’ are presented as mutually exclusive concepts.

  21. Russ Roberts regarding policy: https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5

    “The main way I’ve been dealing with this feeling of despair is to stop paying close attention. I don’t know what depresses me more — the stupidities and dishonesty and tolerance of darkness that come out of the President’s mouth or the response from those that oppose him. Given that I don’t like the President, you’d think I find the response of his enemies inspiring or important. But the responses scare me too, the naked hatred of Trump or anyone who supports or likes him. And of course, it goes way beyond Trump and politics. “

  22. Loss of 133 billion tonnes C from agricultural soils.

    http://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32738.html

    Most read articles at jswc

    http://www.jswconline.org/reports/most-read

    Return of key species aids in bottom up restoration of a global hotspot for biodiversity and soil carbon loss.

    http://www.bees.unsw.edu.au/extinct-native-mammals-be-returned-nsw

    • Robert I. Ellison: “Loss of 133 billion tonnes C from agricultural soils.”

      So are you saying that burning all that agricultural waste as biofuel, rather than composting it, may not be such a ‘green’ policy after all?

  23. David Springer

    You boys got a number yet for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    • Yes. See Annals of Improbable Research, Quantum gravity treatment of the angel density problem. Goodle will take you there. This is the Harvard based journal for the ‘organization’ that also produces the televised annual IgNoble prizes.

      • David Springer

        The angel density paper was certainly written in the fine traditions of climate science; too many facts not in evidence to be credible.

  24. richardswarthout

    I’ve been searching for recent information on Pruitt’s RedTeam/BlueTeam plan, and came up with zero (nothing recent). My guess, though, is that there will be few (possibly zero) blue team volunteers. Any news from y’all?

    Richard

  25. richardswarthout

    Please allow me regress to the post “Reviewing the Climate Science Report” posted on August 20; so that I may respond to a request made by Steven Mosher.

    Steven,

    On August 21st you asked that I back up my statement that historical data is more reliable than paleoclimate reconstructions. I have not ignored the request, searching past readings of IPCC reports; I am quite sure that one of the IPCC documents basically wrote off the use of paleoclimate reconstructions. Still haven’t found what I was looking for, but came across the following passages in AR5 Chapter 5 (pg. 410-411).

    “NH reconstructions covering part or all of the first millennium suggest that some earlier 50-year periods might have been as warm as the 1963–2012 mean instrumental temperature, but the higher temperature of the last 30 years appear to be at least likely the warmest 30-year period in all reconstructions (Table 5.4). However, the confidence in this finding is lower prior to 1200, because the evidence is less reliable and there are fewer independent lines of evidence. There are fewer proxy records, thus yielding less independence among the reconstructions while making them more susceptible to errors in individual proxy records.”

    “The 20th-century trends in proxies may contain relevant temperature information (Ammann and Wahl, 2007) but calibration with detrended or undetrended data has been an issue of debate (von Storch et al., 2006; Wahl et al., 2006; Mann et al., 2007) because trends in proxy records can be induced by other (non-temperature) climate and non-climatic influences (Jones et al., 2009; Gagen et al., 2011).”

    The passages above point to the general unreliability of paleoclimate reconstructions for years prior to 1200, the years for which I was commenting. I believe some reconstructions are probably better than others, but can we be assume that only the good ones are used in the CSR? I have read sufficient criticism of published reconstructions, that I cannot make that assumption.

    Alternatively, there are official historical records that detail changes in agricultural growing seasons; such harvesting grapes earlier and farther north in Europe, and annual records of cherry blossoming in China. I know little about agriculture, but trust that the growing seasons of fruit, vegetables, and trees have not varied over the last centuries and are more reliable than derived temperatures from tree rings, etc.

    Richard

    • richardswarthout

      Mosher,

      The last sentence was ill-written: should say that records of changing seasons, observed and documented at the time of occurrence, and corraborated by many observers, stand over an analysis of tree rings that grew 1000 years ago, that lacks any on-site observations.

      Richard

    • let me know when you think you have backed up your comment.

      you know, code, data and uncertainty testing.

      otherwise you have an opinion.

      like everyone else and equally unimpressive.

      “Alternatively, there are official historical records that detail changes in agricultural growing seasons; such harvesting grapes earlier and farther north in Europe, and annual records of cherry blossoming in China. I know little about agriculture, but trust that the growing seasons of fruit, vegetables, and trees have not varied over the last centuries and are more reliable than derived temperatures from tree rings, etc.”

      1. you trust official records? why? how do you test the accuracy of official
      records? by assuming they are correct because official? hey guess
      what the IPCC is an official record.

      2. Prove the harvesting records are correct. Prove that warming weather is
      the only possible explanation for this.

      3. Its funny that you trust agriculture as a science but not physics.
      And you cant observe over the centuries that growing seasons
      have not varied. you can only observe records. and further
      you have no way of calibrating the sensitivity of this to actual
      temperature unless you can do a test holding everything constant
      while changing temperature.

      here is the point. In the end you have many sources of historical information.
      documents, proxies, etc. constructing a consistent picture that weighs and considers all the evidence and uncertainity is not childs play.

      you want to trust grape harvests cause you like the story.
      I prefer all the evidence from all sources.

      • richardswarthout

        Mosher

        I agree with your “here is the point”. And perhaps we have missed another point: The topic of historical records aside, AR5 tells us that paleoclimate reconstructions pre-1200 are unreliable. Therefore the CSR should not have relied on paleoclimate records pre-1200, which was my main point in reviewing the CSR.

        Richard

      • Richard

        There are many hundreds and thousands of records of pre 1200 AD conditions collected by diligent researchers such as lamb, LE Roy and groves.

        To this day there is clear evidence of warmer than today conditions on nearby upland dartmoor where crop lines, tree lines and dwellings all show habitation at a higher level than today in the bronze age, roman period and early medieval period.

        The downturn in temperatures came around 1180 , windows in our local abbey were bricked up due to colder conditions. The warming was noted around the 750 to 800ad mark. That is not to say the interim period was always warm any more than the dates encompassed by the LIA were alwas cold, but the period in question can be characterised as warmer and dryer than the period that preceded it or came after

        Changing conditions are clearly noted in extensive manorial and church records.

        It is a bit like animal farm with mosh

        All numbers are good
        All text is bad.

        This knowledge of the past was all known before the warmer than reality models came along and we willfully forgot the past.

        Tonyb

      • richardswarthout

        Thank you Tony. Your contribution to the historical truth is appreciated.

  26. “Mann and Oreskes: assessing climate change impacts on extreme weather events”

    From the abstract:

    “In short, a Bayesian approach is preferable, both empirically and ethically.”

    I can’t access the full article. Do Mann and Oreskes provide any charts to substantiate the latter claim?

  27. “6 rules for rebuilding infrastructure in an era of ‘unprecedented’ weather events”

    From the linked article: –

    “Before Hurricane Harvey made landfall on Aug. 25, there was little doubt that its impact would be devastating and wide-ranging. Unfortunately, Harvey delivered and then some with early estimates of the damage at over US$190 billion, which would make it the costliest storm in U.S. history. The rain dumped on the Houston area by Harvey has been called “unprecedented,” making engineering and floodplain design standards look outdated at best and irresponsible at worst.”

    And yet it looks like fewer than 100 people died as a result of this “devastating” event. Most places in the world faced with a disaster of similar proportions would have seen deaths in the tens of thousands. And so what if the financial cost is going to be $190 billion. Small potatoes! – around 1% of US GDP. If ‘outdated and irresponsible’ results in such a small impact in relation to the monumental forces that nature unleashed then three cheers for American outdatedness and irresponsibility, and God Bless the USA and her concern and prudence when it comes to the wellbeing of her citizens!

    By comparison, Hurricane Mitch, which hit Honduras in 1998 with similar winds and rainfall to Harvey in Texas in 2017, killed 7,000 and caused damage equivalent to 70% of GDP. The president of Honduras at the time said the storm had set back development by 50 years.

    All of the perspectives I’ve read in the Western press on Harvey seem bizarre in their conclusions to the point of being perverse.

    Personally I don’t give a F*CK about the buildings, etc., and although every lost life is to be regretted, how could anyone who saw nature throw up something of more than sufficient proportions and power to inspire awe and terror not to be similarly inspired by the power of human clear-headedness? Imperfect, I’m sure, but not mere chaff to the wind.

  28. The co-plot of OHC estimates and Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations in Figure 1 of Cheng, Trenberth et al. is poster child for the sort of “reasoning” that is endemic in “climate science.” That a very similar plot could be produced by suitably rescaling, say, postal rates, lawyer’s fees, wine consumption or any other reasonably monotonically rising quantity over the same time interval seems not to have occurred to the authors. Alas, they seem unaware this is not how any truly scientific attribution can be made.

    Instead of their presumptuous labeling of the spuriously-related “trends” as the “signal of AGW” and the deviations therefrom as the “noise of natural variability,” they should realize that such mathematical decomposition of any time-series–as opposed to repeated independent trials of simply related variables–tells us nothing about physical causation within any complex system. Without any cross-spectral analysis to establish, at least, the strength of coherence throughout the baseband frequencies, they simply don’t have a leg to stand on for their all-too-tendentious attribution of causation.

      • blueice2hotsea

        It’s not impressive. It’s 1) awful and 2) funny.

        1) Any two linear trends can be superimposed by slope matching via scaling and vertical alignment via offset.

        2) Using YOUR scaling and offset, temp response to doubled CO2:

        ΔT(2xCO2) = 400 * 0.01 – 3.22 = 0.78 K

        A little on the low side, Jim!

      • blueice2hotsea

        oops. I take back 2). It should be 4 K, Not funny!
        Point 1) still holds.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Here. I’ve included GISS CO2 back to 1878 and removed high frequency noise (to reveal trends).

        See the problem? From mid-1970s onward, your method attributes all postive natural variation to CO2.

      • Starting with this.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
        If you plot the 1880 value of CO2 on this which is about 290 ppm, that would be -0.3 C on that scale. It fits all the way back, and accounts for the acceleration at the end. Yes, there are natural variations, and they amount to 0.1 C on either side of the background trend. There is no known other source of net positive trend since 1950, but CO2 fits well enough with AGW type values of sensitivity as you can see. Skeptics have been trying very hard, but in vain, to find other sources since seeing plots like this because this just gives them cognitive dissonance.

      • Jim,
        I have looked at this previously. CO2 emissions can be approximated as two consecutive linear trends joined by an ‘elbow’ around 1962. And yes, adding that early trend to the temperature plot looks pretty impressive.

        But it implies that temperature is proportional to the incremental CO2 increase and not to the log of the ratio of increase. Don’t you find that weird?

      • woodfortrees can’t do logs, but it is equally impressive if you use log plots as shown by Lovejoy for example.

        Linear works well for short periods that are much less than a doubling. Since 1950 it has been about 30%.

      • Jim

        One more time. Your woodfortrees artwork FORCES a match in trendlines. This does not reveal climate sensitivity; it predetemines it.

      • It is far from a given that these would fit so well just by scaling the lines. That they do, points to evidence of a connection, especially as the scaling is 2 C per doubling which is in the range science predicts.

      • As Lovejoy’s plot shows, the strong trend relationship between log(CO2) and temperature holds for hundreds of years. Skeptics are clearly very “determined” people when confronted with this type of evidence. They won’t give scientists any credit for being able to easily explain this trend, and furthermore accuse people who believe the scientists of being in some kind of conspiracy, even though the data fits the science.

      • See the problem? From mid-1970s onward, your method attributes all postive natural variation to CO2.

        How do you know NV is net positive?

  29. [I]t is very impressive if done right.

    As impressive as fool’s gold.

    • Than do it. It’s like the MWP. Gripe gripe gripe gripe… nothing.

    • Correlation is not causation, but it is evidence. So far many of the skeptics are mystified as to why one or both these curves goes upwards, let alone the OHC. AGW quantifies these connections with basic physics.

  30. But lagging cross-spectral phase at weakly coherent lowest frequencies renders the attribution to CO2 highly tendentious

    • Only if you ignore basic physics while doing it. Basic physics gives an expected temperature change in the vicinity of 1 C for 100 ppm CO2 increase from 300-400 ppm, and the graph displays that. No surprise from the physics side at least.

      • Curious George

        Please show me basic physics. This is about a tenth time I ask you to. You keep referring to a flat Earth model, which is very basic indeed. Prove that it is accurate to 0.3% (1 degree K).

      • Yes. Which part of the greenhouse effect are you having difficulty with?

      • With changes in day and night albedo.

      • Define night albedo.

      • You use albedo in your calculations. The Earth is not flat; it has a day and night. Does your basic physics ignore night completely?

      • It says that the earth spins fast enough and distributes energy towards the poles fast enough to absorb on one side but emit effectively over the whole surface, exactly a 4:1 ratio of absorption and emission surfaces if you think about it being a sphere. Turns out the emission is uniform enough, but you can do the calculation in latitude bands as Arrhenius did and get essentially the same result.

      • Basic physics gives an expected temperature change in the vicinity of 1 C for 100 ppm CO2 increase from 300-400 ppm – Jim D

        No.

        Basic physics for DOUBLED CO2:
        ΔT(2xCO2) = 1.1 C

        For 300 to 400 ppm, a 33% increase:
        ΔT(1.33xCO2) = 1.1 * ln 1.333/ln 2 = 0.46 C

      • For that, you have denied that a warmer ocean surface provides more water vapor to the atmosphere from the basic thermodynamics of equilibrium over water surfaces, of which the earth has much. That part amplifies the CO2 signal and is still basic physics. It is very hard to figure out a mechanism by which the ocean warms 1 C and the atmosphere does not get 7% more water vapor as a result of Clausius-Clapeyron. We see that much more water vapor in the tropics than in high latitudes for this reason, so you need to suspend part of known physics to believe what you do, which is zero feedback to the warming, And that also ignores snow/ice albedo feedbacks which were the main driver of changes after the last Ice Age and explain why the earth is more than 5 C warmer now than 10k years ago.

      • David Springer

        Net global cloud feedback is net negative per AR4 & AR5. More water vapor means more clouds & presumably more cooling effect but no one knows how much because the models don’t model clouds they parameterize clouds due to insufficient computational resources to model the physical processes in cloud formation.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

        pages 580-581

        7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget

        The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate.

      • I think the skeptics are still try to find the so-called negative cloud feedback, but observations show clouds to be decreasing, if anything, as it warms rapidly, which would be a positive feedback. So they are backing a lame horse there. However, when have mere observations stopped the skeptic memes like this?

      • Clouds are net cooling of course. But the warming feedback is small but positive in the CMIP5 models.

        Confusing the two issues seems par for the course of David’s strained deliberations.

      • Also the cloud forcing change is positive in the observations, remember, and it is the forcing change that matters.

      • And Jimmy only cares about the cloud radiative effect if it is AGW feedback. The so-called observational studies I have read are on ENSO and PDO feedbcks.

      • The cloud effect can also be used to rule out a negative feedback of any significance to all the warming so far. Maybe it hasn’t started to kick in yet, or is it just beating a dead horse by now.

      • Don’t know what you are saying – and don’t really care.

      • For low sensitivity to CO2 you need a negative cloud feedback. For a negative cloud feedback, you need to observe it happening. Not happening. Follow?

      • No Jimmy I have given up trying to decipher your hysterical narratives – ans have no inclination to renew the cloid discussion with you.

      • That’s fine. Don’t let it bother you. It was about the effect of CO2, but never mind.

      • No Jimmy. I don’t want to follow your hysterical and fanatical narratives down any new rabbit hole.

      • Curious George

        Any link to observations of cloud cover 2000-2017? (Please, day and night separately. Daytime clouds cool, nighttime clouds warm.)

      • I think RIE is referring to net radiation for his evidence. You can converse with him on it.

    • Two giants of gobbledegook clash. This should be tedious.

    • Basic physics gives an expected temperature change in the vicinity of 1 C for 100 ppm CO2 increase from 300-400 ppm, and the graph displays that.

      It’s a “basic physics” that wrongly assumes that radiation is the principal mechanism of heat transfer from surface to atmosphere, totally ignoring the demonstrable fact that, over the oceans, evaporation exceeds all other mechanisms combined (i.e. the Bowen ratio is well below unity). The tedium of blog commenters simply mouthing theoretical expectations and/or academic pronouncements, without any knowledge of relevant empirical results, seems endless.

      • No, it assumes that the earth only loses heat from the top of the atmosphere by radiation, not the surface. The surface is very important for the water vapor feedback part where part of the compensation for its warming is via a water vapor increase in the atmosphere and that comes from the surface.

      • Unlike temperature at the effective level in the atmosphere radiating to space, the expected temperature change for the planetary surface cannot be realistically established without taking full account of latent heat transfers, condensation into insolation-shielding clouds and other poorly modeled factors. That’s what renders undergraduate “basic physics” impotent in the real world.

      • The tropospheric temperature is governed by the convective lapse rate, so there is a strong connection between the TOA and surface temperatures. This is a physics based constraint. They are not independent variables. The troposphere behaves as a convective block. Changes in the lapse rate with warming come from moist thermodynamics and are accounted for in the lapse rate feedback. Remember, these average temperature changes are only about 1%, so the variations are quite linear and within current known conditions on earth. We are not dealing with conditions from another planet here.

      • The tropospheric temperature is governed by the convective lapse rate, so there is a strong connection between the TOA and surface temperatures. This is a physics based constraint. They are not independent variables.

        The lapse rate in the troposphere is just that; it doesn’t set the surface temperature. While, in principle, there is a physical connection between the TOA and surface temperatures, in practice they are not strongly coherent. Depending upon atmospheric conditions, including gravitational pressure, a wide range of average surface temperatures can correspond to given TOA emissions.

      • The surface and top of troposphere changes are highly coherent, and it is because the lapse rate doesn’t change much relative to the temperatures themselves. They are not independent variables.

      • The simplistic thermodynamics of the ACS single-layer model (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/singlelayermodel.html
        are misleading. While the variations of anomalies of tropical SST can be coherently reconstructed by measuring outgoing SW as well as the LW radiation at TOA, the actual climatic temperature datum-levels cannot. The unpredictable effects of cloud albedo and poleward transport of heat–processes quite independent of CO2 concentrations–shift those datum-levels strongly from the model expectations.

      • This is about the global mean and multidecadal average climate temperature profile. If the balance changes to warm the surface by a few K, the top of the troposphere also changes at a proportional rate according to the lapse rate, and the lapse rate changes are also constrained by thermodynamics. With increased CO2, this warmed troposphere emits as much to space as it did before adding the CO2 because now the CO2 is blocking more from getting to space.

      • But the whole point is that those climatic temperature levels are not determined by CO2 alone.

      • The CO2 forcing change has been ten times anything the sun does in its largest sunspot cycles, and that 11-year cycle is detectable in the temperature record. Quantitatively CO2 is by far the largest change factor going on in recent history. It is hard to make a case to accept solar effects and deny the larger CO2 effects.

      • David Springer

        john321s knows that the f*ck he’s talking about.

        Advise denizens to pay attention to him.

      • David Springer

        john321s don’t forget that ocean mixed layer heat transport rate to the abyss is not well known. The TOA radiative deficit, assuming it’s accurately measured at 0.5W/m^2, is only enough to warm the entire global ocean volume by 0.2C in 100 years. If transport rate were zero the mixed layer (10% of total volume) would warm 2C/century but if the mix rate were instantaneous it would warm 0.2C/century. No one knows how fast mixed layer heat from TOA radiative deficit works its way into the abyss. No one knows if the rate varies over time in any cyclical non cyclical way. It’s a huge source of uncertainty.

      • I think I will not see a response to my comparison between solar and CO2 forcing, because it is something the skeptics don’t put a lot of thought to.

      • If folks responded to all your assertions, little dude, they would have time for little else.

      • Maybe they’re just stumped. It happens a lot.

      • The dogma spouting little gadfly thinks he’s got somebody stumped. Trump has got you stumped, little dude. Your dogma has been rendered moot.

      • Watching Trump is like watching a toddler playing with a handgun.

      • Quantitatively CO2 is by far the largest change factor going on in recent history.

        Only in terms of media attention! Global urbanization and other land-use changes during the second half of the 20th century were no less dramatic. Meanwhile, CO2 is but a minor contributor (~15%) to the radiative GHE, which itself is a minor player compared to moist convection in heat transfer in the troposphere. Contrary to the “basic physics” of simplistic models, there simply is no one-to-one correspondence between climatic surface temperature levels and CO2 concentrations.

      • The CO2 change amounts to, so far, near 2 W/m2 making it by far the biggest forcing change in the last century. By comparison the solar 11-year cycle oscillates 0.2 W/m2 and has an associated temperature signal of 0.1-0.2 C. So, it’s not just “media” but also scientific quantification that raises CO2 to the top factor, and not by a little, in climate change, and it can rise a further 4-6 W/m2 depending on emissions. This is important to realize. Also the warming is fastest in areas that are not urbanizing.

      • Your incessant sermons are impotent and boring, yimmy. Trump rules! Smarmy alarmists drool.

      • The CO2 change amounts to, so far, near 2 W/m2 making it by far the biggest forcing change in the last century.

        CO2 may weakly increase the opacity of the troposphere to terrestrial LWIR emissions, but –generating no power by itself–it is not a “forcing” in any rigorous sense of the term. Lacking fully reliable means for estimating the ensuing secular surface temperature changes, the uncritical regurgitation of model projections becomes tedious cant.

      • john321s, CO2 acts as an insulator and, like an insulator, does not need to provide any heat of its own to resist heat transfer from the surface to space thereby keeping the surface warmer. Its presence is all that is needed, and its amount matters. Earth’s surface gains its warmth from the sun, and the insulator effect of GHGs keeps it warmer than if it just radiated directly to space. Radiative transfer physics explains this well. Tyndall and Arrhenius knew this much over a century ago. If you know how insulation works, you know how GHGs work.

      • CO2 forcing is a diagnostic construct based on holding surface temperature constant. But CO2 does change TOA energy flux and warms oceans and atmosphere.

      • Recasting LWIR opacity in popular terms as “insulation” scarcely alleviates the intrinsic uncertainties.

      • john321s, which part are you uncertain about? Do you think that the surface is 288 K rather than 255 K largely thanks to insulation? The uncertainties on this part are yours, not in the science.

      • The major uncertainty in not mine, but intrinsic to the physical problem. It pertains to the consequences of increasing LWIR backradiation–which produces more evaporative cooling, especially over the oceans. While AGW apostles are quick to surmise a “positive water-vapor feedback,” they soft-pedal the surface cooling and the reduced insolation due to increased daytime clouds. I recall distinctly how Ramanathan at SIO was surprised that his experiments in the Pacific showed the preponderance of the latter effect, instead of an expected net “positive feedback.”

    • No Jimmy – I have given up trying to decipher your hysterical narratives.

  31. “Ocean heat content and sea level rise measurements may provide a more reliable answer than atmospheric measurements”

    OK, but…
    1. Don’t pretend you can measure temperature changes of 0.001°C since 1960.
    2. Please explain how CO2 in the atmosphere puts heat energy into the ocean.

    • It is hard to imagine a less reliable metric than surface temperature.

      • In principle the oceans are a measure a global heat changes – but as always the problem is distinguishing between large natural variability and small anthropogenic effects.

      • Robert I Ellison: It is hard to imagine a less reliable metric than surface temperature.

        Reliable for what? The surface is where almost all of life occurs; near the surface is where the rest of life occurs.

      • Surface temperature records captures some 2% of total global energy. It is by every account but Matthew and Mosh apparently – manifestly inferior to ocean temps.

        It moreover is influenced by moisture availability over land and presumably by less evapotranspiration in a CO2 rich environment. The resultant decrease in latent heat at the surface – and increase in sensible heat – skews the record to warmer temps with no correction for humidity at all.

        Satellite temps measure full depth and almost globally capturing all of the heat in the atmosphere – and the fact that they don’t match up to surface temps over the last decade or so is a travesty.

      • Satellite temps don’t match up to each other either, maybe a 100% difference in trends since 2000 at this point. You have to decide which one you believe. One of them does match surface temperature since its recent adjustment, and at least one satellite expert has said he trusts the surface temperature better because the satellite data has “structural uncertainty”.

      • Yes they do match up. So do we have a choice between a record with known artifacts – or a more complete record that someone says has ‘structural uncertainty’.

        You’ll have to do better than that.

      • You seem to have missed the latest update to RSS then. It takes it away from UAH6, back more to what UAH5 was like. Big changes post 2000. Not sure what went wrong.
        http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated.html

      • I checked the RSS climate analysis page just to make sure it ewasn’t me going mad. The difference is fractions of a degree against a mooted ‘signal’ of 0.2K/decade. The land spike is the odd man out.

      • The change since 2000 is about 0.2 C which makes an enormous difference to the trend.

      • But Jim – they increased the trend considerably in RSS? What are you complaining about? But the question was I believe – if I am not going mad – the similarity of RSS to UAH.

      • UAH6 is different from RSS4. I am not complaining but you have to decide whether you want the big trend that agrees with surface data from RSS4 or the small trend from UAH6 that was adjusted earlier from something that would have agreed with RSS4 and the surface. I say don’t bother because they will change one of them again soon, probably UAH6 will be adjusted back upwards. What’s your guess?

      • Robert I Ellison: It is by every account but Matthew and Mosh apparently – manifestly inferior to ocean temps.

        The threat of surface temperature change is what the public policy debate is about.

      • But if you want to monitor global climate change – without data artifacts – it is the oceans that matter.

    • 1. Don’t pretend you can measure temperature changes of 0.001°C since 1960.

      It is the change in heat content of the upper layers that matters most: SST; 0 – 100 meters; 0 – 700 meters; 0 to 2000 meters.

      • Really… and how do you determine changes in heat content without measuring temperature?

      • They hire “The Amazing Kreskin” for the night. Quite an impressive guy.

      • I see. Your point is even sillier than it appeared. You folks genuinely are the spoon benders Feynman about whom Feynman was warning.

      • If you have 1000 thermometers and half of them rise by 0.6 degrees and half by 0.7 degrees and they only measure to a tenth, you can still say that the average is 0.65. Likewise if 90% of them say 0.6, the average is closer to 0.6, etc. There is extra information in large numbers of measurements.

      • Jim D | September 18, 2017 at 9:06 pm |
        “If you have 1000 thermometers and half of them rise by 0.006 degrees and half by 0.007 degrees and they only measure to a tenth, you can still say that the average is 0.0065.”
        The problem for JCH and JimD is finding any patch of water at any depth where you can trust a measurement of temperature to 0.0065 C, especially if the thermometer is that good.
        Move one foot away and you have a different temp.

      • No, it’s a problem for goofy people. The scientists and statisticians don’t appear to having any problem with it at all.

      • angech, trends are more reliable than absolute measurements because they cancel out any bias, if you think about it.

      • The scientists and statisticians don’t have a problem.

        Of course they don’t.

        One group knows where the money comes from and the other has a similarity to card sharks.

        If you haven’t figured out that statistical analysis can be made to give you whatever answer you want, you are fooling yourself

    • “2. Please explain how CO2 in the atmosphere puts heat energy into the ocean.”

      Because any energy impinging an absorber, will cause it to gain energy.
      Basic LoT.
      As to the specifics, you could educate yourself – but how about …

      “The surface of the ocean is thus warmed slightly by IR absorption and this reduces the temperature differential from the bulk mixed layer to the surface. This reduces the rate of heat loss from the mixed layer of the ocean to the surface; thus the mixed layer does not cool as fast as it would without the IR forcing at the surface (i.e. it warms relative to the unforced state). It is important to understand that the IR absorbed at the surface does not flow down into the ocean. The energy flow is always upward.”

      From: https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/

      Additionally…
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect

      • https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature

        This doesn’t look like look like IR forcing from increased CO2 concentrations causes increased SSTs.

      • The ocean is warmed by the sun and overwhelmingly cooled by evaporation. Down welling IR causes evaporation. Increasing down welling IR does not warm the water it only increases the rate of evaporation. IR-driven evaporation occurs in a surface layer just a few microns deep. The ocean surface does cool to a far lesser degree by thermal radiation. More CO2 will retard the rate of thermal cooling but it’s a small effect compared to evaporation.

        Over dry surfaces IR is absorbed and warms the surface. That’s why land surface temperature is rising far more rapidly than ocean surface. It’s also why higher latitudes are warming faster than lower because a frozen surface is a dry surface. Warming happens faster as water available for evaporation diminishes.

      • “Increasing down welling IR does not warm the water it only increases the rate of evaporation.”

        AFAIAA there is no thermodynamic process is 100% efficient – yet you say that ALL DWIR is used for evaporation(?)

        “More CO2 will retard the rate of thermal cooling but it’s a small effect compared to evaporation.”

        Would care to provide evidence to back-up your hand-waving?
        Look at the science and the study I posted and come up with something that says otherwise. Not just your say-so.
        Or perhaps do an experiment and get a paper peer-reviewed.
        (arch-sceptic) Roy Spencer has – to refute this particular myth …

        “I have tried to point out that evaporation, too, only occurs at the skin of a water surface, yet it is a major source of heat loss for water bodies. It may be that sunlight is more efficient, Joule for Joule, than infrared due to the depth of penetration effect (many meters rather than microns). But I would say it pretty clear that any heat source (or heat sink) like evaporation which only affects the skin is going to affect the entire water body as well, especially one that is continually being mixed by the wind.”

        “pretty clear” … Well it should be obvious I would say Roy!

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

        FI: So the ocean surface is glass-like … everywhere, is it? (rhetorical)
        There is no surface turbulence … that would allow mixing of the “top few microns” such that instead of evaporation some molecules pass their LWIR derived extra energy to adjacent H2O molecules?
        Such that a few mils of the surface layer are warmed …. and reduces the deltaT to the bulk water and so slow bulk cooling.

      • David Springer

        Actually more than all the DWLIR is used for evaporation. Evaporation cools the surface left behind which means it robs some molecules which aren’t evaporated of some of their energy.

      • David Springer

        Roy’s analysis was shot full of problems and so was your take on it.

        The skin doesn’t mix downward except in white water of which there is very, very little. And even when the skin is broken up by white water it reforms within 10 seconds.

        If you had taken the time to establish a basic understanding of the radiative, conductive, and mechanical actions occurring at the air/water boundary I wouldn’t have to correct your tedious blathering.

      • David Springer

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2009.00427.x/full

        An experiment was performed on IR heating of a pool of water. 80% of the downwelling IR energy is lost to evaporation.

        That’s about right. I said it wasn’t all lost due to its slowing down of radiative cooling.

        Thanks for asking. It’s been quite some time since I looked for any experiments which confirmed my hypothesis. This one was published in December 2009.

      • The ‘skin’ forms from two very different processes – fast photon emissions and slower mechanical mixing. Thus the skin is cooler than the water column. This is not much more than a curiosity in climate terms. But given the IR dynamic the skin must be warmer than otherwise in a warmer world.

        Ocean bottom up is a better place to start applying simple ideas to hyper-complex energy dynamics. The oceans are heated primarily by the sun. There is a much smaller contribution from the Earth’s interior that is orders of magnitude greater than the rate of increase of greenhouse gas forcing.

        A warmer atmosphere prevents some loss of energy from the surface until the water warms sufficiently to restore energy losses against the gradient of a warmer atmosphere. A warmer ocean will lose energy as both IR emissions and convection increase again to restore the original energy balance. Whether the energy flux at the surface is latent or sensible is unimportant – latent heat is just slow transport of heat into the atmosphere.

        The time it takes for oceans to warm is the ‘warming in the pipeline’. AGW is critically dependent on this being a slow response – well in excess of a decade for the oceans to catch up. But there is little realistic math on this. The alternative is that the oceans retains more of the heat generated in relatively large processes other than AGG – including heat added to the oceans in an annual cycle due to north/south asymmetry – and the adjustment is rapid.

      • “Roy’s analysis was shot full of problems and so was your take on it.”

        Not my “take” .. but science’s.
        If you have another – then provide a link to the science.
        Of course LWIR inputs heat into the ocean bulk.
        SO you will not find any.

        “The skin doesn’t mix downward except in white water of which there is very, very little. And even when the skin is broken up by white water it reforms within 10 seconds.”

        Is it special water you’re thinking of then ?

        Any sort of slight turbulence at the skin will mix down the LWIR heating there.

        “If you had taken the time to establish a basic understanding of the radiative, conductive, and mechanical actions occurring at the air/water boundary I wouldn’t have to correct your tedious blathering.”

        Ah, bless – another “nice” chap to converse with here. Splendid, then you and RIE are well suited.

        BTW: Would you care to enquire what my quaifications are for being
        And also do not EVER reply to me again in such arrogant RIE terms again.
        I am not Jim D. OK?
        Ad Hom is not going past me without being rebutted my friend – as I’ve said to the another unpleasant poster on here.

        Again – please show me where your “tedious blathering” can be confirmed by some science.

        “An experiment was performed on IR heating of a pool of water. 80% of the downwelling IR energy is lost to evaporation.”

        Was this “pool” representative of the ocean – in that it’s surface was under some turbulent motion? Or was it glass-like – in which case the results do not surprise.

        “That’s about right. I said it wasn’t all lost due to its slowing down of radiative cooling.”
        No the science shows that it isn’t – as common sense tells us.
        That you cannot apply common sense is not sciences problem my friend.

      • In my experience – neither Banton or Springer contribute much in the way of polite discourse. And either are as incoherent as the other.

      • David Springer

        White water is a wave breaking. It’s the only thing that disrupts the skin layer. Reformation time is mere seconds.

        http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431160600836026

        Reformation time for the thermal skin layer of the ocean
        M. Reza Mobasheri
        Pages 5285-5299 | Received 20 Jul 2005, Accepted 26 Sep 2005, Published online: 31 Jan 2007
        Download citation http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160600836026
        Abstract
        The reformation time of the temperature gradient within the thermal skin layer of the sea surface (top few hundred microns to a few millimeters) after a disruptive event such as wave breaking was calculated. A theoretical model of the heat transfer mechanisms in the skin layer was developed which takes into account molecular conduction, emission of infra‐red (IR) radiation within the water, the evaporation of water, sensible heat flux and net IR emission at the water–atmosphere interface. The time for the skin to develop fully after the cessation of a disruptive event such as wave breaking, was found to be dependant upon the skin thickness. Using equations developed by Fedorov and Ginsberg for the skin thickness, the skin reformation time was calculated for different net heat fluxes, wind speeds and water temperatures. It was found that the reformation time could be as large as 40 s for small values of net heat flux, low wind speed and low water temperature, and on the order of 1 s for higher wind speeds and higher water temperature. In order to determine if the skin would reform fully, it was necessary to determine if the mean time between disruptive events was greater or less than reformation time. It was concluded that the wide range of the coefficient of proportionality λ′ in the equation ΔT = (λ′H tυ)/(kU*) reported in the literature may be partly attributable to measurements being taken when the skin layer was not fully developed.

      • David Springer

        The ocean thermal skin layer is colder by 0.5C than the underlying water. Even when it does mix downward it makes the water below colder not warmer. Duh. Banton you can’t figure this out using common sense. Not that you have any common sense but even if you did it isn’t sufficient.

      • David Springer

        Cold water should sink, right? So if the skin layer is colder why doesn’t it sink?

        Does the phrase “surface tension” ring any bells in your science-starved brain?

    • Are ocean temps reported to 3 significant figures?

  32. I like to move forward with my very broad attempts to understand society and nature – but the climate blogosphere delight in going over the same ground endlessly. Some dimwit asked what I specifically meant by climate shifts – in case it was one of my delusions and he would thus be wasting his time googling it. Let me know how I can frame this as rational and polite discourse in good faith.

    Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronize at certain times and then shift into a new state.

    It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

    Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and not warming notably since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation in a new state. Until the next critical climate threshold – due in a 2019-2028 window.

    The 20 to 30 years regimes of warm or cool SST in the eastern Pacific modulate cloud cover – with warmer SST leading to decreased and higher cloud. This modulated the energy budget of the planet giving strong warming in SW in the last decades of last century – and cooling in IR.

    Beats me how this is not freakin’ obvious.

    • Those climate shifts were minor at best and the climate has been in the same regime since 1840 – present.

      A real climate shift at least more then what occurred last century is now possible due to very low solar which if I am correct will translate into lower overall sea surface temperatures and an increase in albedo.

      If that combination does take place down will go the global temperatures.

    • Depends on how you define minor. These indices capture standing waves in the Earth system flow field. They shift from one state to another in a way that is not quite cyclic. The 20 to 30 years regimes could be triggered by solar UV variation associated with the ~22 year Hale cycle. But intensity and timing depends on resonance and coupling within the hyper complex system. Climate states emerge spontaneously from internal system dynamics – order emerging from disorder in the spatio/temporal chaotic flow field. The changes have large impacts on hydrology and ecology. More extreme climate shifts in the Quaternary happen with small changes in insolation triggering shifts in heat transport and a change in ice sheet extent.

      Climate will shift again but when, which way and to what extent is a mystery – especially at a time when we are forcing change in the system. I have no reason to question Salvatore’s prognostications – just that it is not possible to make climate predictions in the ordinary sense at all.

      • Robert I Ellison: Climate will shift again but when, which way and to what extent is a mystery – especially at a time when we are forcing change in the system.

        Are you taking back your assertion that a shift is due in the 2018-2028 time frame?

        With or without CO2 accumulation, something or other in climate will eventually change — is that your final answer?

      • There is a vast difference between making a prediction and asserting that should the 20 to 30 year regimes persist – and that the last shift was at the turn of the century – then the next shift is due in a window of 2018-2028. Greenhouse gases are changing the dynamic and how that plays out is another question.

        “This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts. Specifically, when the major modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to be thrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Niño/Southern Oscillation variability. Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full

        It is in English – but there is a conceptual framework needed to understand it.

      • Robert I Ellison: There is a vast difference between making a prediction and asserting that should the 20 to 30 year regimes persist – and that the last shift was at the turn of the century – then the next shift is due in a window of 2018-2028.

        If something looks a little different beginning sometime in 2018-2028, you’ll call it a regime shift — but you are not saying what will be different, how it will be different, or how much different it will be. Also, it may or may not appear to be due to the gradually accumulating CO2.

        “should the 20 – 30 year regimes persist” — are you equally agnostic as to whether the 20 – 30 year regimes will persist? Was the last shift at the turn of the century, as possibly asserted, and possibly not asserted, in your hypothesis?

      • “Interpreting past variability and making informed projections about potential future variability requires (i) identifying the dynamical processes internal to the climate system that underlie such variability [see, e.g., Mantua et al., 1997; Zhang et al., 1997, 2007; Knight et al., 2005; Dima and Lohmann, 2007], and (ii) recognizing the chain of events that mark the onset of large amplitude variability events, i.e., shifts in the climate state. Such shifts mark changes in the qualitative behavior of climate modes of variability, as well as breaks in trends of hemispheric and global mean temperature. The most celebrated of these shifts in the instrumental record occurred in 1976/77. That particular winter ushered in an extended period in which the tropical Pacific Ocean was warmer than normal, with strong El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events occurring after that time, contrasting with the weaker ENSO variability in the decades before [Hoerling et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2005]. Global mean surface temperature also experienced a trend break, transitioning from cooling in the decades prior to 1976/77 to the strong warming that characterized the remainder of the century.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full

        Read harder Matthew. Only by understanding the core dynamical processes can we begin to explore mechanistic explanations of dynamic and global coupling of these chaotic oscillators. Only with network math is it possible to integrate effects of spatio/temporal chaos in the Earth flow field.

        The math is barely there at all. Tsonis et al made a start in an objective and quantitative analysis of these multi-decadal climate shifts.

      • The changes can be faster than 20 to 30 years. The PDO has actually surged faltered several times since peaking around 1985, and each surge and falter is tied to either a record or warmest year or a lull in warming; and, when it went off a cliff after 2005, a brief decline in the GMST, which is what caused the warming pause. To 2006, you get the strongest warming trend in the record.

      • Robert I Ellison: Only by understanding the core dynamical processes can we begin to explore mechanistic explanations of dynamic and global coupling of these chaotic oscillators. Only with network math is it possible to integrate effects of spatio/temporal chaos in the Earth flow field.

        I don’t disagree with that. However,

        a. you do not answer questions; when given a question that you do not know the answer to, you cite an article or several articles that also do not have the answer to the specific question;

        b. you do not recognize the boundaries of the knowledge;

        c. you have not written anything reliable of practical interest for the next 50-100 years;

        d. you have not written anything of practical interest regerding any of the hypothesized effects of CO2 accumulation;

        e. you do not clearly distinguish propositions that you are assuming (for the sake of argument), and propositions bandied about in the papers that you cite (mostly good papers);

        f. when your limitations are pointed out to you, you attribute them to the lack of depth, breadth, or accuity of your interlocutor. You can’t tell the difference between answering a question when you do not know the answer and simply writing a bunch of related stuff.

      • Robert I Ellison: “should the 20 – 30 year regimes persist”

        Will the 20-30 year regimes persist? Is there sufficient knowledge to assert whether they will or will not persist?

        That is the sort of question that I ask that you do not answer.

        Are you personally asserting that they will persist, or questioning as I do whether they will persist? How will we, you or I or the community, know whether they have persisted or not? How long before we can know, and what evidence should we be looking for? What evidence, which time series, will change in the 2018-2028 that will inform us as to whether the shift has occurred, or the regimes have persisted? Is there a possibility that we will not know before 2050?

        Ignore me as you like — billions of other people do daily. It would be helpful to other readers if you would answer the questions.

    • David Springer

      What’s “freakin’ obvious” is why your tedious unending climate analyses are never published in science journals.

      • It has all been published – just out of range of slow witted buffoons.

      • And how many of its authors agree with your tortured interpretations? Takmeng Wong?

      • “In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.” IPCC 4AR 3.4.4.1

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3838.1

        Feel free to suggest they aren’t real – it works for most climate fanatics.

      • Peixoto and Oort in The Physics of Climate:

        “Thus, the whole climate system must be regarded as continuously evolving with parts of the system leading and others lagging in time. The highly nonlinear interactions between the subsystems tend to occur on many time and space scales. Therefore, the subsystems of the climate system are not always in equilibrium with each other, and not even in internal equilibrium.

        If Ellison’s interpretation is that climate is not predictable, it’s been pretty well established for quite some time.

      • He makes a prediction. Must not read his own stuff.

      • The forcing trend is positive and the imbalance is positive. There is only one way for climate to go as it continues to try to catch up with the forcing change. Call it a prediction, but it is just the physics of the energy balance.

    • Robert I Ellison: Some dimwit asked what I specifically meant by climate shifts – in case it was one of my delusions and he would thus be wasting his time googling it.

      The question is what do you mean by climate shifts? not what are some of the definitions and examples in circulation.

      You predicted a climate shift in the interval 2018 – 2028: what shift are you predicting? A step change in the ENSO peaks and troughs? A change in the slope of the Arctic Ice minimum ice cover? How will such a shift in climate be evidenced? A “change point” algorithm conducted in 2050 in at least 1 of the 100 most relevant climate related time series?

      The problem isn’t that no one understands you and what you cite; the problem is that there are clear limitations to your understanding, and to the knowledge base itself.

      Some of the terms that you use repeatedly have multiple meanings depending on context, and we simply inquire which meaning you are using in each of your posts. What is a climate shift? Is it the same as a “regime change”? In one of your posts you presented a change from summer to winter as a “regime change”, when it merely represents a change from one region of phase space to another, without a change in the governing forces (or governing equations.) What “shift” do you think is “due” in 2018-2028? In an eonic context, a change that takes 1 million years may be “abrupt” — is the appx 1 C increase in global mean temp over the last 125 or so years “abrupt”? Or is it a repeat of a gradual change that occurs every 1000 years or so without a “climate shift”? definitely “non-abrupt” compared to day/night or winter/summer changes. Was the “pause” a regime change (the question changes only a little if the “pause” continues or is replaced by further warming)? Was it abrupt? Will it persist or recur? How is your expectation affected by the accumulation of CO2 and its effects in the atmosphere?

      The Rial article that you cited is clear: abrupt can be at orbital and millenial scales — and can be even longer. The abstract says “Here I introduce a simplified mathematical model consisting of a novel arrangement of coupled nonlinear differential equations that appears to capture some important physics of climate change at Milankovitch and millennial scales, closely reproducing the saw-tooth shape of the deepsea sediment and ice core time series, the relatively abrupt mid-Pleistocene climate switch, and the intriguing D/O oscillations.” [italics added] The article helpfully presents a graph where the horizontal (time) axis is labelled “arbitrary units”. So tell us how that leads you to think a climate shift is due in 2018–2028, and where it will be revealed — deep sea sediments?

      • I helpfully googled climate shift for him. Matthews babbling has me confused – nowhere have I ever said that summer and winter are regime. My recollection is that this was suggested by Matthew and ignored by me.

        Winter and summer are not remotely changes in the sense of abrupt climate from one state to another. The idea that is relevant is that small changes in control variables – and these may be orbital – causes large changes in the planetary response due to internal variability. This is the idea of sensitive dependence that is one of the ideas at the core of chaos theory.

        I have discussed Hurst and Nile River flow data with Matthew – but the idea that this data shows persistence in regimes and then shifts to another regime with a different mean and variance is not an idea that Matthew has grasped. Little that I can say can help him cross this conceptual threshold.

        The 20 to 30 year regimes have been with us for as long as we know – certainly from proxy data a 1000 years. It is not a prediction – just that if the pattern persists – something that cannot be guaranteed – climate will shift again in a 2018-2028 window. It will manifest as changes in ENSO event frequency and intensity resulting in a shift in the trajectory of surface temperature.

        This is in ordinary English – but the underlying idea seems difficult to grasp for many.

      • It happened. Mid-century cooling. So surely it can happen again. It’s like the south seas cargo planes cargos of trinkets. Pray for them to come back; talk like they’re going to come back; act like they’re going to come back; write papers about them coming back.

        Hey, if rituals can make the cargo planes come back, maybe they will come back.

      • The 20 to 30 year regimes have been with us for as long as we know – certainly from proxy data a 1000 years. It is not a prediction – just that if the pattern persists – something that cannot be guaranteed – climate will shift again in a 2018-2028 window. It will manifest as changes in ENSO event frequency and intensity resulting in a shift in the trajectory of surface temperature. …

        That’s called a prediction.

        The physics will happen again; the pattern will not happen again.

      • You are all over the place as usual. Happy enough to claim that the system has already shifted – but denying that shifts occur. That’s a problem with cognitive dissonance. Logic goes out the window.

        Like the sun rising in the morning – the system does seem likely to shift again. This is probability – and who doesn’t love probability?

      • He didn’t say which direction it will shift.

      • We need to dispense with the idea that this is cyclical – it is a shift in climate states at 20 to 30 year intervals that add up to variability on a millennial scale. The mechanism involves sub-polar ocean gyres and more or less upwelling on the eastern margin of the Pacific. Remembering as well that these are globally coupled quasi standing waves in Earth’s spatio/temporal chaotic flow field.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.jpg http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

        At some stage – likely associated with solar UV variability – the system seems likely to shift to a cooler bias over the coming centuries.

      • Robert I Ellison: nowhere have I ever said that summer and winter are regime. My recollection is that this was suggested by Matthew and ignored by me.

        I am glad that you clarified that. The idea that summer and winter are distinct “regimes” came from a source you cited, and that I quoted. Since you do not agree that summer and winter are different regimes, we can drop that.

        “Climate shift” has many definitions, as does “abrupt”. In practice, it is difficult to discern from data and analysis whether a shift has occurred, and difficult to predict what the next shift will be, how it will be recognized in data analyses, and so forth. Is a trajectory from near peak ENSO to near trough ENSO a “regime shift” or merely a transition from one region of phase space to another? Is the trajectory from near maximum of PDO to near minimum of PDO a “regime shift”, or merely a transition from one region of phase space to another?

      • I don’t recall summer and winter regimes – and I do read my citations first. However – that’s as may be.

        “What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14

        “This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025052/abstract

        It is more the change in upwelling on the eastern Pacific margin that is the basis of decadal and very much longer scales climate change. We can look at it in the MEI record.

        Overwhelmingly blue to 1976/77, red to 1998 and a rather neutral looking result since.

        Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 12,000 years. It shows periods of high and low ENSO activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. It is co-incident with the mid-holocene solar transition. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high ENSO activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity regularly exceeded 200 – for comparison red intensity in the 1997/98 El Niño was 99. It shows ENSO variability considerably in excess of that seen in the modern period.

        Swanson et al (2009) suggest that decadal surface cooling and warming results from a change in energy uptake in the deep oceans or a change in cloud and water vapour dynamics. Both seem likely. In the simplest case the cooler or warmer water surface loses less or more of the heat gained from sunlight and so the oceans warm and cool. In the latter case – the satellite radiant flux data is especially informative.

        The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

        This idea is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. It is pretty much the new climate consensus.

        More references can be found at the end of this – https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

      • It’s hard to get any more abrupt than this.

        Maybe you are talking about abruptness on top of abruptness?

      • We are of course talking about internal variability – smoothed in the proxy records and spliced onto an instrumental record – and on top places the immensely improbable computer projections. Yes we have seen this piece of climate propaganda many times before. I dare you to find a peer reviewed study with that graphic in it.

      • We are in the midst of one of the most abrupt climate changes there could possibly be, and so I was just helping you to see it. It’s pointless talking about tenths of a degree up or down, when degrees are what is happening. Can it be even more abrupt? Actually, yes. There have been century periods with sea-level rises in the meters, known as meltwater pulses. Those would be a worthy topic for abrupt change. Internal variation is never abrupt in the real sense.

      • Robert I Ellison: Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small

        “May” as in the last sentence is one of my favorite words.

        After fluctuating within a range for hundreds of years (possibly higher sometime before then), the global mean temperature began to rise in about 1885; the rise has been about 1.25C; the rise appears as a straight line plus a sinusoid. Was that a climate change? Was it “abrupt”? Were the seemingly sinusoidal oscillations within the rise “climate changes”? Were they “abrupt”? Was the “pause” since 1998 a “climate change”? Was it “abrupt”? For those apparent changes that were “climate” changes, were the causes “undetectably small”? Was the rise since appx 1885 caused by the increase in CO2 concentration? How about the rise since 1950? For the abrupt climate changes, what “thresholds” were “crossed”.

        From the well-presented explanatory framework, empirical and computed examples, and the general features of nonlinear dynamics and chaos in the interesting papers that you cite to particulars of the present climate change debate is a path full of holes.

        If the climate shifts in the 2018-2028 time frame, as it may or may not, what will shift; what series of measurements will display the shift or non-shift? Will it be caused by on-going CO2 accumulation? What “threshold” will be crossed?

        I don’t think anyone is denying that the climate system entails multiple coupled non-linear dynamic systems.

      • The quote comes from an illustrious group of climate scientists at the NSA.

        https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises

        I think Matthew has been working on this since he confused Hurst effects with the ‘statistics of extremes’ around the time of the Oroville Dam problems. But spending his time composing diatribes is not going to help his comprehension.

      • Jimmy shows this graph – it is smoothed proxy date spliced with the instrumental record and with an immensely improbable projection. He again fails to identify the science that contains this nonsensical piece of climate propaganda.

      • Like I said, the graph shows you what abrupt climate change looks like. You think wiggles are abrupt. A degree in a century is abrupt, and just the beginning. The 21st century could easily average 2 degrees, even with century-scale smoothing which is more than the paleo record has.

      • 20 to 30 year wiggles add up to Holocene spanning climate variability.

        Viewing everything through a CO2 lens means that Jimmy misses much that is fundamental.

      • The last 5000 years were also the cooling part of the Holocene, so how do you interpret your El Ninos in that light? Are these related or are El Nino plots like yours unrelated to global temperatures and just another sidetrack?

      • “Interdecadal modes of tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere circulation have a strong influence on global temperature, yet the extent to which these phenomena influence global climate on multicentury timescales is still poorly known. Here we present a 2,000-year, multiproxy reconstruction of western Pacific hydroclimate from two speleothem records for southeastern Indonesia. The composite record shows pronounced shifts in monsoon rainfall that are antiphased with precipitation records for East Asia and the central-eastern equatorial Pacific. These meridional and zonal patterns are best explained by a poleward expansion of the Australasian Intertropical Convergence Zone and weakening of the Pacific Walker circulation (PWC) between ∼1000 and 1500 CE Conversely, an equatorward contraction of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and strengthened PWC occurred between ∼1500 and 1900 CE. Our findings, together with climate model simulations, highlight the likelihood that century-scale variations in tropical Pacific climate modes can significantly modulate radiatively forced shifts in global temperature.” https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11719

        The mid-Holocene ENSO shift is coincident with a solar activity transition.

      • Robert I Ellison: I think Matthew has been working on this since he confused Hurst effects with the ‘statistics of extremes’ around the time of the Oroville Dam problems.

        Quote please.

        You can not answer the questions that I posed because the answers are not known. As I wrote, the definitions are too vague.

      • The actual quote is that I hadn’t studied the statistics of extremes. As the entire discussion was on Hurst effects in Nile River flows – it became pparent that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

        Demetris Koutsoyiannis discussed the difference between white noise and the regime like nature of Nile variability – and it was claimed that hydrologists are thus missing the extremes and putting people at risk. White noise models are not used by hydrologists to predict extremes – so it is all a total nonsense.

      • Not claimed by Demetris Koutsoyiannis – who is a very accomplished hydrologist.

      • Robert I Ellison: The actual quote is that I hadn’t studied the statistics of extremes. As the entire discussion was on Hurst effects in Nile River flows – it became pparent that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

        Just so. For planning dams, the study of the extremes of river flow is more important than the study of Hurst effects — and for Oroville in particular, the Hurst effects in the Nile river are irrelevant.

        That is not a case of confusion.

        Anyway, I promise not to bother you anymore.

      • “Why were Pharaoh’s wise men unable to anticipate the seven year long bounty and seven year famine that Joseph interpreted and predicted? After six years of “perpetual” drought, California is now deluged with the highest precipitation for January and February on human record (Sacbee2017b). Have dam designers, regulators, and climate modelers fully grappled with the “climate persistence” that Joseph warned of and planned for?
        .
        Such natural extremes from climate persistence are quantitatively modeled by Harold E. Hurst (1951) in his breakthrough hydrological analysis of the 813 year record of Nile river flows (Rikert 2014).” https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/17/will-the-oroville-dam-survive-the-arkstorm/

        The error originated in the post – and was ineptly defended by Matthew as Hurst effects being the ‘statistics of extremes’. For probable maximum precipitation the largest recorded storm in the catchment is amplified with consideration of physical factors. Extremes there may be in very long term data – but Hurst effects are in fact the statistics of regimes in dynamical chaotic systems – something that Matthew has serious problems with.

        Now he is saying something else and pretending that was what he meant all along? Hmmmm.

      • Robert I Ellison: Why were Pharaoh’s wise men unable to anticipate the seven year long bounty and seven year famine that Joseph interpreted and predicted?

      • Joseph told the pharaoh that his dreams came from God. Lessor mortals depend on ‘persistence’.

    • Please don´t let the dimwits bug you from commenting. One may sometimes suspect that it is their strategy. I find your comments very interesting. If I may wish, it would be great if you identified your sources a little bit more precisely. I struggle a bit to find the papers that you refer to and pick figures from.

  33. These indices capture standing waves in the Earth system flow field. They shift from one state to another in a way that is not quite cyclic.

    Flowing images worthgy of Salvador Dali..

    • “You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.

      Weather and climate are manifestations of spatio temporal chaos of staggering complexity because there is not only Navier Stokes equations, but there are many more coupled fields. ENSO is an example of a quasi standing wave of the system.

      Of course I hope that the reader now knows that ENSO cannot be explained by something depending on time only (like indexes, time series and such) because if it could, we would have classical temporal chaos where space doesn’t matter. We would have solved the problem long times ago. But as ENSO is a pattern resulting of interaction of ALL fields in the system, it vitally depends on how these fields interact in space. That’s why all interpretations of ENSO (and other multidecadal quasi standing waves) are failing – people are using functions (series) that depend on time only which cannot clearly encode all the spatial interactions.” Tomas Milanovic – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

      Frequently there are people whose goal is not dialectical but pejorative. And John as well seems to need a much better education in turbulent flow.

      • Dialectics who choose unmoderated anonymous blogs as their venue should spend more time in choosing a better venue and less time complaining about the pejorative consequences of their poor choice.

      • In addition to mangling English -David is a recalcitrant oaf who has done much more than his fair share to limit diversity and civil discourse on CE.

        I wasn’t really complaining however – just pointing out why the best policy is to generally ignore both John and David.

      • David Springer

        Predictable butt hurt name calling from down under in response to constructive advice about apt venues arrives right on time to prove my point. Perfect.

      • Predictable cant and hypocrisy from a person who makes it a personal and obsessive mission to shout down his targets. The fun tactic for these types is to pretend all injured innocence – but it really doesn’t wash.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE,
        Can you not understand that this blog is not the place for your lengthy outpourings of your rambling mind as you grapple aloud with the emotional joys of your discoveries.
        What did Judith do to deserve your verbose contributions that have to be flicked by so readers can see the contributions of other bloggers?
        Come off it, mate, you are giving vus Aussies a bad name through your impolite intrusions. Do find your own space to monopolise. Geoff

      • “but I have no inclination to suffer fools either. ”

        Neither have we my friend.
        Get the point?

        I come on here and find the ‘recent comment section’ monopolised by a certain someone.

        That they are most often rambling, overlong and wrongheaded is beside the point – it is the arrogance and nastiness that is abhorant.

        Maybe you are nice in person but you come across otherwise, in so much a you are impervious to others, arrogantly dismissing them with ad hom.

        I mentioned your contributions here on another log and got responses such as “he’s a thug”
        If you think that is a clever and useful contribution to science – or even life in general then fine.
        I suggest right-minded people do not however.
        In my language it’s “not big and not clever”.
        I also know from my ‘interactions’ with you that you are dishonest and have no shame.

        Get a life my friend and stop thinking you matter.
        The majority of this blog would be happier.

        Ta Ta.

      • Tony Banton joins in this ludicrous Lord of the Flies exercise. I don’t follow these people around dropping insults. They are all on my do not bother with list. Would be pontificates with third rate brains imagining pearls of wisdom falling from their lips.

        It is the long and rambling bit that hurts. I take great delight in language and craft it in many ways from technical to poetry. It varies. I tried to share with Matthew some science of abrupt climate change – https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/16/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-7/#comment-858504 – but short and sweet more often.

    • The lack of mature recognition that grossly generalized, arm waving, vague descriptions lack the concrete specificity of scientifically useful statements is what keeps pretentious blog lions unemployable.

      • I would say that was an appropriate comment. However, it seems as if that was a reply to yourself???

      • Substance less disparagement is far less than a valid argument – and throwing in vaguely sciency terms says nothing at all about system dynamics.

        “First we construct a network from four major climate indices. The network approach to complex systems is a rapidly developing methodology, which has proven to be useful in analyzing such systems’ behavior [Albert and Barabasi, 2002; Strogatz, 2001]. In this approach, a complex system is presented as a set of connected nodes. The collective behavior of all the nodes and links (the topology of the network) describes the dynamics of the system and offers new ways to investigate its properties. The indices represent the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) [Barnston and Livezey, 1987; Hurrell, 1995; Mantua et al., 1997; Trenberth and Hurrell, 1994]. These indices represent regional but dominant modes of climate variability, with time scales ranging from months to decades. NAO and NPO are the leading modes of surface pressure variability in northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, respectively, the PDO is the leading mode of SST variability in the northern Pacific and ENSO is a major signal in the tropics. Together these four modes capture the essence of climate variability in the northern hemisphere. Each of these modes involves different mechanisms over different geographical regions. Thus, we treat them as nonlinear sub-systems of the grand climate system exhibiting complex dynamics.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/full

        I can see it all going right over John’s head fueling resentment and spite.
        What I said was that the indices capture the modes of climate variability – and this was compared to a surrealist painting of melting clocks. Innocuous enough but dismissive in a way that is intended to disparage and trivialize. I have had this exact experience with John before. Nothing is actually said but that I lack the proper science demeanor. It is a bit of a theme with these self important would be sciency types – claiming a socially significant imprimature superficially in the objective idiom of science. This is of course the governing farce of the blog wars.

      • What was actually said is:

        These indices capture standing waves in the Earth system flow field. They shift from one state to another in a way that is not quite cyclic.

        What is now claimed to have been said is:

        What I said was that the indices capture the modes of climate variability…

        The clear scientific reason why the former “was compared to a surrealist painting” still goes entirely over the head that has never done the actual science, but only read about it.

      • “Of course I hope that the reader now knows that ENSO cannot be explained by something depending on time only (like indexes, time series and such) because if it could, we would have classical temporal chaos where space doesn’t matter. We would have solved the problem long times ago. But as ENSO is a pattern resulting of interaction of ALL fields in the system, it vitally depends on how these fields interact in space. That’s why all interpretations of ENSO (and other multidecadal quasi standing waves) are failing – people are using functions (series) that depend on time only which cannot clearly encode all the spatial interactions.” Tomas Milanovic – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

        My degrees are in civil engineering specializing in hydrology – and in environmental science – morphing into biogeochemical cycling. My career has been about hydrodynamic and water quality modelling over decades. My first PC was an XT clone that struggled with 4th order numerical schemes using cubic spline interpolation. I have more than enough math science for John – and there is so little countering expertise shown by this anonymous blogizen that it amounts to farcical claims built on a bare assertion of expertise.

        Let me trump John’s expertise (again) with the infinitely more subtle and meaningful thoughts of Tomas. Quasi standing waves is a terminology introduced by Tomas. In the context of the Tsonis et al study linked – Tsonis is clearly about climate shifts – indices are chaotic oscillators in the Earth chaotic flow field. The terms are synonymous. I am comfortable using both – but I find the idea of quasi standing waves – with the allusion to turbulent flow – much closer to the underlying ideas. But it seems that we are reduced to quibbling about terminology. I frankly doubt that John is capable of much in science at all.

      • Let me trump John’s expertise (again) with the infinitely more subtle and meaningful thoughts of Tomas. Quasi standing waves is a terminology introduced by Tomas. In the context of the Tsonis et al study linked – Tsonis is clearly about climate shifts – indices are chaotic oscillators in the Earth chaotic flow field. The terms are synonymous.

        LOL! Unlike temperature indices, standing waves occur in nature only under special circumstances. Depending upon the physical situation, they have characteristic wavelengths and nodes of zero variability Only in a mind whose reach extends far beyond its grasp are the terms synonymous.

      • “You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.

        Weather and climate are manifestations of spatio temporal chaos of staggering complexity because there is not only Navier Stokes equations, but there are many more coupled fields. ENSO is an example of a quasi standing wave of the system.” Tomas – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

        There is enough information shared for a reasonable person to get the idea of standing waves and vortexes. Look at a mountain river. There are simple rules to chaos. An apparent order emerging out of disorder and applicable at scales from micro-eddies to planets. Observation comes well before textbook definitions in the pedagogical timeline.

        But considering that the out of the blue thread starter was :

        “The lack of mature recognition that grossly generalized, arm waving, vague descriptions lack the concrete specificity of scientifically useful statements is what keeps pretentious blog lions unemployable.”

        I’m wondering if John is a reasonable person.

      • “ENSO is an example of a quasi standing wave of the system”…There is enough information shared for a reasonable person to get the idea of standing waves and vortexes.

        The notion that mere general idea is somehow sufficient to establish the specific features of a complex spatio-temporal process such as ENSO is sophomoric. ENSO is primarily a wind-driven current phenomenon in which Rossby and Kelvin waves–which are progressive, not standing– play but an subordinate role. There’s zero value in paying any further attention to a wannabe blog lion who mistakes the metaphorical allusion of a mathematician speaking at a very abstract level for concrete geophysical reality.

      • I go into some detail on ENSO here – https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/09/21/anticipating-the-whims-of-the-dragon-kings/ – Pacific variability has been central to my interest in hydrology for decades.

        Waves cross the Pacific and crash against shorelines refracting and submerging. Waves are bent by the spin of the Earth and sent eddying through the system in a perpetual chase the tail maximum entropy dynamical mechanism – that is the Earth system. These are the Kelvin and Rossby waves – poor descriptors of turbulent globally coupled flows in ocean and atmosphere. ENSO starts with more upwelling in the eastern Pacific. The cold water sets up wind and current responses and a cold tongue propagates to the west in a nascent La Nina… see the link.

        There are simple rules for chaos – but perhaps little math for spatio-temporal chaos. Order emerges out of disorder. These are the vortexes of Tomas’ mountain river. If you looked closely at Tomas’ essay – you would find that the mountain river is a very real spatio/temporal chaotic system at that scale. Chaos is applicable at all scales from micro-eddies to suns and planets. There are longer term and wider area resonant oscillators in the spatio/temporal complexity of the Earth system. But at whatever scale there are quasi standing waves in river, ocean and atmospheric flows. ENSO is just one of these.

        There is no metaphor in Tomas’ assay – at river to planet scale the system is spatio/temporal chaos. Both the river and the planet are very real spatio/temporal chaotic systems. Long term climate data can be better understood in the context of dynamical systems.

        e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09068

        John’s mistake is to assume that I haven’t been there and done that – at substantially greater depth over decades.

        But the garbled quote and general tone and demeanor suggest that John –
        again – is not a reasonable person.

      • Self-published blog postings are a dime a dozen. For a professional view of ENSO dynamics see: http://www.geo.brown.edu/research/Fox-Kemper/classes/CU/ATOC6020_08/notes/08_02_Capotondi.pdf. Along with Diaz & Markgraf’s (Cambridge, 2000) compendium of papers on the variability of El Nino, it will dispel the many glaring misconceptions (e.g., “ENSO starts with more upwelling in the eastern Pacific,” rather than with the Tahiti-Darwin pressure-difference that regulates the trades) of an amateur who cloaks his oceanographic ignorance in lofty, poetic non sequiturs.

      • The essential dynamic is well understood. This series of videos from Duke University is a excellent introduction.

        It is a bit more dynamic than a lesson plan. The less well understood question is whether the system is purely resonant or stochastically forced by an external factor. Intrinsic variability over decades to millennia shown in Hurst effects in records suggest slowly changing control variables and regime shifts in a dynamical system.

        But the system most emphatically starts with upwelling on the eastern margin. Cold and nutrient rich water surfacing creates pockets of high atmospheric pressure which intensify Walker circulation along the equator and cause a cold tongue to propagate westward – thus beginning the cycle.

        Walker circulation is part of the the evolution of ENSO – but not the start and end as John seems to think from the acquisition of barely understood sciency terms. I think what we have here in John is the 10 minute internet expert syndrome. Maybe he has some low level technical training but it is not in oceanography or hydrology.

      • There are reasons for enhanced – or not – Walker circulation and pressure differences between Darwin and Tahiti – it is caused by differences in sea surface temp. The dynamic pressure fields propagating across the Pacific are a reinforcing ENSO feedback.

        ENSO is a chaotic oscillator with important regime like behavior at 20 to 30
        year intervals. The why of that is a far more interesting question.

      • The “essential dynamic” of ENSO is indeed well understood by oceanographers (see: .http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/el-nino-other-oscillations)–but not by wannabes who conclude that “the system most emphatically starts with upwelling on the eastern margin,” just because a tutorial video begins there. This betrays an utter lack of dynamic recognition of the elementary difference between the system driver and mere system state.

        In a “normal,” or ENSO-neutral year, a low atmospheric pressure center forms over northern Australia and Indonesia and a high pressure center forms on the other side of the Pacific over Peru. At the same time, the trade winds blow steadily east to west along both sides of the equator to move warm surface waters from the eastern to the western Pacific and cause cold, nutrient-rich bottom water to well up off the coast of South America.

        I hope this quote from WHOI puts an end to an inanely presumptuous argument.

      • Coupled winds and current push surface water west to pile up against Australia and Indonesia in a vast pool of potential and thermal energy. When conditions are ripe – and in the flick of a Madden Julian Oscillation – the energy surges back east to crash against the eastern Pacific margin. Although the flows are vastly more complex than I make out – the vast area of warmer surface water warms the atmosphere. Ocean heat dissipates north and south at it hits the coastline. In the evolution of ENSO – the energy once stored in the western Pacific has dissipated and the next phase is inevitably recharge – in La Nina – of energy in the Pacific warm pool.

        The cool phase starts with upwelling which starts with flows in the Peruvian and Californian Currents spinning up with the Pacific gyres. Cooler higher latitude water is pushed toward the equator diluting residual warm surfaces. Turbulent deep ocean flows surface and set up wind and current responses that again extend the cold tongue and piles warm surface water up against Australia and Indonesia. The vast area of cool surface absorbs heat from the atmosphere. The ocean warms and the atmosphere cools. There are as well cloud effects.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/09/21/anticipating-the-whims-of-the-dragon-kings/

        John’s obsessive undergraduate quibbling and insults is more than a little tedious. The WHOI is of course correct as far as it goes in terms of wind and current responses to changing sea surface temperatures – but the ENSO normal commences with upwelling on the eastern margin and cooling of the sea surface. He has not quite got the idea and is petulant, bombastic and foolish in turn. He seems not to have a clue about anything much – and is over occupied with the idea of his own acumen. He is of the type who claim that science supports overwhelmingly their slightest whimsy – and dismisses any other view as scientifically naive or worse. Without any obvious buttress beyond claims of his almost certainly negligible authority. Their are a few fellow travelers here.

      • Well, there seems to be no end to pretentious prattle from the peanut gallery that doesn’t even manage to grasp elementary dynamic concepts correctly, but carries on at length with surreal projections both physical and personal. At least Salvador Dali had artistic value!

      • In all this John has added nothing but a litany of whines and complaints.

        One thing I would add is that the leading edge of science cannot be understood with reference to blogs – no matter how reputable the source. For things beyond a simplified explanations for the lay public – the only recourse is actual published science and long, intense and broad study.

      • The leading edge of science cannot be understood with reference to blogs

        When such an imperative comes from someone who has relied exclusively upon blog material for the vague contention that “ENSO is an example of a quasi standing wave of the system,” even lay persons will see that the suddenly adopted sanctimonious air is farcical.

        Meanwhile, scientifically savvy readers will recognize the foolishness of insisting that coastal upwelling is an ENSO primogenitor, rather than an effect of pressure-driven winds. Imperfect as it may be, SOI remains the only known precursor for ENSO changes (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/predicting-el-ni%C3%B1o-then-and-now). Coupled with misguided notions of energy “crash[ing] against the eastern Pacific margin” like a tsunami and being “dissipated,” the picture of dynamic incompetence becomes unmistakably clear.

      • Too tedious – didn’t read. Came back in about 50 years when you actually know something.

      • OK – I have more time now. The blog he refers to is this one – and Tomas Milanovic has massively more credibility than John could ever dream of.

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

        Low pressure in the east is the result of upwelling cold and nutrient rich water. Something that is driven by coastal winds and currents on the eastern margin. The resultant high pressure divergent zone reinforces Walker circulation progressively as it propagates across the Pacific and piles warm surface water up against Australia and Indonesia – increasing the geopotential height of water in the western Pacific – to be all sciency about it. At the flick of an MJO the trade winds relax and water surges back across the Pacific to hit the coast of the Americas and – because it can’t go anywhere else – dissipates north and south. Standard and basic stuff.

        And although the SOI was the original ENSO metric – the index was first presented by a personal hero of mine in Gilbert Walker in 1928 – science has moved on a little. Gilbert Walker I would invite to my dinner party – but you can look at the SOI endlessly – and I have – and still have an understanding of ENSO that is limited to surface pressure fields and the resultant winds.

        John’s whole story is just so tendentiously crazy. Tendentiously arguing petty and misguided quibbles – and being so dogmatic about grossly simplistic notions of ENSO, spectral analysis and spatio/temporal chaos and much else most likely. At the same time as being absurdly disparaging in terms repeated interminably – and mostly not saying anything remotely sciency. When he does he gets it wrong or oversimplifies to the point of trivia. He can get it wrong as much as he likes. But it is about time much of his personalized nonsense was moderated.

        I am about to put him on my do not bother with list – which is growing like topsy. But really ENSO fundamentals are what they are. ENSO and the PDO were both defined originally in terms of deep ocean upwelling and fisheries productivity. Deep oceans are where the cold surface water comes from of course.

      • The evasion of substance coupled with trash-talk continue! Having produced not a shred of credible evidence of any “quasi-standing wave” in the ENSO system, the Wiki-expertise view of the role of coastal upwelling is monotonously defended here on the silly basis that:

        ENSO and the PDO were both defined originally in terms of deep ocean upwelling and fisheries productivity. Deep oceans are where the cold surface water comes from of course.

        That the phenomena which led to discovery of certain oceanic cycles do not necessarily shed any light on the underlying dynamics seems not to matter. In point of fact, the zones of coastal upwelling are scaled on the order of tens of kilometers–not the several hundred to a few thousand involved in the major atmospheric pressure systems that actually drive the ENSO system Nor is deep ocean water ever exposed in upwelling, which seldom extends much deeper than the permanent thermocline. The upwelled water thus is cooler, but not ever cold in the tropics.

        [Y]ou can look at the SOI endlessly – and I have – and still have an understanding of ENSO that is limited to surface pressure fields and the resultant winds.

        While SOI indeed is purely a pressure index, the entire pressure field allows the calculation of geostrophic winds that ultimately drive the great oceanic circulation. And, as physical oceanographers ubiquitously recognize, staring at time series is never a good substitute for spectrum analysis. Alas, it’s seldom done properly in “climate science” and is deprecated here out of hand. [What the cross-spectra of SOI and the Nino.x zonal indices reveal in this regard I’ll reveal in a far-more-weighty venue.]

        There seems to be no stopping a blog lion’s compulsive determination to exhibit his staggering oceanographic ignorance wrapped in rhetorical hauteur. In a mission-critical applied research environment, I’ve fired people for far-less-glaring displays.

    • If it were not for the completely unnecessary and utterly uninventive personality commentary – there would be far less noise on the site.

  34. U.K. Breaking news see Nature Geoscience. Proff Michael Grupp of international energy and climate change UCL London now formally admits. The computer models have all been wrong and run too hot.
    “We just haven’t seen the rapid acceleration in warming since 2000 that the models predicted”
    It’s now ok to emmit an extra 240 billion tons of co2 now.
    A major indication of the crumbling edifice of alarmist bad science.
    Kevin Martin.

    • > The computer models have all been wrong and run too hot.

      • David Springer

        If you could read a graph you’d know that proves the point of models running too hot. Hilarious.

      • David Springer

        The way to interpret that graph is to determine the total volume of the areas where the models are outside the HadCRUT4 confidence interval and compare to the volume inside the interval. You easily see with just a quick glance that the outside volume is much larger than the inside volume.

      • You mean to say that they all got it wrong – without notably improving over time.

    • There’s a recent tweet by Gavin on this.

      Fabius Maximus did a supportive item about it at WUWT, and the denizens were not happy.

      • The games continue with very little consideration of the inability of models to project a single deterministic solution. Here’s another version.

        “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.” http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751

        If you look closer at the individual solutions of different models you find that they are drawn from many feasible solutions. Each model can produce many thousands of plausible, divergent solutions and the choice of a solution to represent the model in the CMIP opportunistic ensemble is arbitrary. This is movable target. For a single model, perturbed physics ensemble – the solutions look like this.


        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/abs/ngeo1430.html?foxtrotcallback=true

        And this is constrained to solutions that actually do sort of mimic temperature records. There are many that don’t due entirely to non-linearity of the core equations. As time goes by one may chose another solution that more closely matches the evolving record. Hindsight is always right – but any theoretical justification for model opportunistic ensembles is fundamentally MIA. A tweet by Gavin doesn’t change modelling fundamentals.

      • Gavin’s plot is about CMIP3 predictions ten years on.

      • So that makes it true? Perhaps not. But my point was on the theoretical limitations of models.

        “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.” http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

      • Gavin was addressing the running too hot meme.

      • Memes trump reality? They don’t run too hot – the specific solutions chosen on a qualitative basis of expectation of future warming are too hot. Models are a circular argument.

      • Yes, they haven’t run too hot for the predicted ten years. Gavin showed that much. Prediction means not part of the tuning, just free-running.

      • Free running implies 1000’s of plausible solutions for any individual model. As in the Rowlands et al graph. Which one is right? It is really not a matter of tuning or not.

      • He shows the average of the CMIP3 runs. That has right trend, not “running hot”, which would be the wrong average trend. When they refer to running hot, they mean the average.

      • An average of arbitrarily selected runs in an opportunistic ensembale?

        I don’t think it interesting to pursue where Gavin lies and prevaricates – I don’t put it past him – again let’s see actual science and not a climate propaganda tweet. I have posted an alternative just above. Which is real if any and does it mean anything at all?

      • Sure, you could go to AR4 and find it there. When those people say the models are running hot, they were not looking at AR4 and the GMST. Did you care what they used exactly? No, but it wasn’t the most relevant data to use when assessing the IPCC projections about global warming trends. Gavin sets that straight and you don’t like it, of course.

      • Not quite not liking it – I just don’t give a rat’s arse. Models will only be correct by chance – there is nothing rigorous here. Does this keep going over your head – or are you just fabricating narratives out of fairy floss?

      • That’s why I prefer data. I only mentioned this because there is a positive post at WUWT on this from normally skeptical Fabius Maximus, so it can catch on, because they can now (at last) see that the “models running hot” meme doesn’t stand up to a closer look. Next time someone tells you the models are running hot, just link that to them. I’m just helping. FM says just get past that and focus on the real questions. Obviously there is some denialist cage-rattling going on over at WUWT when confronted with this, but I think it is saner here.

      • What I keep saying is that models run hot, cold and in between. The question remains – has Gavin adjusted his opportunistic ensemble member selection? That’s the sort of information we need in science. But please – I also don’t give a rat’s arse about the answer.

      • CMIP3 would be all the models used for projections in AR4, no selecting. You can go to AR4 published 10 years ago and see the same thing, but you won’t, of course. Just remember the bottom line, models – not running hot. Gamechanger, right?

      • This would be one solution selected from each model selected for inclusion in the opportunistic ensemble – from 1000’s of feasible but chaotically divergent solutions of any particular model both hotter and cooler on the basis of a ‘posteriori solution behavior’? And no – the game changer would be if you could or would allow yourself to understand.

        http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

        McWilliams is information dense and difficult – I have little hope.

      • Yep, they chose them in 2007, and they are correct in 2017. That’s the point.

      • You can go to the AR4 document to check. Turns out the first three IPCC reports also had it correct, labeled FAR, SAR and TAR.

      • Curious George

        What a pity Gavin did not publish that accurate projection in AR4.

      • He had to wait ten years to get a decade-length prediction verified. The CMIP3 runs were from AR4.

      • Curious George

        Exactly. It is an old trick. Lord Knowitall to butler James:
        – Think of a number between 1 and 10.
        – Eight, Your Lordship.
        – I knew you would say Eight. Read a note in the flower pot on the windowsill.
        – “I knew you would say Eight”. How did Your Lordship do it?

      • The people saying the models are running hot are either not looking at the models or not looking at the global mean surface temperature or both. You need to ask them what they are talking about.

      • You mean to say that they all got it wrong – without notably improving over time.

      • They always spanned the observations, but got more precise later for sure. The trend is correct at 0.2 C per decade since 1990 through 2017. I think you are beginning to understand Gavin’s plot now. Glad to help.

      • Your rabbit hole is a deep and dark place. The model ensembles do not have a trend – they have a range that has not notably improved.

        “More famously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (21) shows the spread among climate models for global warming predictions. One of its results is an ensemble-mean prediction of ≈3°C increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration with an ensemble spread of ≈50% on either side. The predicted value for the climate sensitivity and its intermodel spread have remained remarkably stable throughout the modern assessment era from the National Research Counsel (NRC) in 1979 (22) to the anticipated results in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (foreshadowed, e.g., in ref. 3) despite diligent tuning and after great research effort and progress in many aspects of simulation plausibility. ” op. cit.

        Each individual model has a range of solutions – called irreducible imprecision.

      • Sure, or you can take the line on the AR4 graph I plotted and calculate a trend of 0.2 C per decade, which it as been in reality too. Not 0.1 or 0.3, but 0.2, and explainable at that size.

      • Jim D and Ellison two equal and opposite blog lions. They say opposites attract. A match made in heaven.

        Get a room.

      • Rob verse Jim D – pretty much Notre Dame against the Little Sisters of the Lame.

        With Springer playing the role of jaded sports writer.

        Though he’s probably right about the room suggestion.

      • I’m not sure about the room – 2 men enter – 1 man leaves? No thanks. The blog lion meme seems to have no internet standing – so it is unclear what it means – other than having a faintly pejorative tone in context. Nor does it seem all that clever – which seems par for the course for David. Wit is not the blunt instrument David assumes it is. What he does excel in is a 10 minute internet expertise although he routinely makes egregious boners – and his usual aggressive would be stalking and bullying of multiple targets. Being in good company as one of his targets – I am amused and contemptuous and he is routinely moderated. Jimmy just has a fanatical dedication to getting the last word – even if that means endlessly repeating the same simple memes. I have done that experiment – I don’t need to do it again. Neither of them come close to making my stellar dinner party guest list – but Jimmy is smarter than David to heap very faint praise indeed.

        But none of this is of any interest to anyone at all and David should continue to be encouraged to refrain from dropping steaming piles everywhere. A bit like a puppy being house trained – but of course he is an old dog and it takes more effort.

  35. Robert Ellison give us some predictions for the climate over the next 10 years. Is it going to be colder as GIVE US NUMBERS ON WHATR

  36. PREVIOUS POST SENT BY ACCIDENT.

    Is it going to be colder as I predict or do you think warmer and why?

  37. My take on AGW theory and why it is basically wrong.

    I think the GHG effect is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.

    I do believe in the GHG effect but I do not think it causes the climate to change. One main reason being ice core data always having shown temperature change first, then CO2 change.

    Yes CO2 absorbs infrared radiation the earth emits, as does water vapor and if a positive feedback had been established ,(that being the lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator), I would have given much more credence to AGW theory, but this important premise of the theory has never materialized.

    Another problem for the theory is climatic history has shown the earth to be as warm or warmer then it is currently. An example being the Holocene Optimum.

    Another problem is I do not see the AO/NAO evolving into a more positive mode over the past few decades which this theory has called for.

    Another problem is CO2 is a trace gas with a trace increase and I find it hard to believe that this one item could overwhelm the whole climatic system, unless a positive water vapor /CO2 feedback were to become established.

    I will end by saying if very low solar translates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a higher albedo this in my opinion will overwhelm any AGW that might be occurring.

    The test is on now and over the next several years things should become much clearer.

    I will admit to being wrong if my low avg. solar parameters are largely present from this point in time on and global temperatures do not fall.

    • Salvatore
      I’ve enjoyed reading your evidence and posts.
      What do you think about the Nature Geoscience journal today. Proff Michael Grupp and Myles Allen from Oxford are openly saying Yes all the models are running hot. It’s a mealy mouthed acceptance coving their red faces. Settled science?
      How will they cope if its cooler as soon as you predict.
      Kevin Martin.

    • I’m just wondering why Judith’s blog is not shouting from rooftops.
      Uk climate academics are admitting all the computer model predictions are “wrong” even using JC’s language “running too hot”.
      They are giving in gracefully and shamefully. We still need Paris it’s just easier now.
      So ok let’s ban the internal combustion engine and deindustrialise the West. The computer models are quite good. !
      Judith your moment has come bless you.

  38. “Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full

    20 to 30 year regimes have been a feature of climate for a 1000 years at least. On the basis of the durability of this pattern the next climate shift is due within a decade – but the direction and scope of shifts are indeterminate.

    Looking at coupling at a mechanistic level suggests the potential for cooling – but it is just a hypothesis. And greenhouse gases are a wild card.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/

  39. Brian G Valentine

    The application of AGW to explain the weather anyone experiences anywhere became a fad, much like Disco and Hula Hoops.

    AGW has enjoyed a somewhat longer shelf life than either of these

  40. My stoopuud Wood for Trees graphs almost perfectly duplicated, lol:

    • Why the next La Niña will sizzle in the Eastern Pacific:

      PDO, November, 2007: a vast surface area with negative anomalies:

      PDO, November, 2011: a vast surface area with negative anomalies:

      PDO, November, 2016, a vast surface area with positive anomalies:

      • Wishful thinking, and why would your care since you believe CO2 is the DRIVER of the climate. How could ENSO possibly stop CO2 warming?Why would it matter to you?

        In the meantime overall sea surface temperatures have been cooling which is what really matters now down to +.257c

      • In the current situation, ACO2 is the main driver of the climate as it is constantly increasing, and this has caused a persistent energy imbalance. Warming will continue. It cannot be otherwise unless another factor makes a radical change, and that is not happening. The itty bitty change in TSI cannot derail warming. Ocean cycles taketh, and then giveth back. That’s why they’re called cycles: because they’re cyclic.

        We have a cold Pacific equator, and very high global surface temperature anomalies. August was hot, and September is looking to be hotter. So far. repeatedly punching your tiny reduction in SST right in the nose:

      • What data do you use? This year is cooler then that year thus far and this trend will continue as we move forward in time.

        Your theory will be up in smoke.

      • So far 2017 is the 2nd warmest year in the instrument record. September is warmer than August so far, and the forecast is for September to stay warm to the end of the month.

        We’re in a La Niña watch. Bring it. The equatorial Pacific is currently fenced in by warm water. If this persists. a La Niña cannot spread, so it will be stunted: just like the 16 La Niña was stunted.

        It is preposterous to suggest that GISS anomalies averaging in the .90s, or .80s, represent a cooling trend. It’s just nuts. If anything, coming off the 16 La Niña, 2017 is shockingly warm. Lots of people, including people here at CargoCult Etc., where predicting the 14-16 El Niño would be followed by a 98-01-style Frozen La Niña. They could not have been more wrong.

      • JCH
        Why would ACO2 now be driving global temperatures when it never has before in earth’s history?

    • “Major changes in northeast Pacific marine ecosystems have been correlated with phase changes in the PDO; warm eras have seen enhanced coastal ocean biological productivity in Alaska and inhibited productivity off the west coast of the contiguous United States, while cold PDO eras have seen the opposite north-south pattern of marine ecosystem productivity.” http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

      I had to check a claim made in the video – but they are right. There are different biological markers in Alaska and the US west coast. The difference is the relative change in cold, nutrient rich deep ocean upwelling. In the cool phase there is the vast blue “V” swathe seen in some of JC’s purdy pictures. Coupled winds and current push surface water west to pile up against Australia and Indonesia in a vast pool of potential and thermal energy. When conditions are ripe – and in the flick of a MJO – the energy surges back east to crash against the eastern Pacific margin. Although the flows are vastly more complex than I make out – the vast area of warmer surface water warms the atmosphere. Ocean heat dissipates north and south at it hits the coastline. In the evolution of ENSO – the energy once stored in the western Pacific has dissipated and the next phase is inevitably recharge – in La Nina – of energy in the Pacific warm pool.

      The cool phase starts with upwelling which starts with flows in the Peruvian and Californian Currents spinning up with the Pacific gyres. Cooler higher latitude water is pushed toward the equator diluting residual warm surfaces. Turbulent deep ocean flows surface and set up wind and current responses that again extend the cold tongue and piles warm surface water up against Australia and Indonesia. The vast area of cool surface absorbs heat from the atmosphere. The ocean warms and the atmosphere cools. There are as well cloud effects.


      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460

      More cloud with the cooler ocean. In temperature/cloud coupling clouds are lower and denser in cooler temps. There are large changes in the energy dynamic of the planet from changing patterns in ocean and atmospheric flows – and the aperiodic changes in the Pacific are a big part of it. But more than that – all of the global flows are coupled in Earth’s spatio/temporal chaotic flow field. It is has implications for how and why aperiodic regimes form. This idea seems like random words to many – but is a relatively precise description of a reality you can actually see in near real time – given the wonders of modern technology and big data. Here I have the Earth Null School site showing total precipitable water in the atmosphere. It is an interesting field to view because it shows where the heat is in both oceans and atmosphere and where the atmospheric moisture is.

      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic

      I play on this site for hours – it is fascinating what you can see in near real time. From the stratosphere to the oceans. What this view is showing is cooler, drier air pushing up from Antarctica deep into the Australian continent. I have been feeling this for months on the Tropic of Capricorn – cooler temps with subtle changes in winds and dramatic biological responses. Not quite the biggest Trichodesmium bloom I can remember but up there. We are entering drought territory with risks of summer fires in store.

      Gyres spin up in the negative phase of the polar annual modes. This graphic shows the familiar blocking patterns where the troughs are cold and stormy air pushing into lower latitudes.


      https://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/weather-maker-patterns-map

      As the gryes spin up and dilute the thermocline with cooler water – more turbulent deep ocean flow push to the surface.


      http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833/htm

      Both ENSO and the PDO have 20 to 30 years regimes. Moreover the cool PDO is associated with more frequent and intense La Niña – and a warm phase with frequent El Niño. The puzzle of a shared 20 to 30 year pulse in both hemispheres is traced mechanistically back to changing polar surface pressure fields – influencing storm tracks in high latitudes. At the same time – research is showing a solar UV/ozone chemistry influence in modulating atmospheric flows and polar pressure fields.

      There is a recent study that wonders at the potential for the ~22 year Hale cycle of solar magnetic to be the trigger for the 20 to 30 year regimes. As I did some months ago now. It supplies a plausible mechanistic link for solar variability amplification in the terrestrial system. With intriguing possibilities for the evolution of climate.

      https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/

      There are claims that the system has shifted over the past few years to a warmer phase again. I am intrigued. The washy washy neutral looking regime we have seen since the last shift at the turn on the century has been punctuated by long and intense surface warmth following relatively intense cooling. My bet is that the transition is happening now and that this a dragon-king.

      “We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. The presence of a phase transition is crucial to learn how to diagnose in advance the symptoms associated with a coming dragon-king.” https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290

      Dragon Kings live in coral castles guarded by crab generals and shrimp soldiers. They bring us flood and drought at their whim. The solar connection suggests the potential for a shift to a yet cooler state in the Pacific – but who am I to anticipate the will of the climate Kings.

    • My prayers are for those in peril.

      It suggests the need for better global disaster preparedness. I planned a $500M estate at Bowen on the north Queensland coast. The estate was set back 100m from mean high water. Among the myriad environmental and technical details was storm surge modelling and planning evacuation routes for fire and inundation.

      Disaster preparedness is well managed in Australia and elsewhere – despite the amateur pontificating on The Conversation. Development is set back from the coast – although there is a historic legacy. Communications are good by text, phone and broadcasting. Critical infrastructure – hospitals, police, emergency services – are as out of harms way as much as possible.

      The only cyclone I have experienced this far south was Debbie. Debbie was forecast the land at category 5. It ended up hitting at category 3 – but my coastal engineer gut said hide in the shelter at the local high school. It was OK – but next time I head inland.

    • David Springer

      Antonio is one of my twitter followers! Good guy.

    • David Springer

      Antonio is one of my twitter followers. Good guy!

  41. “SST response to anthropogenic and external forcing + impact on AMO and PDO”

    I suggest that the AMO is largely solar driven rather than internally generated, though solar plasma modulation of the NAO and its effects on the AMOC.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

  42. The Blob makes the news.

    They don’t mention the PDO. Longest run of positive index numbers in the record. And it’s apparently keeping the salmon numbers low.

    • JCH
      The SOI is also staying high.
      Any comments on the persistent cold sst anomaly around Antarctica?
      Have the data editors not got that far south yet?

  43. The first link to the abstract about “model finds fewer but stronger, wetter, and larger tropical cyclones with global warming” says;
    “”The model projected that the global frequency of TCs is reduced by 22.7%, the ratio of intense TCs is increased by 6.6%, and the precipitation rate within 100 km of the TC center increased by 11.8% under warmer climate conditions.”

    Can someone with access to the paper answer ‘The percentage changes to TC and intensity is in response to how much warmer conditions?’

    • It’ll be 50 years before there’s enough data to test that hypothesis. Statistical significance is a bitch.

    • I similarly was curious about this, but no access to the full paper.

      Decrease of all TCs by 22.7% but increase in the ratio of intense by 6.6%?
      Does this mean an absolute decrease of intense TCs also?

      Weak and intense TCs are not separate phenomena.
      One factor which limits TC occurrence, namely wind shear, also limits intensity.

      In reality, models can’t be any better than the same old suspect parameterizations, so all of these pronouncements should be taken with a grain of salt ( from a drop of seawater ).

  44. Here’s one I am currently delving into.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09068

    The dynamical systems paradigm explains patterns in climate time series – famously in Nile River flows – and including 20 to 30 year Pacific regimes. Globally coupled systems modulate flows in the atmosphere and oceans over time and space. But the overriding planetary energy change dynamic seems nearer to the tropics – and in the eastern Pacific.

    A climate shift in the next decade is almost as certain as day follows night. It will be marked by a shift in mean frequency and intensity of ENSO events. Whether it will be to warmer or cooler conditions – or how much either way – must needs a better man than me Gunga Din. And as Wally Broecker said long ago – before he went over to the dark side – climate is a beast and we are poking it with CO2 sticks.

    There are very simple, pragmatic and cost effective mitigation strategies possible. I suggest a few dozen here or so here – drawing heavily on Bjorn Lomberg’s 19 sustainable best bang for the buck development goals. Most of the Copenhagen Consensus goals have climate implications.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/

  45. “Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science-as-knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world-directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis- (theory-) directed paradigm.” https://hydroclimate.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/debates-hypothesis-testing-in-hydrology-pursuing-certainty-versus-pursuing-uberty/

    This paper – elegance itself in a way that is frowned upon here by the hoi polloi – clarified for me a valuable approach both to hydrology and climate science and the necessary sacrifice of certainty for uberty.

    It leads into this paper that develops inclusive ideas on coupled wind and oceans patterns with less certainty but with an exciting richness in the investigation.

    “This paper does not present rigorous statistics evaluating hypotheses and relies on qualitative descriptions and comparisons between relatively short time series. The hypotheses simplify the complexity of meteorological, oceanographic and fisheries processes seeking broad patterns. Observations of zonal and meridional wind patterns have been necessarily limited to 1.7 cycles since about 1900. This implies that the discussion of warm and cold or zonal and meridional patterns focuses on three or four data points. Proxies of past cycles can not be supported by the unobserved decadal variability in global winds. With roughly four data points, statistical power of any comparisons are very low, especially given the instances of mismatches by a decade or more are not considered important. Ultimately with continuation of global observing systems, with the use of coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (which do not rely on observational data) such patterns may be revealed. In this review we strive to address questions which connect current findings on ocean basins’ climate interactions over a global scale: Do output from these models support global synchrony in atmospheric wind patterns, oceanic gyre circulations, and vertical velocities in the ocean? Does the ecology of fish populations reveal underlying global wind process? We hope the following discussion provides a holistic view that ties together multidisciplinary information in a succinct fashion that is constructive and thought provoking for future work…

    The relationship of decadal jet stream wind patterns to gyre circulation in this review should be considered as hypotheses to be tested (Figure 3). In the 20th century the global scope of multidecadal climate oscillations are revealed in instrumented data and through proxy data, for several previous centuries. The objective of this review of natural climate oscillations was to describe possible linkages between jet stream winds, gyre circulations, upwelling and fish abundance. Several hypotheses, which address causes of the oscillation, were described although none have been fully accepted by the scientific community. A large literature supports the framework of climate variations in specific oceanic areas described here. Data, particularly satellite data, and model output support gyre circulations inferred from the literature. Oceanic pieces of the puzzle are being synthesized and it is becoming more common to consider whole gyres and comparisons of parallel areas in different oceans [34,48,107]. The literature, reviewed for many researchers over the past 50 years, has suggested that the climate and fish populations in upwelling regions oscillate between two states (Figure 3 and Figure 6). Oscillation changes in the wind and intensity of upwelling off the western margins of continents in subtropical gyres may help explain asynchronous sardine abundances in the northern Benguela Current and anchovy abundances in the Humboldt Current although harvest pressures have recently disrupted patterns in the Benguela Current [58]. The evidence suggests that secular-scale regional anthropogenic climate trends may act to enhance the zonal phase of the global oscillation and in turn, may mute the meridional phase. The recognition of gyre scale changes in ecology should improve the management of fisheries particularly in upwelling areas, stimulate the further development of ocean observing systems and the search for other large scale ecological patterns.” http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833/htm

    The review explores a rich vein of multi-decadal climate variability.

  46. David Springer

    Breaking News: US is still out of the Paris Climate Accord. Trump is unleashing US fossil fuel juggernaut to spur economic growth. “Deniers” are running the US gov’t. Hallelujah. Sanity prevailed.

    I don’t really give a tinker’s damn about anything else.

  47. From Bachem et al 2017 (Variable sea surface conditions in Pliocene in Norwegian sea)

    A 7 °C warming of the Norwegian Sea at 4.0 Ma suggests a major increase in northward heat transport from the North Atlantic, leading to an enhanced zonal SST gradient in the Nordic Seas, which may be linked to the expansion of sea ice in the Arctic and Nordic Seas. A warm Norwegian Sea and enhanced zonal temperature gradient between 4.0 and 3.6 Ma may have been a priming factor for increased glaciation around the Nordic Seas due to enhanced evaporation and precipitation at high northern latitudes.

    So an AMOC warming of the far North Atlantic a trigger for glaciation? Possibly relevant to our own time. Day after Tomorrow anyone?