Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

“The study’s authors estimate groundwater depletion in the United States could be responsible for releasing 1.7 million metric tons (3.8 billion pounds) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year.”[link]

Bleached coral in Barrier Reef may be coming back from the dead

The remarkable cognitive dissonance of an adamant conclusion on the climate change mitigation reached from inconclusive hurricane data.

A Census of Atmospheric Variability From Seconds to Decades: our new open-access article is published today in Geophysical Research Letters.  

Needs for climate model development [link]

Past greenhouse episodes may have been linked, in part, to degassing of CO2 from continental rifts

Some thoughts on the mind-bending physics of sea level rise, as captured yet again by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 The 2017 climate assessment of the (SWIPA) is available  – includes topics ranging from permafrost to snow cover to ice Open access at
.
Differing show lingering uncertainty about how well oceans will absorb .

Although the Southern Ocean occupies only 20% of total ocean area, it absorbs three-quarters of the heat taken into the oceans, and approx half of the CO2

New Antarctic heat map reveals sub-ice hot spots [link]

Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture [link]

Kerry Emanuel: Texas is now six times more likely to see huge, hurricane-related flooding than it was in the 1990s. [link]

Sea level rise in the Indian Ocean increases as monsoon circulation weakens & heat transport decreases. [link]

Steve McIntyre: updated discussion of climate models vs observations: are models running too hot or not?

Methane leaks from fossil fuel extraction play bigger role than previously thought [link]

Sea level rise in the Indian Ocean increases as monsoon circulation weakens & heat transport decreases. [link]

New VICS publication by Matthew Toohey and Michael Sigl on volcanic stratospheric sulfur injections and aerosol optical depth from 500 BCE to 1900 C

NASA: volcanic magma plume under Antarctica may explain ice sheet instability

Spatial and temporal analysis of drought variability at several time scales in Syria during 1961–2012

A 2000-Year Temperature History of China’s Animaqin Mountains   No unusual warming past 150 years.

On the Possible Contribution of Natural Climatic Fluctuations to the Global Warming of the Last 135 Years [link]

Rebecca Frew has written a great blog post on sea ice and how complex sea ice models need to be!

Sea-ice dynamics for beginners! 

A new method to evaluate overall performance of a climate model

ASA satellite study shows that last year’s spike in CO2 resulted from El Nino-induced heat & drought in tropics [link]

Why are teleconnections important? Read a new review article and Q&A

New research shows multidecadal oscillation of Southern Ocean polynyas, a release valve for the ocean’s heat

Settling of the Americas in the midst the Little Ice Age [link]

US Nat. Acad. Sci. release report on Sustaining Ocean Observation to Understand Future Changes in Earth’s Climate

Life Under the Polar Ice: A team of Georgia Tech scientists deploys an ocean robot under the Antarctic ice shelf

 Why the Wine Country Fires Was a Severe Weather Event and Not Climate Change
.
unique role snow has on sea-ice growth in Atlantic sector of Ocean 
.
Cold kills 20 times more people than heat [link]
.

Social science and policy

what happened (and what didn’t happen) at the Bonn climate talks …

Even Without Paris Agreement, U.S. Leads World in Declining Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Thanks in Large Part to

Democrats are shockingly unprepared to fight climate change [link]

Democrats are shockingly unprepared to fight climate change [link]

The Tao of Chinese climate lunacy… polluted air blocking sun from solar panels installed on lake formed by collapsed coal mine.

This is important: Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC’s Assessment of Mitigation

Global CO2 emissions are ticking up, but underlying trends are headed in the right direction. Stock, flow, and intensity
 .
Global carbon budget 2017 [link]
 .
The value of traditional knowledge in the Arctic [link]
.

About science and scientists

Roger Pielke Jr on Mark Jacobson’s lawsuit. A litigious climate threatens scientific norms,

response to Cook and Oreskes on climate consensus messaging

Single-blind reviewers are significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors, top universities, and top companies. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/13/1707323114.full.pdf

Merchants of Doubt book review, with extensive excerpts (if you haven’t read it, this is readers digest) https://mhreviews.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/merchants-of-doubt-book-review/amp/

“Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences”

JC note: Apologies for the rough formatting this week, I gave up after several hours.  My right hand is 70% useless (shoulder/nerve problem), this has been going on for 5 weeks.  Fun!

514 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Thanks as always for interesting links, Dr. Judith, and sorry to hear about your arm.

    The first one says:

    “The study’s authors estimate groundwater depletion in the United States could be responsible for releasing 1.7 million metric tons (3.8 billion pounds) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year.”

    Since humans emit on the order of 40 BILLION metric tons of CO2 per year, this COULD BE about five-thousandths of one percent (0.005%) of the emissions … and despite that, this claim got wide media circulation.

    Can I say how tired I am of climate hype?

    w.

    • “USGS scientists estimate that the United States annually depletes 25 square kilometers (9.7 square miles) of groundwater, which contains roughly 2.4 million metric tons (5.2 billion pounds) of bicarbonate.”
      They can’t even measure volumes. How many gallons is 25 square kilometers?

    • huh.

      “It’s not going to change the way we think about global climate change. It’s just another factor involved that we need to consider”

      they put it as number 20 on the list.

      • Thanks, Steven. However, I still fail to see why something that comprises five-thousandths of one percent (0.005%) of anthropogenic emissions is something we “need to consider”. We don’t “need to consider” that, it is beyond trivial.

        w.

      • You call it hype.
        Weird.
        They reported the numbers.
        Number 20 on the list.
        You must not trust people to understand this.

      • Steven Mosher | November 21, 2017 at 7:45 pm |

        You call it hype.
        Weird.
        They reported the numbers.
        Number 20 on the list.
        You must not trust people to understand this.

        Steven, number 20 on the list could still represent a percent or two. What I don’t trust people to understand was that their results deal with five thousandths of one percent (0.005%) of emissions.

        And yes, Steven, writing a scientific paper about something that is 0.005% of human emissions, AND releasing a press release about it, without in either case pointing out it is a pathetically trivial 0.005% of the emissions, is definitely hyping their study …

        Meanwhile, are you ever going to answer my question about the scalpel technique? You know, the question I’ve asked about ten times now to both you and Zeke? The question you told me you’d studied … but you’ve never produced one scrap of evidence about? The question that I asked you on your blog, and you censored? That question?

        For a man who claims to be all about “no code, no data, no science”, your continued and repeated refusal to provide either code or data in this case is most suggestively curious …

        w.

    • Can I say how tired I am of bloggers hyping typos?

      Have you considered following in 43’s footsteps and taking up painting instead?

      • Nice one Russell.

        Mind you how anyone can pay that vast sum for the original I do not know. The painting is no masterpiece

        Tonyb

      • I see over at WUWT that after forty years of erecting hot tin roofs to keep people cool in the tropics. Willis has finally conceeded that there may be something to this ‘radiative equilibrium’ business after all.

        I hope he will share his epiphany with Texas Representative Joe Barton

      • russellseitz | November 26, 2017 at 2:58 pm |

        russellseitz | November 26, 2017 at 2:58 pm |
        I see over at WUWT that after forty years of erecting hot tin roofs to keep people cool in the tropics. Willis has finally conceeded that there may be something to this ‘radiative equilibrium’ business after all.

        I hope he will share his epiphany with Texas Representative Joe Barton

        Russell, that makes absolutely no sense at all. I haven’t “conceded” one thing. If you think I have, please quote what I said before, and also what I said in my recent post, that you think represents my “concession”.

        Oh, yeah … if you are going to accuse someone of “conceding” something, if you were to learn how to spell it first you might get more traction.

        w.

      • Willis, if ever you come to a better than a cut & paste understanding of thermodynamics, it may dawn on you that its laws are invariant relative to SpellCheck.

  2. And regarding hype, listed as:

    Bleached coral in Barrier Reef may be coming back from the dead

    “May be” coming back? Bleached coral ALWAYS comes back. Or as the article says:

    “Previous studies have shown a two to three year delay in reproduction after severe bleaching but at most of the reefs we are finding colonies of Acropora [branching hard coral] colonies with early signs of egg development in shallow waters, 3m to 6m deep.”

    The real headline should be “Early recovery has started for Barrier Reef”.

    Can I say how tired I am of climate hype?

    w.

  3. Speaking of hype

    The WAPO article gives us the usual catastrophic scenario about SLR from Greenland but never mentions studies that have found geothermal activity there.

    Nor does it mention the new findings on geothermal activity underlaying Antarctica. In addition to the article listed above, my link to NASA provides more information on a recent study.. I hope the imprimatur of NASA will provide the added interest for further research into the relationship of those hot spots and the inherent instability of some of those glaciers. Just in a few years the reaction to the geology appears to have come from “Pay no never mind, nothing here”, that we have come to expect from the rigid, group think crowd, to perhaps a willingness to keep an open mind and find out what possible relationships exist to the ice shelves and the continental ice sheet.
    https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2017-291#.WgH4u-OBkE8.twitter

  4. This link provides details on the author’s contention that the Maude Volcanic Plateau is the cause of the large polynya in the Weddell Sea off the coast of Antarctica. I have no way of verifying the accuracy of the overlay provided in the article, but if it is minimally representative of reality, at a minimum one should simply say, how interesting.

    Dynamics under the sea floor, just like the geology of Antarctica seem to receive very little attention as it relates to our climate. Why should it, since there is very little incentive to blow a hole in the consensus view.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/volcanic-heat-fueling-mysterious-antarctic-melt-hole/

    • From Judith’s article: “New research shows multidecadal oscillation of Southern Ocean polynyas”. It doesn’t. The researxhers set up a model with all sorts of unstated assumptions, which they ran over a long notional period. The model developed a 70-80yr cycle. Note that it had to develop a cycle, because the assumptions in the model didn’t allow any ultra-longterm trend. The only issue in doubt was how long a cycle it would come up with.

      cerescokid (thx) has pointed out a natural connection not allowed for in those models. If correct (as seems likely) then the model study is totally useless, partly because the natural patterns (cyclical or other) are unknown, but mainly because not enough is known to be able to draw any conclusions at all.

  5. Coral back from the dead? The global warming Armageddon scenario of runaway global warming, rivers running red, mass extinctions of species, a 20′ rise of seawater, dead coral, deep and disastrous climate disruption, more and more violent storms, has been a house of cards–a big fail–and, the winds of truth have shown it all to be nothing but deception and lies. But, what does it say about those who want to be deceived?

  6. Hope you regain full use of arm. We need you in good health.

  7. Regarding that review of Merchants of Doubt, I find Brad Keyes review to be much more informative, concise and entertaining:

    https://www.amazon.com/review/R2GCUTBNK2DYXK/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv

  8. Judy: The Lancet article on the impact of cold is from 2015 as is the USA Today summary.
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2962114-0/fulltext
    Is there something more recent that you had in mind?

    • The Headline is incurably wrongheaded and deceptive, and it was done to make people think that Global Warming will result in fewer people dying from the cold. Think Boink Dummieborg.

      Abstract
      Extreme heat events are associated with spikes in mortality, yet death rates are on average highest during the coldest months of the year. Under the assumption that most winter excess mortality is due to cold temperature, many previous studies have concluded that winter mortality will substantially decline in a warming climate. We analyzed whether and to what extent cold temperatures are associated with excess winter mortality across multiple cities and over multiple years within individual cities, using daily temperature and mortality data from 36 US cities (1985–2006) and 3 French cities (1971–2007). Comparing across cities, we found that excess winter mortality did not depend on seasonal temperature range, and was no lower in warmer vs. colder cities, suggesting that temperature is not a key driver of winter excess mortality. Using regression models within monthly strata, we found that variability in daily mortality within cities was not strongly influenced by winter temperature. Finally we found that inadequate control for seasonality in analyses of the effects of cold temperatures led to spuriously large assumed cold effects, and erroneous attribution of winter mortality to cold temperatures. Our findings suggest that reductions in cold-related mortality under warming climate may be much smaller than some have assumed. This should be of interest to researchers and policy makers concerned with projecting future health effects of climate change and developing relevant adaptation strategies.

      Life expectancy patterns suggest more people will die of cold-related deaths in a warming world.

  9. People expecting to see cognitive dissonance in the article labeled as such may be disappointed to read a rather fair appraisal of the situation, and that hurricane planning should account for gradually worsening conditions. Alongside Kerry Emanuel’s item, it is quite sobering. Perhaps the ‘cognitive dissonance’ will be among the skeptics who read these two items.

    • But the paws in CatWhatever landfalls. Pay attention.

    • “It is clear that careful thought needs to be given to ways of reducing the vulnerability through consideration of topics such as where we construct our buildings and critical infrastructure and the standards to which they are built…”

      Or:

      Build wind turbines and that other stuff that goes with those. Our payoff for reducing CO2 levels is far in the future, and the any problems could occur much earlier.

      • Yes, in both cases choose for the future, not dead ends or outdated solutions. There is a general principle here.

      • Jim D:
        There are general principles here.
        Do something.
        Do it for ourselves.
        Saving the world doesn’t always work out and it’s expensive.

    • Paul Matthews @etzpcm highlighted “The doublethink of climate science”

      “But despite over 100 years of reasonable reliable hurricane data in the Atlantic Basin, it has not been possible to identify robust long-term trends in either hurricane frequency or strength.”

      Compare:

      “So in conclusion, it is clear that human activities have raised the risks of various aspects of hurricane damage.”

      When ALL “human activities” – including moving to and building along the seafront – are included yes – economic damage increases.
      But Roger Pielke Jr. shows raw hurricane energy has been DECLINING.

  10. Kerry Emanuel: Texas is now six times more likely to see huge, hurricane-related flooding than it was in the 1990s. [link]

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/global-warming-really-did-make-hurricane-harvey-more-likely/545765/?utm_source=twb

    ROBINSON MEYER Wrote:
    “Harvey’s rainfall in Houston was ‘biblical’ in the sense that it likely occurred around once since the Old Testament was written.”

    There is no way to prove this is correct. The Roman Warm Time and the Medieval Warm time both most likely had rainfall that exceeded Harvey.

    • Remember, Harvey slowed, stalled, reversed course, slowly accelerate before leaving, creating a record level of stationarity which alone can account for the rain totals.

      • The 6-hourly rainfall rates with Harvey were not exceptional among hurricanes.

        It was the duration of rainfall, because of the slowing, stalling, slow reversal before the storm finally left the area that accounts for the high precipitation totals.

    • Harvey was said to be a once in a millennia storm. I am curious what valid statistical inference that could result in 40+ inches several times in the last few decades, but 50+ only once in a thousand years?

      • No statistical inferences were injured in this paper. It is all done with models. Like most attribution stuff.

    • “Cuba got hammered by more than 100 inches of rain when Hurricane Flora sat over the island for four days in 1963. And even earlier, in 1909 before hurricanes were named, a storm dropped more than 96 inches of rain on Jamaica. In more recent history, Wilma dumped more than 62 inches of rain on Mexico in 2005 and Hurricane Mitch, blamed for killing more than 11,000 in Central America in 1998, soaked Nicaragua with more than 62 inches, according to records compiled by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecaster David Roth.”

      http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weather/hurricane/article170512137.html

  11. Sorry to hear about your shoulder. Hope, that you get better soon. Don´t worry about formatting the links – they are perfectly fine without any formatting. I even think they are better that way, as the full address identifies the source.

  12. Judith: These two entries were both double-posted:

    Sea level rise in the Indian Ocean increases as monsoon circulation weakens & heat transport decreases. [link]

    Democrats are shockingly unprepared to fight climate change [link]

  13. More good news:

    “Heat escaping from the ocean through polynyas impacts the large-scale energy budget of the ocean and atmosphere, cloud patterns, and even rainfall…”

    Oceans warming? Melt some sea ice. Sea ice reacts to warming by releasing OHC to the atmosphere. To cooling by retarding the loss.

    • Cycles come and go. Nobody knows why. OHC? It’s just going to keep going up and away.

      • JCH

        Yes, cycles come and go. It would be interesting to know the data for the preceding thousands of years when we have experienced similar surface warming.

        Mind you, we are again attempting to create scientific statistics out of flimsy data

        “The success of a mapping method can be judged by how accurately it reconstructs the full ocean temperature domain. When the global ocean is divided into a monthly 1°-by-1° grid, the monthly data coverage is <10% before 1960, <20% from 1960 to 2003, and <30% from 2004 to 2015 (see Materials and Methods for data information and Fig. 1). Coverage is still <30% during the Argo period for a 1°-by-1° grid because the original design specification of the Argo network was to achieve 3°-by-3° near-global coverage (42). However, we typically use temporal persistence from 1 month to the next as well as spatial covariance (as carried out using all the mapping methods cited above). Because the early observations were mainly carried out on commercial and scientific research vessels, their locations are limited to the regions around developed countries and along shipping routes."

        Uncertainties abound. That we do not have a proper picture of the last 60 years is problem enough, that we don't know it for the last 2000 years makes it difficult to put the recent imperfectly measured past into its broader context

        tonyb

      • I had a reply for JCH the moment I saw him listed in the comments. Tony avoids mention of endlessly and smarmily – in the urban dictionary sense – repeated unscience claptrap – my comment is much more to the point.

      • Assume a cycle. Moderate that with something that has 3 states.

      • Who is denying it? Water comes out from underneath a glacier. This not news. The more that comes out does what?

    • It’s too bad you’re losing. Makes you mean.

      • Here is a person who routinely uses hyperbole and calumny, provides the same meaningless graph over and over and who substitutes climate memes for substance. Sound familiar? We have certainly not lost anything against the likes of this.

        This is what Argo ocean heat really looks like.

        The annual spike is caused by north/south asymmetry – and the record is far too short to disentangle internal variability. Previous records of ocean heat have such inadequate coverage – especially to 2000m – that the meme has ultimately little credibility. This is a record where data points are averaged over 5 years to manufacture a sufficient density of data. I am a great believer in data meticulously generated over more than a millennial at it’s most impressive – but like in all scientific or technical exercises one has to systematically evaluate the limits of methodologies. Not wave it around like a talisman in the cultural battlefield.

        More dense coverage in the 1990’s allowed the construction of ocean heat estimates from annual averages. It shows an ocean heat peak in the 1990’s – that follows changes in cloud radiative forcing at toa.

        This may well just be low frequency climate variability as the IPCC has said. The Nile River data over more than a millennia revealed the underlying climate dynamic in the middle of the last century. It is the new climate consensus. And if triggered by solar variability – as suggested
        by yet another paper I link to below – then the expectation of a solar decline may well be a source of cooler conditions starting this century.

        There is a scientific consilience that is far from the ‘consensus’ preached by climate fanatics. I am just a little bored with it here – it is less trying to understand than the attempted imposition of a progressive world view. Yes we have seen the fanatic arguments many times – we don’t need to see the same thing again and again expressed with such smarmy insistence. It is just worthless intellectual clutter.

        I am sorry if this seems harsh – but it is the sort of meta analysis of routinely indulged in by these people. I don’t know about future history yet – but these people are increasingly outside of the science tent pissing in.

      • OHC, in the current situation, because of Minnett, can only do this:

      • Talk about short term data – and the utter silliness of linear trends on this. This is the post science world JCH lives in.

      • This seems a very different ‘climatology’ to that employed by the Scripps Institute. Look it up.

        A few years data with massive annual and interannual variability? It is a joke right?

  14. Thought of the day:
    Renewables are the natural variability of power generation.

  15. About McIntyre, with the post El Nino situation, the excursion and the ado about it looks kind of silly:

    Look, our stopped clock is right.

    • Roger Pielke himself recommended this to me after a comment here – I had already read it. 2016 looks to have a drought artifact in the surface temperature record as well as El Nino. They love it of course until the inevitable La Nina – then it is just weather.

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

    • “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751

      It may suggest – but quasi standing waves in the spatio-temporal chaos of the Earth flow field is pretty much in your face.

      Models are not running hot – modelers are. They simply pick a non-unique solution that just happens to be warm. It is like the latent heat component of surface energy flux – I’m not sure why people do not make the connection.

  16. This article is now behind a paywall:

    How Iceland is regrowing forests destroyed by the Vikings https://www.optimistdaily.com/?d30e09fb7d8346b455c942a0939cec35=c4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b

  17. Nuclear power plants costs in the US declined by about a factor 10 in 14 years (1954 to 1968), and increased by a factor of 10 in the next 10 years (1968 to 1978) – see Figures 1 and 4 here: https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/cama_crawford_anu_edu_au/2017-11/4_2017_lang_0.pdf

  18. “Southern Ocean occupies only 20% of total ocean area, it absorbs three-quarters of the heat taken into the oceans, and approx half of the CO2 “

    Which seems to correspond to oceanic windiness:

    Is oceanic wind speed also the causal mechanism underlying ENSO variation of heat and CO2 uptake?

  19. Nuclear power could, in future, provide an effectively unlimited supply of petrol, diesel, jet fuel, etc. https://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/ .

    Nuclear power could supply nearly all the worlds primary energy effectively indefinitely. And cheap, if we remove the blocks that caused nuclear power to be around 10x more expensive than it would have been if not for the disruption to development and deployment in the late 1960s.

  20. I can emphasize – I have very recently stopped taking prescribed opiates for a partially torn tendon in the left arm triceps area.

    “Nonlinearities often manifest themselves as non-normality in the proxy distribution, despite the target climate quantity being well approximated by a normal distribution. Indeed, a normally distributed proxy is only expected if the proxy is a linear recorder of a normally-distributed climate variable, as the linear transform
    of a Gaussian random vector is also Gaussian. Temperature fluctuations, especially if averaged over a month or more, typically obey normal statistics, so linear temperature proxies are also normal. In contrast, runoff proxies are nonlinearly related to a nonnormal climate variable (precipitation), and therefore violate two of the central assumptions of the standard paleoclimate analysis toolkit. Other proxies may feature a nonlinear relationship with a normally-distributed climate variable, with the same non-normal result. In either case, such records are not amenable to analysis using common techniques…

    To illustrate the challenges posed by non-linear recorders of climate, we consider an idealized model for a runoff proxy that displays a stationary but nonlinear response to ENSO–induced rainfall. Sediment-based runoff proxy are expected to feature nonlinearities for at least four reasons: sediment mobilization is a nonlinear function of flow speed [Rose, 1993]; flow speed is a nonlinear function of rainfall [e.g. Maidment, 1993]; rainfall is a nonlinear function of sea-surface temperature [e.g. Lengaigne and Vecchi, 2010]; finally, we assume that rainfall at the location of the proxy occurs only during the warm phase of ENSO, inducing an asymmetric relationship with climate.” http://climdyn.usc.edu/Publications_files/skewness_rev_v2.pdf

    An older study but for me a jumping off point for thinking about non-linearity in climate. My assumption is that everything in climate is nonlinear and I question the idea that we can somehow transform proxies – without mechanistic analysis – into some some normally distributed essence of climate. Even the response to greenhouse gases is nonlinear as the planet responds to changes in the atmosphere – cloud and surface albedo especially.

    “The extratropical atmosphere is characterized by robust circulations which have time scales longer than that associated with developing baroclinic systems but shorter than a season. Such low-frequency variability is governed to a large extent by nonlinear dynamics and, hence, is chaotic. A useful aspect of this low-frequency circulation is that it can often be described by just a few quasi-stationary regime states, broadly defined as recurrent or persistent large-scale structures, that exert a significant impact on the probability of experiencing extreme surface weather conditions.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000509/full

    Yes we can describe important aspects of the system by reference to a few ‘quasi-stationary regime states’ – but the quantification of the impact of variability between regime states in the globally coupled flow field remains elusive. In hydrology regimes lead to probabilistic seasonal to decadal forecasts.

    Without a mechanistic understanding of coupling to regime states it seems impossible to quantitatively disentangle nonlinearity in the climate state. Even then it seems beyond current capabilities. There is a suggestion that some of it starts with solar UV variability – e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000509/full – modulating surface pressure at the poles. The resultant ‘blocking patterns’ vary winds and currents in sub-polar regions – shown schematically below.

    It results in step changes and regimes in upwelling in the eastern Pacific and in overturning circulation in the Atlantic. I assume that this is the ‘stochastic forcing’ so long suspected in these oceanic regimes. Solar UV variability provides the ‘trigger’ for climate and hydrological chaos over millennia.

    Perhaps the opiates explain dipping into Carl Sagan’s Demon Haunted World – that was linked in a tweet here. My judgement is that Sagan was a very poor writer of a book filled with irrelevant childhood anecdotes and tortuously extended metaphors. Losing hundreds of pages would have resulted in a better book.

    Finally a bit of fun?

    • I can empathize as well both with shoulder problems and auto corrects. Could you not put a little more effort into shooting down that WUWT post on radiative heat transfer?
      JCH that OHC graph of yours looks likely to be very sick soon. No comment on November temps yet??

      • You are genuinely clueless. November is cold. So what? What on earth do you think the warmest non El Niño year in the instrument record gets you? A point? No. Get’s you zilch.

        As for OHC and the itty bitty La Niña that is now on the table, how can an itty bitty La Niña get you anywhere? You need a big one: a really big one. Gigantic. Pray. Put a bone in your nose and pray. Work on a spoon bending act.

      • So after absurdly predicting a monster El Nino this year – the inevitable La Nina is just weather – naturally.

        He mistook a La Nina Modiki for an actual La Nina and took a run at examining the entrails. He has so little understanding of Pacific states that it is all repetitive twaddle owing much more to a progressive cognitive bias than anything real. Only now the failure seamlessly segues into an alternative narrative without missing a beat and hoping no one notices. Everyone has noticed and a regular person would simply slink away with their tail between their legs. And is anyone impressed by the silly hyperbole?

        Individual ENSO events are far from the real issue. Their real problem is climate variability – including Pacific variability – on decadal to millennial scales. I predicted the La Nina from very obvious physical conditions. It will continue to strengthen over the Austral summer. This is just how it works. Beyond that I predict nothing – but the decline in solar activity widely anticipated suggests the likelihood of more cold water upwelling in the eastern Pacific this century. A transition from a 1000 year high in El Nino intensity and frequency last century that added to warming.

        As for WUWT – too wild and woolly for my taste.

  21. Judith, you said it perfectly, “… remarkable cognitive dissonance of an adamant conclusion on the climate change mitigation reached from inconclusive hurricane data.” My reaction similarly was — gaping mouth wide open and palms facing upward… how can any person with half a wit come to this conclusion… what in the world the heck is this …. I read through the piece (“Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria: how natural were these ‘natural disasters’?”, by Emily Shuckburgh, Dann Mitchell and Peter Stott in Royal Meteorological Society’s journal Weather) until I came to the reference by Mann 2017 claiming to validate their conclusions. For example conclusion: “So in conclusion, it is clear that human activities have raised the risks of various aspects of hurricane damage.” The Wikipedia article on Stott has a disclaimer by the administrators at the top of the page saying “This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. Apparently exaggeration is inherent with these folks. Should I be surprised that the Royal Meteorological Society is so indiscriminate in allowing this sort of fluff in their publications.

  22. This is not Emanuel, it is the writer:
    “This planetary engine is slowing down as global warming pushes land and ocean temperatures closer together.”

    I assume average temperature of the oceans is 5 C, and the GMST is 15 C. One is rising faster than the other.

    If the Arctic is warming more than the equator, is that speeding up or slowing the planetary engine? A climate that helps regulate its temperature would seem to speed up with global warming. Speed up to lose warmth. Slow down to retain it.

  23. A pearl from the Merchants of Doubt book review:
    “I only recall one climate change denier say he would stay in his house that was in the path of Irma, but he “changed his mind and moved to be able to continue his broadcasts”. If climate change is so wrong, why do these deniers not line every shore that scientists predict will be hit by hurricanes?”

    • Curious George – the reason the “deniers” don’t line the shorelines is simple – 1. the “believers” already have. Abundantly. Master Gore is one such shoreline filler. 2. Most “deniers” do not make the kind of money it takes to buy a decent home on the shore.

  24. Kerry Emanuel: Global Warming Really Did Make Hurricane Harvey More Likely. Texas is now six times more likely to see huge, cyclone-related floods than it was in the 1990s.

    This warning would have been much more valuable had it come before 2017 hurricanes. But it did come only after them. That’s climate science.

  25. Recent hurricanes and wild fires:

  26. I came across this guy while watching videos about chaos theory:

    • Great find Ragnaar.
      Ha, I used to look like that guy about 30yrs ago.
      In a related item…
      “Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity”
      https://phys.org/news/2017-11-carefully-crafted-pulses-neuron.html
      I guess when we perfect this technology Prof. Sapolsky would be a good behavior programmer. In the future we will use this technology to rewrite our memories, learn skills without studying and control emotions. I read that Elon Musk is investing in this technology to create better human-machine interfaces (Neuralink) to read our minds to control how machines operate but the real exciting stuff will be when we can write to the brain.

      • He also did these videos:
        Chaos and Reductionism Sapolsky

        Basic chaos and the limits of reductionist science which suggests a new approach for understanding the climate.

        And this one:
        Emergence and Complexity Sapolsky

        Something like, Simple rules repeated many times sometimes results in the emergence of a complex system. Compare to a GCM.

  27. “My right hand is 70% useless (shoulder/nerve problem), this has been going on for 5 weeks. Fun!”
    Judith Curry
    Welcome to my world. First let me say I am sorry you are having a shoulder nerve impingement issue. I hope you find a strategy that will relieve you of this disability as it impacts your hand function.

    As I am sure you have likely learned, nerves from the spinal column to the distal arm/wrist/fingers course through the shoulder. The shoulder and its ball and socket construction is dependent upon its stability and function on contributions from the collar bone, shoulder blade, upper arm held together by ligaments, tendons, with muscle control. Any and all above components play a role in the shoulder’s smooth function and as well as impacting the nerves that course through and around the shoulder joint.

    One of the benefits of a thorough evaluation of a shoulder problem includes a program of physical therapy evaluation and a therapeutic strategy implemented over the course of several months.

    My own experience suggests there can be light at the end of the tunnel.

  28. Roger Pielke Jr highlights the work by Justin Ritchie and Hdi Dowlatabadi saying:
    The Politics of Inconceivable Scenarios

    Last for this month, but perhaps most important, is a hugely significant paper published by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabdi of the University of British Columbia titled Why do climate scenarios return to coal?
    The paper argues that the IPCC’s scenario for future emissions of carbon dioxide most often characterized as “business-as-usual” (technically called RCP 8.5) should be considered implausible.
    They explain: “RCP8.5 no longer offers a trajectory of 21st-century climate change with physically relevant information for continued emphasis in scientific studies or policy assessments.”
    Why does this matter? A “business as usual” scenario is frequently used as the basis for projections of how the future climate will evolve in the absence of climate policy that seeks to reduce emissions.
    The difference between BAU and a climate policy scenario in terms of climate outcomes is thus characterized as the consequences (and sometimes the costs) of not mitigating.

    See: Justin Ritchie and Hdi Dowlatabadi The 1,000 GtC Coal Question: Are Cases of High Future Coal Combustion
    Plausible?
    © 2016 Resources for the Future.

    Abstract
    Twenty years ago, legacy reserve-to-production (R-P) ratios of 300 or more indicated a possibility of vastly expanding global coal consumption. Studies of energy futures commonly adopted similar R-P values as equilibrium conditions, establishing coal as a virtually unlimited backstop supply for long-term scenarios. Yearly consumption and market prices for hard coal have doubled since 1990, calibrating the next century’s baseline. Over the same two decades, improving knowledge of global coal reduced estimates of total reserves by two-thirds, while costs increased much faster than anticipated by long-range coal resource models with long and flat supply curves. Consequently, the underlying assumptions for many future global energy projections no longer hold.
    Past coal-dominant projections of future global energy supply now significantly exceed modern assessments of the reserves recoverable under baseline trends and need to be revised. The energy system reference cases used for future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission pathways in climate change research are a case in point: baseline emission scenarios commonly project levels of coal combustion many times higher than current reserve estimates by the year 2100. In this paper, we explain why baselines depicting vast expansion in twenty-first century coal consumption should not be used as a business-as-usual assumption.

    • Why do climate change scenarios return to coal?
      Justin Ritchie, Hadi Dowlatabadi, Energy 140 (2017) 1276e1291

      abstract
      The following article conducts a meta-analysis to systematically investigate why Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) in the Fifth IPCC Assessment are illustrated with energy system reference cases dominated by coal. These scenarios of 21st-century climate change span many decades, requiring a consideration of potential developments in future society, technology, and energy systems. To understand possibilities for energy resources in this context, the research community draws from Rogner (1997) which proposes a theory of learning-by-extracting (LBE). The LBE hypothesis conceptualizes total geologic occurrences of oil, gas, and coal with a learning model of productivity that has yet to be empirically assessed. This paper finds climate change scenarios anticipate a transition toward coal because of systematic errors in fossil production outlooks based on total geologic assessments like the LBE model. Such blind spots have distorted uncertainty ranges for long-run primary energy since the 1970s and continue to influence the levels of future climate change selected for the SSP-RCP scenario framework. Accounting for this bias indicates RCP8.5 and other ‘business-as-usual scenarios’ consistent with high CO2 forcing from vast future coal combustion are exceptionally unlikely. Therefore, SSP5-RCP8.5 should not be a priority for future scientific research or a benchmark for policy studies. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

    • Here is another paper that indicates that both RCP 8.5 and RCP 6.0 seem to be wildly exaggerated: The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-driven analysis – Wang et al

      From the abstract: «The emission scenarios used by the IPCC and by mainstream climate scientists are largely derived from the predicted demand for fossil fuels, and in our view take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that are likely due to the depletion of these fuels. This paper, by contrast, takes a supply-side view of CO2 emission, and generates two supply-driven emission scenarios based on a comprehensive investigation of likely long-term pathways of fossil fuel production drawn from peer-reviewed literature published since 2000. The potential rapid increases in the supply of the non-conventional fossil fuels are also investigated. Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed 610 ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2.6 DegC compared to pre-industrial level even if there is a significant increase in the production of non-conventional fossil fuels. Our results indicate therefore that the IPCC’s climate projections overestimate the upper-bound of climate change.»

      Figure 2 and figure 4 in the linked paper indicates that both RCP8.5 and RCP6.0 may be totally unrealistic.
      ( SD-PC = supply-driven peak conventional fossil fuels’scenario.
      SD-PCU = supply-driven peak conventional & non-conventional fossil fuels’scenario )

      • 610 ppm does melt all the ice, so no comfort there. Best to leave as much as possible in the ground, especially coal, and not to exploit other dirty sources like oil/tar sands, nor go after methane from coastal clathrates.

      • Jim D: 610 ppm does melt all the ice,

        you made that up.

      • …according to paleoclimate there are clear relations between CO2 levels and sea levels. This does surprise skeptics, I suppose, especially when it is quantified explicitly from data.

      • Albedo is an order of magnitude more significant. Shown here in what (oh irony) is called the Hansen curve.

        https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/901

        Stick around Jimmy boy and you might get it one day or other – or maybe not.

        https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/901

      • So I showed data that includes CO2 levels and sea levels over 50 million years and you show just the last 5 million years of some subset of it. Huh? Look at what I showed again, and see if you can follow the point. Mine relates sea levels to CO2. Like I said, skeptics are flummoxed that this could possibly have been happening for the last 50 million years without them noticing it before. Look at the plot. Try harder to understand its consequences.

      • Genuine laughter inspiring Jimmy dear. The last 5 million years not long enough for you. From last glacial max the the albedo change was some 25W/m2. And CO2? About 2. It implies a sensitivity of 0.2 degrees/W/m2. So about 0.4 degrees C in the modern era.

        Sea level rise is about 20m/degree – shown on the Hansen curve. You show CO2 and sea level – but CO2 is the minor component by far. It is by the look of it fake science.

      • RIE, you still seem not to understand my plot at all because you have not addressed what it shows which is that sea levels are high when CO2 is. Maybe you have no explanation of that, which is understandable because you have ruled out the relevant effect of GHG warming. If you can’t explain it, say so, and don’t sidetrack.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        SorF
        Do you also find it amusing that thousands of researchers try to quantify the variables of global coal consumption while separately, thousands of others toil away to regulate and tax to change the economics and hence the future consumption. All in rapid real time, while a third cast of thousands seeks emphatic endorsement of interpretations that add or subtract from the global warming meme without too much regard for the toils of the other groups. For more fun, add a 4th group that psychoanalyses the other three.
        It is all so darned stupid, pointless, science-destroying, meddling by the naive with self-ascribed proficiency and importance.
        Oh for the golden days when science was honest and productive of giant advances instead of mental tiddliwinks. Geoff.

      • @ Geoff

        Oh! What a tangled web

      • There are both ice sheet and CO2 feedbacks – one is an order of magnitude more significant. It is a dynamic planetary response to changing control variables.

      • You and your graph both ignore the elephant in the room.

      • Jim D: …according to paleoclimate there are clear relations between CO2 levels and sea levels.

        Jim D: 610 ppm does melt all the ice,

      • MM, you said I made it up, and I gave you one graph on which my statement is based. There are others too. It is assuredly not made up. If you think the ice sheets are stable at 610 ppm, show your sources for an equivalence. You made that up.

      • RIE, the elephant is the fact that at high CO2 levels that are easy for us to attain with burning the rest of the fossil fuels, even using the lowball estimate given, large glaciers are untenable. You can’t deny that, and haven’t yet because you keep changing the subject.

      • I was talking 5 million years – and Jimmy D moves the goalposts to emissions this century. Albedo changes outweigh paleo changes in CO2 by a large margin – the underlying reality of climate – as I have said a few times to Jimmy D before and here. Sea level varies with thermal expansion – minor – and with ice sheet dynamics – huge. Natural CO2 variation follows temperature – ice sheet dynamics involve a number of factors. So you are likely to see elevated CO2 – a couple of Watts per metre squared from CO2 but the sea level change is massively and overwhelmingly runaway ice sheet dynamic feedbacks. Jimmy has the tail wagging the dog in the paleo proxies. Not even the Hansen curve prompts a sanity check.

        I expect a low emissions trajectory at any rate – for very good reasons. Check out the videos – or not. I don’t give a rat’s arse Jimmy dear.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/

        Now I am just utterly bored with Jimmy’s intransigent repetition of egregiously misleading notions. He will just repeat things with astonishing persistence. Sane people simply throw up their hands in horror.

      • Jim d: Jim D: 610 ppm does melt all the ice,

        Jim D:
        MM, you said I made it up, and I gave you one graph on which my statement is based. There are others too. It is assuredly not made up. If you think the ice sheets are stable at 610 ppm, show your sources for an equivalence.

        How about “610 ppm might melt some of the ice”?

      • MM, by some, what do you mean? Greenland?

      • RIE, yes, ice especially in the form of glaciers is huge for sea-level and, as paleoclimate tells us, CO2 is huge for glaciers. No surprise there. In past climates CO2 has been especially large after episodes where volcanoes have emitted it. Today it is us, otherwise the same. I think you see that.

      • Jim D: MM, by some, what do you mean? Greenland?

        You are the one who wrote this: 610 ppm does melt all the ice,

        You made that up.

      • Ice sheets – not glaciers – are huge for CO2. Glacials start with survival of summer snow and rapid ice sheet feedbacks. Getting it the wrong way around seems par for the knob theory.

      • Take a look at this and interpret at what level of CO2 various glaciers can exist.

        There has been a general decline in CO2 over the past 50 million years, but no Antarctic glacier until it dropped to about 600 ppm, and also no Greenland glacier until it hit something well below 500 ppm. This is evidence for the viability of glaciers at various CO2 levels. Maybe you have found a different interpretation, that you’re not just making up now, or just don’t believe the data. Discuss.

      • RIE, for most of your last 5 million years there were no emissions of deeply stored CO2, so that is why you have no knob, Robert. That’s not the period to compare with the current situation where CO2 is increasing and it is not just natural emissions, but deeply stored carbon, more akin to volcanic episodes in paleoclimate of which the last 5 million years wasn’t one. Understand?

      • Oh yes there is a knob Jimmy dear. Merely repeating your memes again and again does nothing to advance your understanding or contribute meaningfully to discussions. And I am not about to repeat myself on this. Even the thought of that is a lump in the pit of my stomach. So let’s do a meta analysis instead.

        What exactly is your raison d’être for behaving in this way? What do you hope to gain? What is the point? Because I admit I am flummoxed – I can’t see what you hope to gain.

        My latest topic of investigation is the Aleutian low. My broad investigations lead to a deepening of my understanding, maintenance of a keen mind and the retention of a lively interest in science and the world far more generally. I am happy to share ideas and to learn new stuff – and that is the higher purpose – especially in the science posts.

        Your purpose – which we have seen in many others of the pissant progressive persuasion – seems to be to ram your narrow views down peoples throats with an obsessive persistence that is remarkable – along with an almost ritual disparagement of the other.

        Pissant progressives seem to have the need to claim a moral and intellectual superiority that is smarmy, grounded in an intellectual superficiality and stems from a deep seated inadequacy. Perhaps it’s me. Adults are increasingly seeming to me to be sullen, obdurate and petty. Perhaps it’s the Christmas spirit.

      • Jim D: 610 ppm does melt all the ice,

        Jim D: Discuss.

        There is no reason to think that 610 ppm does melt ALL the ice.

      • Those graphs are reason enough for my comment and they are not made up either. Maybe, if you look closely, you would interpret 650 or 700 ppm instead of 600 ppm. It’s up to you. I gave my view which is based on the two graphs I showed, at least. Notably, you have not shown any science to the contrary.

      • RIE, once again instead of denying what I have told you, you just change the subject. Do we take it that you agree volcanic periods can cause warming via increasing GHGs? It’s a simple question of science that is pertinent to any discussion of how things have worked in the last billion years. I don’t expect a straight answer from you, of course.

      • Jimmy dear – I have answered your exact same points many times. I certainly understand what you are saying – I just think it is ludicrously obtuse and disagree with – well – everything you say.

        The CO2 forcing increase from the last glacial max. was some 2W/m2. Most of it temperature related which was driven by change in albedo due to Earth dynamics – some 25W/m2 less reflected shortwave. A nonlinear planetary response. It means that each W/m2 causes some 0.2 degrees C temperature change. This result can if fact be obtained from regime theory and the surface temperature record of the 20th century.

        Is it too much to hope that you will go away now?

      • Jim D: 610 ppm does melt all the ice,

        Jim D: Notably, you have not shown any science to the contrary.

        Here are some details. 610 ppm is a little more than double 280 ppm, the estimated CO2 concentration of about 1890. Depending on the true value, starting now, for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, 610 will raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth surface somewhere between 1 and 4 C, eventually, over the temperature of about 1890. Even if “polar amplification” turns out to be real, that will spare most wintertime Arctic ice, and most Antarctic Ice, and most of the ice of the tall mountain ranges. If snowfall increases (as in some models), the mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica may increase, even if there is more melting and calving of icebergs at the edges.

        Long ago, when the Earth warmed sufficiently to melt the glaciers, the CO2 concentration rose enough to support a rich abundance of life. What the sensitivity of Earth temperature to an increase in CO2 was then is probably not relevant to the climate now.

      • @Matthewmarler
        I’m not sure that Jim D understands the concept of ‘winter’. I´m not sure that Jim D understands the concept of water freezing belov zero degree celcius. I´m not sure that Jim D can distinguish 100 years from a million years.
        And, even though he thinks he can draw his conclusion that 600 ppm ´melts all the ice´ from the figures he puts up, I can not see that there exist a logically valid argument for his conclusion. Jim D is pure inductivism in person.

      • MM, maintaining glaciers long term requires certain annual mean temperatures. Raising those temperatures 4 or more C in polar regions tips those glaciers into a decline. A similar thing was seen in Canada, Alaska, and Scandinavia at the end of the last Ice Age with those kinds of temperature rises. Also paleohistory shows no sustained ice when CO2 was much more than 600 ppm. First to go will be summer Arctic sea ice, then Greenland, then Antarctica.
        Also 610 ppm appears to be a lowball estimate that could come from just burning all the proven reserves and not tapping any new resources going forwards. If we are limited to burning proven reserves, that amount to about 3000 GtCO2, we would be 100% non-fossil well before 2100 anyway out of necessity because those would be used up well before that unless the rate of burning starts to decline rapidly beginning now, so it leads to much the same energy policy.

      • Jim D: A similar thing was seen in Canada, Alaska, and Scandinavia at the end of the last Ice Age with those kinds of temperature rises. Also paleohistory shows no sustained ice when CO2 was much more than 600 ppm. First to go will be summer Arctic sea ice, then Greenland, then Antarctica.

        Also 610 ppm appears to be a lowball estimate that could come from just burning all the proven reserves and not tapping any new resources going forwards.

        Perhaps you ought to have specified those limitations from the start, instead of writing: 610 ppm does melt all the ice, so no comfort there.

      • MM, there aren’t limitations. Glaciers don’t survive 610 ppm, which is a lowball estimate anyway. I stated this very clearly.

      • Curious George

        Jim just knows. Take his word for granted.

      • SoF, when I mention glaciers, I use the term to refer to year-round ice. Can it snow at 600 ppm? Sure. Can ice stick around to form glaciers? No. Can glaciers survive 600 ppm summers without net annual ice loss? No. They will be in decline with consequent sea-level rises. 600 ppm takes us to a climate we have not had since 35 million years ago, prior to a frozen Antarctica.

      • @ Jim D
        The most important question you will ever be asked. What is there between science and fiction?

      • Scientific publications are your answer there. Look into them. I showed a couple of results from them.

      • No Jim D – you didn´t – what you see is inside your head.

      • You can have your denial, and I won’t step in your way. I gave you the reasons for my view, and you didn’t, and probably can’t, give any reason for yours.

      • I will let that be judged by no further comments.

      • You can judge for yourself whether or not you are evading reality. 600 ppm looks close to a critical value for not having any glaciers on earth. You don’t think it’s even possibly that. Fine.

      • By that figure, and your reasoning, we shouldn´t be having any N. hemisphere ice sheets now – at 400 ppm.

        And the source of that figure? The man who predicted this in 1988:
        If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
        – He: James Hansen

        Poor soul, your mind is being messed around with. Too much gaming – too little real world exeriences?

      • I think you’re right that at 400 ppm Greenland is marginal, and that is why it is bordering on net annual losses already. This is contributing significantly to the current sea-level rise rates that have now passed 3 mm/yr. So, yes, I agree. Last time we were much above 400 ppm was prior to the Ice Ages and northern glaciation in general. You are right to pay more attention to these types of figures. If you don’t like this one, find others. There are a couple more in this thread alone.

      • First of all – the ice isn´t disappearing:
        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/polar-ice-fraud-update/

        Second – the scale in your figure is 10^6 years, while human retrieval of CO2 that has been lost from the biosphere will only last a few 10^2 years. There is a 10^4 order of magnitude in difference between those scales.

        I don´t think you get the point that polar ice doesn´t melt momentaneously, and that human emission of CO2 can not last for hundreds of years because of limited reserves and resources and that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans will not last for much longer – unfortunately.

        Did you know that the temperature at the top of the Eifel tower in Paris (324 m) is on average 2 DegC lower than the temperature at the ground. Did you know that the ice cap on Greenland is at far higher altitudes than required for there to be an glacier, same at Antarctic.

        Even average July temperatures are well below freezing:
        https://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Greenland%20Ice%20Surface%20Temperature%20from%20MODIS_Lenticular_508%20Compliant.pdf

        Wathever happens, happens very slowly.

        And there is no acelleration in sea level rise.

      • Your source of information on glaciers appears to be a denialist blog. I can’t help you with that. Greenland is losing mass, and sea levels are rising faster as a consequence. This is not surprising given that the earth is in the midst of a significant warming phase not seen since the last deglaciation. The only question left is not whether there will be more acceleration, but how much more. Yes, the ice disappears gradually under warming, not immediately, and sea-level rise rates will also grow gradually. This is where the science is, and you don’t appear to disagree with that. Yes also, the earth can sequester the CO2 we emit, but not until we reduce the emission rate significantly will that prevent CO2 levels from steadily increasing. This is an argument for reducing the emission rate by at least half if we want to stabilize the CO2 and hence the climate.

      • Denialist???
        Who´s in denial:

      • From the DMI reference, “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” What do you make of that? That blog ignored this rather important tidbit of information, probably to mislead people, or maybe they just didn’t read the DMI page through, and don’t know about the importance of calving in the budget due to their limited knowledge levels.

      • Evading reality – are we?

      • JimD

        I think you are on rocky ground by associating Greenland ice/glacier melt with sea water rise caused by 400ppm CO2

        The Vikings were able to conquer much of Europe through the use of shallow bottomed, boats, as sea level and associated rivers, were somewhat higher then than today. Some say up to 10 feet others 3 feet. All complicated by land movement.

        This study by Columbia University is interesting

        http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/09/26/climate-change-some-lessons-from-the-vikings/

        I have just got back from nearby upland Dartmoor, There are dwellings-and associated agricultural remnants- there dating from the Bronze and MWP that are at heights that can not be sustained today.

        These are also recorded in presentations in their local study centres whereby both the Uk Govt via the Dartmoor National Park and The National Trust, confirm that temperatures were warmer than today during both these periods.

        Harlech Castle and other Welsh sea castles built by King Edward 800 years ago had sea gates to service them which are now high and dry without this being caused by land changes.

        We have hundreds of documents relating to those circumstances in the Met Office library and the archives which I have researched.

        Now, I am sure you will claim the Mwp was a ‘local’ rather than global occurrence (what about the warm Bronze age?) but nevertheless, farming in Greenland and higher sea levels than today in previous centuries, indicate that 400ppm is not a pre requisite for warmth.

        Incidentally I have previously quoted in one of my articles the experiences of Scoresby, the first Arctic scientist, who investigated the rapid disappearance of Artic ice in the early nineteenth century at the request of the Royal Society.

        He noted that glaciers in Greenland had receded.

        tonyb

      • tonyb, maybe you’re aware that the west side of Britain has been rising while the east side has been sinking. This is geological, not to be confused with sea-level rise. As always, local anecdotes can be very misleading if used to generalize to global conditions. Use with caution.

      • Jimd

        Surely you noticed that I mention land movement changes twice within a short reply?. Of course I am aware of it. You know perfectly well I am.

        Now, assuming I do know this and indeed took part in a ‘dig’ at Harlech castle, why not actually respond to the comments and link that I supplied. The Vikings, and upland dwellings nor the Welsh castles are hardly ‘anecdotal’ are they

        tonyb

      • tonyb, if you are acknowledging geological variations in coastal levels, what part of what you said applies to global sea levels? Surely you need hundreds of globally distributed sites to establish that, and some will be going up and others down. Has anyone done this work? Are there any parts of the world that are geologically stable enough to use them for direct sea-level data? These are the questions you should be asking.

      • JimD, “the west side of Britain has been rising while the east side has been sinking”

        Whether he visits the West or East of Britain, I pray that sufficient good sense remains in these isles to box JimD’s ears.

      • @ Jim D
        Asking questions are we? That´s a start!

        “That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.” – Jacob Bronowski

      • SoF, you can go to Tony Heller’s site where he has a comment section and politely point out to him that his DMI reference has a significant net loss for Greenland when they consider calving. Depending on his level of honesty he will either (a) correct his error, thank you for pointing it out and apologize to his readers for misleading them about Greenland, or (b) bury your comment and ban you from his site. Which will happen? Try it and report back.

      • Is that still you Jim D? You seem different?

      • “DMI reference has a significant net loss for Greenland when they consider calving.”
        First – I would like to see the data you refer to – link please.

      • It’s the DMI link in Heller’s link that you gave. Clearly he didn’t read that far, or did and didn’t want his readers to know about it. Which do you think? The net loss is 200 Gt/yr which works out to 0.5 mm/yr of sea level when spread globally. Not a small amount.

      • “SoF, you can go to Tony Heller’s site where he has a comment section and politely point out to him that his DMI reference has a significant net loss for Greenland when they consider calving.”

        Or, I can point out to the intellectually lazy Jim D – that the average discharge rate (D) (1991 – 2015) has been estimated to 477 +- 51 Gt yr^-1 .

        So the 2016-2017 Surface Mass Balance of approximately 550 Gt yr^-1 may seem to have caused a positive ice sheet mass balance (MB). A positive balance means more ice in the Greenland ice sheet.

        (Ice sheet mass balance (MB) is the difference between surface mass balance (SMB) and solid ice discharge across the grounding line (D).)

        And suddenly the hypothesis of accelerating ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet does not seem to be supported by the data any more. I´m sure they are working on an adjustment to the data that we will soon hear about.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303553979_On_the_recent_contribution_of_the_Greenland_ice_sheet_to_sea_level_change

      • Not sure how you get that. The last sentence in their abstract is entirely consistent with other studies showing that Greenland contributes a lot to sea-level rise.
        “… the GrIS has recently become a major source of global mean sea level rise.”
        And the paper was published in 2016, so your 2016-17 number is not there, of course. You can send Tony Heller the info about the D term, because he seems unaware that discharge is important to the mass balance, and has been dominating since the 1990’s. At least skeptics are taking an interest in the Greenland loss and no longer denying it, which is a step forwards.

      • And what was the last year of data included in that study?

      • Some time in 2018, we will get the net total for 2017, not before. This will also include the loss in 2017 that I don’t think you have added yet, making the same mistake as Heller. Also remember to post the new decadal average which will remain solidly negative and gives a comparison point for the DMI number of 200 Gt/yr net loss. Decadal nets are important for climate trends and sea level.

      • Jim D, I´m not your messenger. If you got something to tell Tony Heller I suggest that you tell him yourself.

        Point is that, the last couple of years are not consistent with the idea of accelerating ice loss and accelerating sea level rise. Actually, there seem to be no ice loss and no sea level rise. Something we haven´t heard about in the media.

      • I am pointing out that he is taking you for a ride by only providing partial information that ends up making you look bad when you link to him with that as some kind of proof. You can do what you want with that, but don’t blame me for putting you right on the sign of the Greenland mass balance. Things have changed for Greenland since the 90’s, and not in a good way.

      • Ok – before we proceed – can we at least agree that the Greenland ice sheet will not melt immidiately?

        Greenland ice sheet km^3 2,85E+06
        Greenland ice sheet m^3 2,85E+15
        Yearly ice loss tonn 2E+11
        m^3 2E+11
        Number of years for the Greenland ice cap to melt at current rate:
        years 1,4E+04
        Sea level rise for all ice m 7,2E+00
        Sea level rise/year m 5,1E−04

        In other words – at the estimated current rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice cap it would take 14 000 years for the ice sheet to melt. Yearly sea level rice for the current estimated ice loss from the Greenland ice cap is 0,0005 m/year. That is 0,5 mm/year.

        Who cares? – and why? – humans adapt – we will not drown! Even a stilt house can be safe for a hundred years by increasing stilt length by 5 cm! But the life time of a stilt house is more like 20 years, so 1 cm would be enough.

        Your original claim, if it is true, lacks at least one perspective, and that is the perspective of time:
        “610 ppm does melt all the ice, so no comfort there. Best to leave as much as possible in the ground, especially coal, and not to exploit other dirty sources like oil/tar sands, nor go after methane from coastal clathrates.”

      • Greenland’s trend is just starting. Consistently with the past, 400 ppm is not supportive of its continued presence. Likewise 600 ppm for Antarctica as I have been saying. As CO2 levels increase, so do sea-level rise rates.
        Another lesson here is that people like Tony Heller take you for schmucks that won’t check it when they imply Arctic ice is stable in today’s conditions. You need to do your own homework and not take their word for it. The WWW is awash with these sites designed to mislead the unwitting. You need to protest to them in no uncertain terms when they lead you down the garden path like this. That’s why I suggest you, or others here, go to his site and ask those questions about calving and Greenland’s net loss rate that already contributes a significant fraction of sea-level rise. Argue it out with him. He’ll appreciate that you’re not just sheep.

      • Come on Jim D – you are the last person eligible to speak like that. Your comments are full of unfounded claims. :) :) :)
        Why have you not raised your questions directly to him?

      • I really don’t care what Heller says, and you shouldn’t either, but you chose to believe him, and repeating his drivel may work at the Thanksgiving table, but it doesn’t when you discuss it with people more familiar with the subject and data where you just end up having to backtrack. Take this out with him, not me. He’s the one that fooled you.

      • You don´t like Ton Heller findings – so you choose to ignore his findings and go with the herd.

        Since you can not explain why correction for urban heating creates a warmer trend – and not a cooler trend!

        And why the so-called homeogenization and the so called Time Of OBservation correction creates a warming trend.

        And finally why the sum of the adjustments correlates perfectly with increasing CO2 levels.

        Since you can not put forward a sound argument for this result you just choose to ignore there kind of results. I´m not surprised, because that is the common response: Ignorance, silence, or smoke and mirrors.

        Ref:
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/co2-drives-ncdc-data-tampering/

      • Anyone who understands the TOB correction knows it only creates a warming trend in certain time zones, not globally. The US is only 2% of the earth’s surface, so TOB has little effect on the global trend. Try another one.

      • That is not the point. The point is that there seems to be something seriously wrong with the way the measurements are adjusted.

      • McIntyre goes with the adjustment on this. This led to a major falling out with Watts, who is not really much of a statistician by comparison, and also more politically motivated, so the skeptics have a division among themselves on that: politics versus statistics. Interesting case study.

      • @ Jim D
        Names don´t enter into it.
        What you see in front of you is data.
        That data happens to indicate that there is something seriously wrong with the adjustments of the measurements.

        What you demonstrates on the other hand, is a lack of intellectual honesty.

      • A useful link for you. It is a bias known about since 1977. Before you dismiss it, you need to look at the reasoning.
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281977%29016%3C0215%3ATOOTBA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      • You totally don´t get it. This is:
        Not about time of observation, alone.
        Not about urban heat effect, alone.
        Not about station moves, alone.
        Not instrument changes, alone
        Not about the homeogenization routines, alone.
        This is about the combined result of all known and possibly unknown adjustments that has been done to a set of measurements. As it turns out – the sum of the adjustments correlates almost perfectly with the growth in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        As Tony Heller wrote when he first reported his finding: “I wish I could say the data below is a joke, but it isn’t.”

        One intellectual honest reaction to that finding would be to say: That finding indicates a deliberate or accidential bias in the adjustment routines. That finding cries for an independent review of both the finding and the adjustment routines. The reason for that finding needs to be understood. If that correlation happen to be an accidental result of perfectly sound adjustment routines – fine. But, the people deserve to know that for sure.

        And don´t come with the peer review argument. I can show you peer reviewed articles that are a complete farce. Peer review is no guarantee that an article is true in all aspects. This is perfectly expressed by the following quote:
        «I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so. Some of my reviews for CC [the Journal Climatic Change] could be called into question!» UEA’s renowned Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones
        http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2486.txt

        (Climatic Change: is An Interdisciplinary, International Journal Devoted to the Description, Causes and Implications of Climatic Change)

      • Take that up with McIntyre and Watts. That is a split on the skeptic side that needs a resolution before you can move on. Try making your case on WUWT and Climate Audit and see where it gets you.

      • Again – you totally don´t get it.
        Skeptic´s are not a group.

        «Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.»
        – Michael Crichton

      • The skeptics aren’t a group. That’s for sure. They don’t even believe each other’s efforts. Every one is their own Galileo. Wonderful.

      • I’m with you Jim. Do your own research. In fact, after I did my own research I began to find out what a bunch obscurantist schmucks the warmists are. On issue after issue, I was told no, no nothing there, the skeptics are all wrong, these are the only true facts. Then I would dig down, really deep, and invariably there were other sides to the story. Not necessarily proving the skeptics right, but showing the warmists were either ignorant of the facts or trying to deceive. I’m not moved by the Arctic Sea Ice situation. But I know that history shows previous warm periods and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a recovery in the next few years.

      • See, if Greenland were to be accumulating more ice than it is losing, the Greenland component in this graph would be a wee bit smaller:

        Here at CargoCult Etc. crap passes every smell test.

      • @JCH – Can you identify the source for that figure?

      • https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/19/week-in-review-science-edition-73/#comment-861800

        If the global ice sheets were losing more ice than they gained – the sea level would not stop rising:

        The last few years – both the amount of ice and the sea level seem to have been pretty stable.

        Here is the Feynman lecture on Cargo Cult Science by the way:
        http://www.sealevel.info/feynman_cargo_cult_science2.html

      • JCH – Can you identify the source for that figure? …

        It’s from this recent paper on sea level rise.

      • Jim D | November 26, 2017 at 1:29 pm |

        McIntyre goes with the adjustment on this. This led to a major falling out with Watts, who is not really much of a statistician by comparison, and also more politically motivated, so the skeptics have a division among themselves on that: politics versus statistics. Interesting case study.

        I really, really hate these kinds of uncited, unreferenced allegations. If you wish to claim that Steve and Andrew had a “falling out”, then you owe it to your readers, and even more so to your own reputation, to provide some EVIDENCE for your claim.

        Because as it stands, you are nothing but a nasty gossip spreading trouble and division with your stories …

        w.

      • Google McIntyre Watts TOB and this is one link. I am sure there are others.
        https://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html
        Apparently Watts came around to McIntyre’s view on TOB, but that paper was never published probably because TOB destroyed the point Watts wanted to make with it. Anyway, the fruity gossip was that McIntyre would not sign up as a co-author unless Watts agreed to do the TOB. I can see how that mattered a lot to him as a credibility issue.

      • FWIW, McIntyre’s view of this debacle. He was not keen on Watts using his name as a co-author without TOB.
        https://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/

      • I did not say sea level would stop rising. The graph shows the sources of the rise in sea level: the Greenland ice sheet; the Antarctica ice sheet; terrestrial water storage; glaciers; thermal expansion.

        One of the biggest sources on the graph is water from the Greenland ice sheet. That component would go negative if Greenland was gaining ice, which it is not.

        Look at the bullet points. 1 plus 2 = SMB; SMB minus three = ice gained/lost. It’s losing an average of the 200 GT per year over the last ten years, and that is why component of the graph sourced to Greenland is so large.

        Or, scientist are lying. Good gawd.

      • And which year do your graph end?

      • What is the deal with Greenland? Is it gaining, is that gain fake news?

        “But this summer has instead seen several bouts of snow, staving off a big summer melt. So what gives?”
        http://www.climatecentral.org/news/despite-summer-snow-greenland-still-melting-21643
        This points to a gain.

        “While it may seem contradictory, those snows are actually something Greenland may see more of with global warming, as the atmosphere becomes primed to dump more heavy precipitation. And while that snow may insulate the ice sheet against major melt this year, focusing on one summer risks missing the forest for the trees.”
        This points to a gain because it needs to be dismissed as noise.

      • So now they’re telling little white lies. LMAO.

      • So is the Greenland ice gain in 2017 fake news?
        “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

      • From the article o which you linked:

        “We’re still pumping a lot of ice” out to sea, Marco Tedesco, who studies Greenland at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said. …

        So once again, bullet points one and two are netted:

        The two first contributions make up the surface mass balance. DMI

        The graph is question is labelled SMB: surface mass balance (1 and 2)

        and then, according what they are saying, bullet point three is subtracted (calving and meltwater that made it to the ocean):

        Three processes determine whether the ice sheet grows or diminishes. Accumulation of snow on top increases mass. In time, the snow is transformed to ice that flows down through the ice sheet and out towards the margins. Melt in the lower regions of the ice sheet and iceberg calving from glaciers reduces the mass. If mass loss exceeds mass gain the ice sheet will shrink. ….

        So it’s possible the ice sheet will not shrink in 2017, and you will know this because the scientists you’ve impugned will tell us. Tedesco seems to think it will be a net loss. November in Greenland has been very hot, but it’s very cold at the top of the ice sheet. Much of the melt up there refreezes before hitting the oceans. Around the perimeter, the melting is relentless, and it often makes it to the ocean before it refreezes.

      • And which year do your graph end? …

        It doesn’t really matter. Greenland has contributed to SLR in all years in the graph, so that means that any growth in SMB is usually offset by melting around the perimeter of Greenland. Right now, November 2017, the perimeter is hot, so I would suspect there is aggressive ice loss happening right now.

        One cannot know whether or not the ice sheet has grown or shrunk in 2017 until the year ends and all the data is in. The graph in question is only 2/3rds of the steps to the final answer.

        That there will be additional snowfall on the Greenland ice sheet with warming was discussed at RealClimate like almost a decade ago. It was a scientist named Mauri Pelto.

      • JCH:

        I’d prefer one number to sum it all up. 2016-2017 looked to be a good year too. I claimed SLR had paused according to AVISO. This overlaps with the good SMB.

      • You can prefer whatever you want, the final number takes a long time to produce.

        More of the pause nonsense. If the Greenland component of SLR has gone negative, the AVISO SLR graph would instantly go sharply negative.

        Far below the 3.29 mm/yr trend.

        It has remained above trend for a record number of months in a row, which means all components are clicking along vigorously. That you can see some sort of silver lining in that row of black clouds is just astounding.

        I’m going to check on the progress of my new guitar.

      • Greenland. The place where Easterbrook, 2016, said in the past 500 years temperatures have fluctuated back and forth between warming and cooling about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years?
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000082

      • AVISO SLR.
        “The reference mean sea level (Topex/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason-3) since January 1993 (left) is calculated after removing the annual and semi-annual signals.”

        I imagine Greenland’s gains and losses can be less dramatic and have momentum.

      • Greenland. The place that P. Chylek, et al 2006 concluded “….we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperatures caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.”

      • Greenland. The place that NASA has identified where the ice sheet is being melted from below due to geothermal activity adding another complicating factor in deciding what is affecting the SMB.
        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-first-map-of-thawed-areas-under-greenland-ice-sheet

      • Don’t know what the Tab is all about, but I actually invented a version of tab that many guitar players use. It’s great for transcribing complicated solos off of recordings, which is a hobby of mine.

      • Melting from below? Great. Yet another reason why you are lost.

      • Greenland. Where Box and Colgan (2013) found total mass deficit for 1900-1940.

      • Greenland. Where Enderlin (2014) found a diminishing contribution of ice discharge from 58% of total loss before 2005 to 32% between 2009 and 2012. Further that 84% of the increase in mass loss after 2009 was due to increased surface runoff. Which implies that the SMB is becoming the big enchilada and as it increases, so goes down the tube contributions to SLR.

      • Another melting from below denier. Take up your doubts with NASA and the authors of scientific peer reviewed papers that have identified massive geothermal activity laying under the Ice Sheet. Next on your doubt list should be the geothermal activity in West Antarctica adding to the inherent instability of those ice shelves and glaciers.

      • In 1903, even before Cher, they were talking about Greenland.

      • And in 1939, even before Elvis, they had coined the phrase “catastrophic collapse” when talking about Greenland. So exactly what is new?

    • Jim D Wake up. There is little relationship between CO2 and temperature over ice age periods. See
      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
      However economic recessions followed each oil spike since WWII. See:
      Historical Oil Shocks* James D. Hamilton
      jhamilton@ucsd.edu Department of Economics University of California, San Diego Revised: February 1, 2011
      ABSTRACT

      This paper surveys the history of the oil industry with a particular focus on the events associated with significant changes in the price of oil. Although oil was used much differently and was substantially less important economically in the nineteenth century than it is today, there are interesting parallels between events in that era and more recent developments. Key post-World-War-II oil shocks reviewed include the Suez Crisis of 1956-57, the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-1974, the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979, the Iran-Iraq War initiated in 1980, the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, and the oil price spike of 2007-2008. Other more minor disturbances are also discussed, as are the economic downturns that followed each of the major postwar oil shocks.

      http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/oil_history.pdf
      CO2 is plant food. Most Americans are far more concerned over economic recessions than any concern over better feeding of plants.

      • In your first link, I noticed the Peak CO2 levels of 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period around 550 million years ago. That reminded my of something called the Cambrian explosion – bingo:
        “The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively short span event, occurring approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record. Lasting for about the next 20–25 million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla. Additionally, the event was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.” – Wikipedia

        As it turns out, fossil fuel seems to be the greenest fuel there is. Quite brilliant really, to retrieve at least a tiny bit of the CO2 that has been lost from the biosphere over time.

        However, the greens doesn´t seem to like that – neither do the reds in the United Nations.

      • Even your link destroys your point by attributing a cooling period to declining CO2. On top of that, your figure for CO2 and temperature, although pretty, has long been debunked as based originally on a speculative hand-drawing. Further, the sun was several percent weaker, so that several doublings of CO2, that is thousands of ppm, would be required for even attaining current temperatures 300 or more million years ago. These details are things the skeptics need to familiarize themselves with if they want to keep up to date with the science.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D So when I cite climate ALARMIST showing geological CO2-Temperature data contradicting your CO2-Temperature hypothesis it becomes invalid??? (His argument does not logically follow from the graph) Re “speculative hand-drawing” See http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg for original references to Science etc. Try applying the scientific method including to Test All Things rather than ad hominem attacks denigrating evidence.

      • There are better versions more recently usually showing confidence levels with error bars, while in yours the thinness of the lines indicates a deceptive level of confidence making it a scientifically rather more like a cartoon sketch than a graph. Skeptics should be all over that. Meanwhile the article completely neglects the slow solar increase that is known to have occurred for astrophysical reasons, and that explains why high CO2 values in the past are not directly equivalent to the same values today. It is a fallacy of argument by ignorance to not include a major factor like solar trends. All factors have to be considered – continental drift too, as you go back hundreds of millions of years otherwise you can severely mislead yourself.

      • Note I call it argument by ignorance, which is not the same as argument from ignorance. I define argument by ignorance as making an argument based on ignorance of a major relevant fact. I am not sure if there is an official name for this fallacy. The closest is cherry-picking, but not quite the same thing because that assumes knowledge of the conflicting evidence, not ignorance of it.

      • Jim

        This paper by Royer (2009) more properly links ancient CO2 levels with temp.
        Graph on page 20.

        “Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future”

        http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf

      • It is not really a paper is it Banton? It is a presentation that includes something from a 2004 paper more or less faithfully recreated.

        But we were talking sea level rise – and apparently ‘my 5 million year’ Hansen curve is not good enough for Jimmy.

        Glacials and interglacials are the result largely of ice sheet dynamics. The result of – presumably – orbits, freshwater inflows to the Arctic, AMOC, summer snow survival and whatever else may have been missed. The albedo change results in a change of some 25 W/m2 in SW radiative forcing at TOA. Biokinetics dictate that CO2 follows warming – some 2 W/m2 from glacial max to interglacial. Ice sheet dynamics do of course have an immense role in Earth climate at any time in the deep past. It is chaotic all the way down.

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

        Something that science says a lot about but that these guys don’t quite grok. Grok goes to the ability to cognitively process dissonant information. Theirs goes way beyond ignorance to a wildly aberrant group dynamic.

      • RIE, yes, we all agree with the Milankovitch ice/albedo/orbital mechanism, so you don’t have to keep repeating this. It is nothing new or mysterious. What the skeptics have largely missed is that the longer term ice and ice-free periods are explained by CO2 levels that themselves are explained by geological and solar variations in the last billion years. Tony Banton found a good link summarizing that part.

      • In the last 20,000 years the planetary temperature was a response to ice sheet dynamics. The numbers say that CO2 varied from 170 to 280 ppm – although that is a faux precision it does show that CO2 is a minor component that biokinetics dictate is a feedback to warming from ice sheet decline. Which itself is by far the largest source of sea level rise. This is abundantly obvious – even in the ‘Hansen curve’ I linked. Runaway ice sheet feedbacks seem not to require much in the way of CO2 increase.

        This is a planetary response to minor changes in control variables. Although I suspect that the complexity of the globally coupled flow field goes well beyond the little narratives told to each other by blogospheric obsessives. An example of this is Jimmy’s little narratives here. Reality is far more interesting – if far less certain.

        “Evidence is presented supporting the hypothesis of polar synchronization, which states that during the last ice age, and likely in earlier times, millennial-scale temperature changes of the north and south Polar Regions were coupled and synchronized. The term synchronization as used here describes how two or more coupled nonlinear oscillators adjust their (initially different) natural rhythms to a common frequency and constant relative phase. In the case of the Polar Regions heat and mass transfer through the intervening ocean and atmosphere provided the coupling. As a working hypothesis, polar synchronization brings new insights into the dynamic processes that link Greenland’s Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) abrupt temperature fluctuations to Antarctic temperature variability.” http://www.ajsonline.org/content/312/4/417.abstract

        Your mission – embraced obsessively – is in constantly repeating simplistic nonsense to demonstrate your moral and intellectual superiority over deniers – a telling term. They are memes – they are stories told to buttress a group based psychological dynamic that clearly has elements of groupthink.

        Janis listed 8 symtoms of groupthink.

        “1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
        2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
        3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
        4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
        5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
        6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
        7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
        8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.”

        Although you obviously can’t recognize the behavior for what it is – nonetheless all the symptom boxes are ticked. In a practical sense it means that you have an inflexible meme set over a range of collective concerns. In terms of discussion of the natural science of the Earth system – it means that both you and Banton are a complete waste of everyone’s time here.

      • David L. Hagen

        Judith Curry highlights 2015 paper: “Causal Feedbacks in Climate Change”

        “We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice-core data that, over glacial–interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

        CO2-Temperature is a small part of the glaciation warming / freezing cycle. Milankovitch is not dominant. What then causes the freezing? Can we create enough global warming to compensate and prevent the next big freeze? A mile thick ice sheet through Chicago will harm far more than a foot higher water in New York.
        http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/15_causal_feedbacks_climate.pdf

  29. From Science of Doom, I thought it was pretty good:

    “Economic models are not very good at predicting anything. As Herbert Stein said, summarizing a lifetime in economics:

    * Economists do not know very much
    * Other people, including the politicians who make economic policy, know even less about economics than economists do.”

    They were talking about the physics we know and what that means for policy. We have politicians making policy using climate science. Kind of makes a libertarian look smart.

  30. “Accurate seasonal and decadal predictions of tropical cyclone activity are essential for the development of mitigation strategies for the 2.7 billion residents living within cyclone prone regions. The traditional indices (Southern Oscillation Index and various sea surface temperature indices) have fallen short in recent years as seasonal predictors within the Australian region. The short length of these records (i.e., <50 years) has meant that our current knowledge of larger-scale drivers at interdecadal, centennial, and millennial scales is limited. The development of a new tropical cyclone activity index spanning the last 1500 years has enabled the examination of tropical cyclone climatology at higher temporal resolution than was previously possible. Here we show that in addition to other well-known climate indices, solar forcing largely drives decadal, interdecadal, and centennial cycles within the tropical cyclone record." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068012/abstract;jsessionid=68EAFFC7317FB8E4CAFD4AD917BFA0AC.f04t02

    Jonathan Nott is Australia's leading paleo cyclone and tsunami guy. I have read a lot from him over the years.

    https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/jonathan.nott/

    La Nina bring frequent and intense cyclones and rainfall to Australia and some 2 billion others. This century is likely to see a transition from a 1000 year peak in El Nino intensity and frequency – if not a complete reversal of the mid-Holocene transition from El Nino to La Nina dominance. It appears to be solar modulated. Extremes before the 20th century were much more extreme.


    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

    Only data and the long view matters. We can compare this with Jimmy D's pontifications on both mechanism – anthropogenically warming oceans that itself is minor and highly uncertain – and on absurdly short term data that fails by a vast margin to be definitive. That this nonsense continues to get an airing is preposterous – let alone with the frequency of repetition we see here.

  31. Non-climate science: I’ve got something wrong with my shoulder which has affected the middle ring and little finger on my left hand, so much so that I’ve been having trouble playing the guitar. This comment is the third person complaining of the same thing this week.

    I’ve plotted a graph. Unless something is done immediately the entire human race will be suffering from SRFT* within three years. Something must be done.

    (The problem improves after a few months.)

    JF
    *Shoulder-related finger trouble.

    • interesting (not to mention a bummer). I have numb little and 4th finger (ulnar nerve) but also middle finger (which is a different nerve)

      • Judith and Julian

        Are these computer related injuries?

        http://www.advancechiro.on.ca/common-computer-related-injuries/

        Sounds rather like carpal tunnel syndrome, amongst other things.

        tonyb

      • Cubital tunnel. Irritation at the elbow of the ulnar nerve.

        Could be any where, but elbow is most likely. Shoulder pain is probably a follow on effect from guarding behavior (causing unconscious muscle responses and minor spine issues from uneven loading and wear.)

        Ice is wonderful. Play around with it at different spots on the wrist, elbow, shoulder and shoulder blade. Treat it like at drug though, don’t do it too much or too often.

        Also try arnica gel where there is inflammation. Lately I’ve been using arnica gel and then taking ibuprofen ~40min later.

        I’ve been told to look into ketoprofen.

        I’m also considering prolo or PRP. Someone I know had good results after a severe shoulder injury.

        Nerve pain is a wicked mess. Nerve pain affects sleep which prevents healing (which is very slow for nerves to begin with).

        My pain started at wrist. Then elbow. Then shoulder. Mine started well over a decade ago has gotten progressively worse and snowballed in recent years. Also compounded by traumatic arthritis and torn and strained ligaments in hand, causing grinding on the arthritis. Don’t worry, yours is likely to get better. I’m pretty unique. I started having issues in my early 20s.

        IIRC the middle finger is partially the ulnar nerve. Also part of the base of the thumb.

        If I do drugs, I usually take them before bed (particularly pain meds, which aren’t very good for the actual nerve pain itself), just before I fall asleep. I also splint my elbow by wearing a skate board elbow pad backwards to prevent bending it too much while I sleep.

      • good grief an epidemic. Mine is C6/7, probably triggered by something in the shoulder.

      • Irritation at the elbow of the ulnar nerve.

        Switching the pre-dinner martini to the opposite hand is the best cure.

      • Did that about 12yrs ago.

      • Perhaps he should have inhaled.

        Neuropathic pain is moderated through the CB1 receptors in the brain – and inflammation via the CB2 receptors. Cannabis is low risk – according to my doctor – for responsible adults. What I have found recently is that it is good for the common cold. Not quite a cure – but much better than being sick and sorry.

        Very much preferable to the oxycodone I was prescribed for tendon damage – but now I have an image in my head of Judith with a bong.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Judith,
        Finger to finger Teleconnection?
        I have had annoying to severe pain without the typing so much, for the last 6 years. Involves neck, arm, smallest finger, plus lower back.
        Mine might involve sleep posture. Wishes for you to get well soon. Geoff

      • Thanks for the thought REI, but that’s not an option.

        I do have a bone fragment in ulnar wrist. I want to get it out, but Drs. don’t want to just do that, they want to do the whole shebang (removing and fusing bones) if they do anything at all. I think it’s a very bad idea. Drs. don’t think fragment is causing nerve problems. I think they’re wrong.

        I think they misdiagnosed subluxation and neuropathy at elbow (and did surgery) because that’s the go to for symptoms that aren’t caused by radiculopathy. Despite symptoms first presenting at wrist.

        I think I had an undiagnosed break, the rest was just my body not knowing how to deal with the bone fragment. Ultimately leading to ligament tear (muscle and tendons becoming tight and rigid) that caused arthritis to snowball and now causing carpal tunnel issues. Have some c6/c7 wear, but I’m sure it is a result of pain and only a feedback and not cause (spine MRIs were clean for many years when problem were pursued).

        I think scarring is a concern with surgery for wrist/hand and given poor outcome/response to elbow surgery, it’s not impossible even removing the fragment will make things worse.

        If anyone has ideas know about minimal invasive hand wrist surgery/improvement, that might be able to repair ligament… I’m open to suggestions.

      • Aaron

        I am so sorry. I will mention you in my prayers is what I can do. Ask for nothing less than a miracle. Something seems to be happening to all my friends – no longer are we immortal and invincible. We are all only around 60.

        I have fragmented feet bones – and just between you and me – I have essentially been bed bound for a couple of years. Walking seems no longer an option. I have one of these.

        It is pretty sporty. I have taken off a kerb at full speed – and landed flat on my face in the street trapped under the chair. Why stop making mistakes at this late stage? But my smarter self always says to avoid surgery.

        Cheers
        Bobby

      • Thanks Robert, sorry about the chair, but glad you’re having fun with it. 60s is a bit early for that.

        I’m mostly good, but writing and computer use put me out of sorts pretty fast (it’s the little things). I’m pretty fit and active otherwise, just can’t run or bike too much or the arthritis gets irritated from the impact. Sometimes sailing when it’s too light or too heavy can be a problem. Pain sucks, but well… first world problems.

        Sucks happening not even being 40 yet, but I’m also doing better than a lot of people my age in other ways, and I work with good people who are trying to help me out.

      • I definitely agree on avoiding surgery, except for maybe the cute surgical nursing student sitting across from me…

      • Aaron

        I count my blessings.

        Cheers

  32. Judith,

    My right hand is 70% useless (shoulder/nerve problem), this has been going on for 5 weeks. Fun!

    I’d blame it on the US climate. Move to Australia. You’d feel much better for it. :)

  33. Maybe try left-hand mousing for a while. Get well soon anyway

  34. My two latest Bonn COP articles. Much afoot.

    “Compensation for other people’s weather inches forward at UN climate summit”

    The UN is slowly moving toward using attribution studies to define liability and compensation by the US and other developed countries.
    http://www.cfact.org/2017/11/16/compensation-for-climate-victims-inches-forward-at-un-climate-summit/

    “Poor nations demanding cash threatens Paris Agreement”

    Pressing the developed countries too hard, too soon may backfire.
    http://www.cfact.org/2017/11/17/poor-nations-demanding-cash-threatens-paris-agreement/

    Enjoy!

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

  35. Dr Curry, thank you for this collection of readings. I am sorry to hear about your hand and arm problem. Get well soon!

    • Take dare of yourself, Dr Judith Curry, Defender of the
      Open Society … Try physio, sports chiro, tai chi, what
      ever it takes, you need two strong arms in your fight
      for science and justice and the George Washington –
      American – Way … Then, once more into the fray!

  36. Sorry about your hand Dr Curry. I am not a scientist. I love climat science and follow your blog everyday, Merci et bon travail!

  37. “One computer-stumping question is called the number partitioning problem: If you had a pile of millions of very large numbers and wanted to divide them into two equal piles, how would you do it? The math is so difficult that it’s been considered as a practical basis for cryptography. ”

    “This near-zero value, which Einstein referred to as the Cosmological Constant, implies that the balance between energy contributions from different fields related to fundamental universal forces somehow got sorted out well enough that we ended up with a fairly stable material universe. In essence, we live in a particular solution to partitioning.”
    – a WUWT article

    On Earth, we live in a particular climate solution. The computation of which is quite difficult.

    Somewhere someone said we need 1000 times more computing power.

    • “If you had a pile of millions of very large numbers and wanted to divide them into two equal piles, how would you do it?”
      Simple, odd and even numbers.

      Providing the numbers are not purely prime numbers or some other device.
      Saw a good u tube on cryptography gambling and probability which explained how to to use a cryptography key to allow one to refer to the exact number in each huge pile last night but that is not needed here.

      Or one could use the infinite hotels room strategy for infinite piles.

      In practice if they were all very large numbers one could just divide the piles into two without counting them up at all and still expect a reasonable approximation. It would save a lot of computer time in trying to add them all up.

      Not to mention that taking the biggest number and the smallest number and adding them together then dividing them by 2 should give a good approximation of the average of the total numbers.

  38. ““The minute that perceived threat exceeds perceived efficacy [the ability to effectively respond], then people begin to control their fear instead of the danger and they reject the message,” she says in The Use of Fear Appeals…” – Kim Witte

    So I wondered, does this diagram:

    capture the climate debate? On the skeptics said, we have a lot of message rejection.

    • You were duped by the paws. Some day you’ll come to grips with it. Lots of people were.

    • “ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

      The pause – solar mediated as it is – is about to become a rout. So sad too bad.

      • The ENSO beat changed from 6 to 7 years to 2 to 5 years around the turn of the 20th century. Along with the 30 year periodicity in the Pacific in both hemispheres –
        is the clearest demonstration of the stochastically forced resonance of the system long suspected as an origin of low frequency climate variability. And there is a whole diverse literature on both dynamical mechanisms and a solar UV trigger for modulating quasi standing waves in the Earth flow field at scales from minutes to millennia.

        But it simply the fact of the endless repetition of twaddle from climate fanatics that I have been complaining about today. We have seen it all before – so much – and it doesn’t improve with time. The comment above seems a relatively representative sample of meaningless twaddle.

        A real scientific understanding derives from comparing and contrasting ideas from a variety of sources, assessing the limits of data reliability and critiquing methodology. They are incapable of anything of the sort. It is all fake science.

      • JCH “there was no paws. The paws fooled a lot of very smart people.”

        If there was no pause then it could not have fooled anyone??
        November was cold, one month back for the good guys from my point of view, let’s hope December and January follow suit so we get a roll going. It has taken a long time.

  39. The people who believe in AGW caused by CO2 are the people who are denying science. The science of thermalization, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy, and, quantum mechanics explain why CO2, in spite of being IR active (AKA a ghg) does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

    Failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is a distressing mistake but is dwarfed by the potential disasters of failing to attend to what is happening that actually does. Discover the three factors in an equation which matches the measured average global temperature trend 98% 1895-2016. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . This blog/analysis also explains how CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

    The still-rising water vapor (WV) is rising at 1.5% per decade which is more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback, engineering definition). The rising WV coincides with rising irrigation. The warming (WV is IR active, AKA a ghg) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring as a result of declining net effect of ocean surface temperature cycles and a declining proxy which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?

  40. I am going to say that Bloomberg is not a denier source. Here, they are not sweeping costs under the carpet, or extolling the wonder of renewables:

    https://www.bna.com/germanys-energy-transition-n57982087949/

    Let’s talk about how fast it’s happening. Some in Germany are urging a slower approach which is what I think we should do in the United States. Germany’s grid was not built for renewables. I’d say you can’t ignore a third of the costs of renewables which includes grid improvements for a different type of source.

    • I don’t know that we need a slower approach, just more balanced. We were prudent in letting Germany do the experiment for us, but we are pretty far from where diversifying our energy supply will add major costs. A big part of our problem is how we’ve gone about it, where the polarization and huge push for renewables beyond reason have lead to sketchy accounting and financial boondoggles without producing much actual generation.

    • Ragnaar: “Some in Germany are urging a slower approach which is what I think we should do in the United States. ”

      I recall A. J. P. Taylor’s history of Germany, which documents a descent into collective insanity/catastrophe every half-century or so. I think the Energiewende is best understood in these terms.

  41. Judith: The Kinesis Advantage keyboard is an ergonomic design meant for people who have physical problems with regular keyboards. It’s reviewed on Kevin Kelly’s Cool Tools site (a wonderful site to follow) at:
    http://kk.org/cooltools/kinesis-advanta/

    Kinesis also sells a less radical Freestyle 2 keyboard, which I use. It is split, and the facing edges of both sides can be raised to match the natural slant of ones hands at a keyboard.

  42. Bill, “What’s new?”
    Sam, “C over lambda.”

  43. “Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) issued an alert on Tuesday for a La Nina weather event next month, saying the chance it would take place was triple the normal likelihood.”

    Lots of blue down there.

    • “while certain events and impacts are expected to occur during events, it is not certain or guaranteed that they will occur.” [Wikipedia, La_Niña]

    • Climate models suggest that any event is likely to be weak and short-lived. This means it is expected to be very different to the strong 2010–12 La Niña.

      A La Niña event, this would be two in a row, will do nothing, just like the last one did nothing. The paws is dead. Warming continues unabated.

  44. Judith, hope your shoulder nerve impingment heals. Two personal anecdotes. I had hereditary carpal tunnel exacerbated by years of axe splitting firewoord on the farm. Pain was in the elbows but the hand paralysis was mainly thumb and first two fingers. Surgical correction to both hands fixed pain and reversed part of paralysis—an excuse for my bad handwriting to this day. Patricia had severe neck pain after a ski accident. U Miami recommended a four vertebra neck fusion with no guarantee, whichnwould have ended her golf game. I insisted on a second opinion from MAYO. Turns out was a partly torn tendon under left scapula irritating nerve that manifested pain at neck. Complete U Miami misdiagnosis from the head of the department. MAYO surgically repaired the tendon via minimally invasive procedure and problem was fully solved. Layman’s anecdotal conclusion: nerve problems are very weird things, and second opinions are very good things.

  45. “A Cold Welcome….” is a fascinating study of Little Ice Age conditions faced by settlers of the new world, particularly in the early 17th century. The miserable weather profoundly affected the success of early colonists in eastern America – cold weather was critical in driving Spanish colonists from more northern settlements to southern colonies like St. Augustine.

    The book was reviewed by the NYT. The reviewer couldn’t help highlighting the authors totally gratuitous observation that colonial settlers were hapless climate victims while, today, our global warming miseries are completely self-inflicted.

    Nonetheless, the book appears to be an interesting effort using proxy climatology to shed light on the difficulties suffered by our early settlers.

  46. “This is the king of the deceptions,” Hughes said. “Once this domino falls, this is it.”

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/22/565926690/i-dont-believe-in-science-says-flat-earther-set-to-launch-himself-in-own-rocket

    You too can fly in your own rocket.

  47. “Bogle argues that sustainable and responsible investing, or what is known as impact investing, will not be as effective as many of its advocates hope. In another nod to passive investing, Bogle reasons that impact investing is just another form of active management, and will therefore likely underperform the broader market.”

    The prediction is, big oil will slowly fail. And green power will do well. What is known is active management is a coin flip. If you know the future, it works.

    One of Bogle’s arguments is for passive investing through low cost index funds, the most common is one is probably an S & P 500 index fund. He contrasts such an approach with active management.

    The general outcome impact investing is less than average results.

  48. “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.” Tomas Milanovic

    “Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies [cf. Roe, 2009]. If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle, 2008].” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full

    Although they are writing about in principle the same spatio-temporal quasi standing waves – the emphasis from I presume Swanson is vastly different. One might almost think the models are running cool. Mind you – I should not encourage the idea that model runs do anything but diverge exponentially from each other due to the nature of the core nonlinear equations. It is ironically the first thing that models revealed before even the summer of love distracted everyone. I loved girls in rags and feathers – but frankly the glassy eyed wastrels chanting solar power now irked me even then. But I massively digress.

    You can see quasi standing waves in the Earth flow field. If you open this look for low pressure systems off the Gulf of Alaska – the Aleutian low – and the low pressure system at the tip of South America. Both are driven by polar storms and winds penetrating deep into low latitudes and funneling winds and currents to the cold water upwelling regions of the eastern Pacific.

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-132.44,2.39,226

    Both the northern and southern Pacific have the same 20 to 30 year periodicity – for which we have sought a stochastic control variable over decades. The more recent suggestion – purely based on periodicity – is that the control variable is solar UV variability in the quasi 22 year Hale cycle. UV interacts with stratospheric ozone modulating atmospheric pathways and varying surface pressure at the poles. Varying surface pressure pushes circumpolar winds and storms more or less into lower latitudes. A high (low) pressure regime triggers more (less) eastern Pacific upwelling and the planetary feedbacks that ensue.

    Here is an extended multivariate ENSO index from Klaus Wolter. Prior to 1900 it was dominated by La Nina – in the early part of the 20th there was a warm Pacific, from 1944 to 1976 a cool regime, from 1977 to 1998 warm again and a coolish regime since. For some reasons these changes correspond exactly to changes in the trajectory of surface temperatures. What a coincidence. The difference between 1944 and 1998 – the peaks of the warm regimes in the era of rapidly growing emissions was some 0.4 degrees C. Can we unambiguously attribute that to greenhouse gases?

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/index.html

    Surface temperatures have insurmountable problems –
    e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004EO210004/abstract – and it is more than time to transition to more modern methodologies. I would think that 2016 was a drought year and that soil moisture was such that latent heat flux declined and sensible heat accordingly increased. It was a very good year for global warming fanatics – but this too will pass. Leaving them to seque into a new group narrative.

    Here’s a familiar graph. The monthly variability is almost all ENSO and the annual average depends on the persistence of the Pacific state during the year. Just another nonsensical climate metric. Let’s just do a running mean on monthly values. Oh – wait.

    And here is what I have been coming to in a roundabout way – the increase in Alaskan storm intensity – related to the Aleutian low – starting in 1741 and peaking in the 20th century in the craziest storm intensity in 1200 years.


    https://phys.org/news/2017-08-severity-north-pacific-storms-highest.html

    Must be greenhouse gases? It of course echoes global temperature, the state of the Pacific and the cosmogenic isotope record. If I were more adventurous I might be inclined to posit some connections leading to the idea that this is a millennial peak that will pass as well – this century. Perhaps starting with the next shift in quasi standing waves due within a decade. But where will climate go if we perturb the flow with greenhouse gases? As Tomas rightly said – it depends.

    JCH’s answer to all this is that I am an arsehole – using the Australian spelling to game the moderation list. My thought is that JCH’s grasp on things is so aberrant that it amounts to negative knowledge. And I may well be an arsehole – but I have been well loved by girls in rags and feathers.

  49. Ouch:

    The picture:

    Some chiller! Lol.

    • Some chiller! Lol.

      Looks you want the world to be warmer. Curious, I thought you were worried about it. Clearly you must not.

      • It’s not a matter of want. Physics doesn’t care about wants. It has been behaving like that for the last couple of months. It has no gas, and it’s dying while it’s starting.

      • Yet you seem happy about that, since you laugh out loud.

  50. A La Nina is emerging – because the physical conditions are in place. As I said some months ago here. The strength and duration depend on a number of factors.
    “Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C).”

    Nino 1+2 – not so much.

    https://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/sur/pac/

    Some people have claimed that the SOI is a leading indicator – knock yourself out.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml

    Here’s another picture. The real picture is considerably more complex and has both spatial and temporal variability. The intensity and duration of any ENSO event is both not significant for climate in itself and 99% not predictable. JCH keeps trying however – it seems entrail based science.

  51. “Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#13

    I tend to discount ‘data’ for periods earlier than the Quaternary – and even it is far from definitive. But carbon flux to the atmosphere does follow and not lead temperature based purely on biokinetics. Volcanoes are almost entirely irrelevant.

    “According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.” Obviously an older claim there.

    In terms of carbon flux between stores and atmosphere – there are much more significant components.

    “Abstract. Soil respiration, RS, the flux of microbially and plant-respired carbon dioxide (CO2) from the soil surface to the atmosphere, is the second-largest terrestrial carbon flux. However, the dynamics of RS are not well understood and the global flux remains poorly constrained. Ecosystem warming experiments, modelling analyses and fundamental biokineticsall suggest that RS should change with climate. This has been difficult to confirm observationally because of the high spatial variability of RS, inaccessibility of the soil medium and the inability of remote-sensing instruments to measure RS on large scales. Despite these constraints, it may be possible to discern climate-driven changes in regional or global RS values in the extant four-decade record of RS chamber measurements. Here we construct a database of worldwide RS observations matched with high-resolution historical climate data and find a previously unknown temporal trend in the RS record after accounting for mean annual climate, leaf area, nitrogen deposition and changes in CO2 measurement technique. We find that the air temperature anomaly (the deviation from the 1961–1990 mean) is significantly and positively correlated with changes in RS. We estimate that the global RS in 2008 (that is, the flux integrated over the Earth’s land surface over 2008) was 98±12 Pg C and that it increased by 0.1 Pg C yr-1 between 1989 and 2008, implying a global RS response to air temperature (Q10) of 1.5. An increasing global RS value does not necessarily constitute a positive feedback to the atmosphere, as it could be driven by higher carbon inputs to soil rather than by mobilization of stored older carbon. The available data are, however, consistent with an acceleration of the terrestrial carbon cycle in response to global climate change.” http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf

    You may think of this as a feedback – but since the last glacial max the albedo feedback is an order of magnitude greater.

    http://www.ajsonline.org/content/312/4/417.abstract
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258807321_Synchronization_of_the_climate_system_to_eccentricity_forcing_and_the_100000-year_problem

    There are intellectually interesting questions not fully resolved – biokinetics is not one of these.

    Climate – and much else – is chaos at all scales. Ice sheet feedbacks seem the dominant mechanism for abrupt change over the Quaternary. But it has a different dynamic.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258807321_Synchronization_of_the_climate_system_to_eccentricity_forcing_and_the_100000-year_problem

    • “There are scientists who equate chaos to randomness. I’d put that category at 90%.

      There are scientists who equate chaos with Lorenz. They have seen the butterfly attractor picture one day or the other. They know that chaos is not randomness but not much more. I’d put that category at 9%.

      There are then scientists who know what is chaos and really understand it. I’d put that category at 1% and much less for the climate scientists.” Tomas Milanovic

      Jose Rial is in the 1%.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275796089_Synchronization_of_polar_climate_variability_over_the_last_ice_age_In_search_of_simple_rules_at_the_heart_of_climate's_complexity

      • Jose Rial is in the 1%.

        I would say he is in the 90% of people that publish an article that is so irrelevant that is almost not cited in 5 years (10 times) and half of them by himself in his other articles. You really know how to choose them. Must be because your ideas are equally off.

      • I simply cannot believe that you believe that is an appropriate comment from any serious and responsible adult.

        You might try reading something from this century instead of prattling on about cycles.

        Basics – that are still way over your head.

        Rial JA, Pielke RA, Beniston M, Claussen M, Canadell J, Cox P, Held H, De Noblet-Ducoudré N, Prinn R, Reynolds JF, Salas JD. Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the earth’s climate system Climatic Change. 65: 11-38. DOI: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f

        Something you can’t possibly comprehend.

        Rial JA. Synchronization of polar climate variability over the last ice age: In search of simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity American Journal of Science. 312: 417-418. DOI: 10.2475/04.2012.02

        And a long list of articles that will never be understood by you.

        https://academictree.org/physics/publications.php?pid=349044

        All of it far more interesting than anything you can possibly aspire to.

      • That the climate system possesses elements of non-linearity is both known for a very long time and widely accepted.

        Jose Rial clearly doesn’t understand the glacial cycle or the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle of which he writes about, and he appears to ignore crucial bibliography relevant to his work. There is no 100 kyr cycle. It is a mathematical artifact. If MIS11 and MIS7a deviations are taken into account, every interglacial period spacing falls on a multiple of 41 kyr, and not a single one of them lasts 100 kyr. A cycle without a single occurrence?


        In the figure if the stars position is corrected, the dots right behind also move to the red lines.

        The 100 kyr peak is caused by the combination of two interglacials slightly out of place and the effect of eccentricity on interglacial frequency, such that every 400 kyr interglacials become more frequent. Another case of science straying into a blind alley.

        You clearly seem to accompany him in his irrelevant trip to nowhere.

      • There are a number of potential theories for the 100ky problem. I review some in a comment below. Your habitual dogmatism about these things is an utter nonsense.

      • What is complete nonsense is your takeover attack on this blog comments. Over 75% of the comments are coming from just three people and you are the worst offender. Absolutely impolite and completely unacceptable. Get a life.

      • Science requires an intellectual humility in the face of uncertain and partial knowledge. You lack even a modicum of this. I have no idea what your background, training or experience is – but it seems to have neglected the basics of scientific method and ethics.

        You responded to a link to a peer reviewed study with gratuitous vitriol aimed at a scientist who has in all rights earned respect from such as you. Without any analysis you present a denunciation as a fact. This is a symptom of an anti-science culture.

        Now you posit that responding to such nonsense as yours is rude and whatever. There is such an asymmetry here – I did nothing to inspire your angry little comment. Apart from expressing in the past some objections to your simplistic and dogmatic views on glacials. No 100,000 year periodicity? I bet that comes as a surprise to many people. I encourage you to look at the spectral analysis – and indeed a whole literature on the 100,000 year problem. Including the Rial study linked.

        There would be far fewer comments if petty minded people didn’t feel compelled to offer up trite and nasty little thoughts.

      • What I think is JA Rial would reject with extreme prejudice the ridiculous assertion of Tomas Milanovic.

      • Tomas’ little post here stirred the interest of a small coterie of US climate scientists.

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

        These people have been responsible for the most revolutionary ideas in recent climate science. Far above JCH’s pay grade.

        But JCH has a habit of ascribing views to people according to his own biases. Michael Ghil is apparently turning ever in his grave every time I mention his name. Poor guy is not even dead yet. James McWilliams follows my comments in some sort of extrasensory manner and is routinely appalled. Welcome to the circus.

  52. Earlier I had written about graduate students and tuition waivers.

    Most outlets are sounding the alarm. Forbes is the only one I could find with this version:

    “Universities that wish to avoid saddling their graduate students with large tax bills therefore have an easy way out. They can reclassify their qualified tuition waivers as scholarships, and avoid incurring any tax consequences. Because schools have this alternative method of providing tuition help, it is unlikely that many graduate students will see tax hikes if the House bill becomes law.”

    “To be sure, universities could no longer force graduate students to work as teaching or research assistants in order to receive the scholarships. But many graduate students would work in these positions anyways in order to receive a living stipend. (Those stipends are already taxable under current law.) Universities, wanting to attract talented graduate students, will structure their aid packages in such a way as to minimize the tax consequences for students.”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/11/20/no-the-house-tax-bill-wont-destroy-graduate-education/#58bd11734876

    Which is consistent with an earlier thought I had. Accountants at universities are thinking of ways to yes, get around the tax law that are legal. It’s too early for me to say if Forbes is correct (and it might seem too sure and easy) and the bill has compromises and hurdles to in its future.

    I guess I’ll give it a 4 in 10 chance this situation is being spun by the left. Forbes too is spinning it, but if needed, I hope they are right. The whole situation can be simplified by dropping this graduate student change.

  53. I wish we could focus on splitting water. After all, nature found this way of making hydrogens (which are tacked on CO2 to make sugars and carbohydrates.) Rice University has some neat catalysts that do not use rare earths and are pretty efficient. They rely on a ferrous metaphosphate deposited on graphene-coated nickel foam. The advantage of this form of energy is that the hydrogen is easily stored and can probably be used in transportation. And there is no pollution …as water is the end product of oxidation. Electrolysis by itself is too inefficient. Chlorophyl by itself is inefficient. We need to improve on nature here but it is only chemistry and man is good at this. Good catalysts are the key.

    • I guess one needs 241,000 joules for one second to split 1/2 mole of water. This is 4,000 watts for a minute to split roughly a half ounce of water. Geez, this seems like it is going to require huge areas of solar cells to do the job economically. But still, it may be the best way to store solar energy for later night-time use.

    • hydrogen is easily stored

      No it isn’t. Hydrogen is the Houdini of gases, and it has a nasty tendency to explosive combustion. Hydrogen infrastructure is awfully expensive making it a less viable alternative as energy vector.

      • Hydrogen is easily stored as a liquid – but it does not stop there. It is technically simple to extract CO2 from air and to catalyze that with hydrogen – perhaps very efficient high temperature electrolysis using modular nuclear energy. With escalating energy demand and declining fossil fuel supplies – and more efficient production capabilities – it will very quickly be cost competitive. Use low cost energy in low demand – high supply periods. It may indeed be a good use of surplus wind and solar – as well as baseload coal and nuclear. Shift production to the night time – just like off peak water heating. Practical demand management.

        https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/audi-expanding-output-of-sustainable-diesel-fuel.html

        The 21st century is when it all changes – and limiting energy options at this stage is utterly irrational. The rational path is to invest in broadening options through public/private cooperation.

  54. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) has accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) has been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) has accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems.

    There are ongoing emissions from various sources. I most certainly do not share the great moral panic over global warming. Models are intrinsically scientific nonsense – as is much else besides. But there are multiple other technological innovations possible in this area that bring immense economic, environmental and social benefit.

    Low cost and reliable energy is the only way to address emissions from electricity and transport. In my view this will involve advanced nuclear technology.

    “To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.

    As far as cost is concerned – there are reasons why advanced nuclear technology will be half the cost of lumbering light water reactors. Credible if very early costings are emerging. And although I am a technology enthusiast – wind and solar is a good but very limited source of electricity. Low cost renewable technology – and there is little doubt that costs will continue to decline – is limited to regions where there is a suitable balancing source of supply – such as hydro There may as well be opportunities for niche supply – such as air conditioning in hot countries. Or else that there is a breakthrough storage technology – as is indeed possible but far from certain. But frankly the renewable technologies seem far too exposed to the elements for secure energy systems. Much better to site modular, high capacity generation in bunkers on a networked grid system. Very low cost – especially for regions without much in the way of grid infrastructure.


    https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/06/18/safe-cheap-and-abundant-energy-back-to-the-nuclear-energy-future-2/

    Emission reductions across other sectors involve efficiency, carbon intensity increases, technology adoption and sequestratiom in a multi-sector and multi-gas strategy. The agricultural and forestry sector is especially interesting. Emissions can be reversed and some 360 billion tonnes of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over the next 40 years.

    It is costing Australia $10/metric tonne of CO2e. So globally about $3.6 trillion over 40 years. Peanuts for benefits ranging from food security, biodiversity conservation, flood and drought mitigation and economic development.

    You still have a couple of days to comment on the Savanna Fire Management draft here.

    http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund

    This is a great summary of both the science and the policy of soils and ecosystem restoration.

  55. Re: “Steve McIntyre: updated discussion of climate models vs observations: are models running too hot or not? “

    Just McIntyre distorting climate science again, in much the same way that Christy, Curry, Spencer, etc. do. The more one reads up on the climate science literature, the easier it is to spot the misrepresentations offered by McIntyre and his ilk. Analogously, the more one reads up on earth science and immunology, the easier it is to spot the nonsense offered by flat earthers and AIDS denialists.

    On to the nonsense from McIntyre…

    Re: “From a policy perspective, I’m not convinced that any of these issues – though much beloved by climate warriors and climate skeptics – matter much to policy. Whenever I hear that 2016 (or 2017) is the warmest year EVER, I can’t help but recall that human civilization is flourishing as never before. So we’ve taken these “blows” and not only survived, but prospered.”

    Which is like saying “smoking causing cancer” isn’t relevant from a policy perspective, since human civilization has flourished even in the presence of smoking and cancer. Human civilization does not need to collapse in order for X to negatively impact human and other forms of life, regardless of whether X is cancer or anthropogenic climate change.

    On to the warming trends. I’ll focus predominately on the tropospheric warming trends, with citations in brackets.

    Re: “According to models, tropospheric trends should be greater than surface trends. This is true over ocean, but not over land. Does this indicate that the surface series over land may have baked in non-climatic factors, as commonly argued by “skeptics”, such that the increase, while real, is exaggerated?”

    No, though hopefully this indicates that you’ve retreated from your false claims on the so-called “tropospheric hot spot” [1]. The amplification is expected to be larger over oceans than land (or even non-existent over land), for at least two reasons:

    A) The amplification is driven by latent heat release from condensing water vapor [2]. The water vapor largely comes from surface water evaporating in response to warming. The oceans provide a readier source for this water than does the land.
    B) The land is expected to warm more than the oceans [3].

    So no need to appeal to the usual, debunked “skeptic” talking points about urban heat island effects and the like, in order to explain lack of amplification over land.

    Anyway, your initial Christy graph is for mid-tropospheric warming. That issue has been addressed to death.

    For the satellites, the model-data discrepancies are not primarily due to errors in the models. Instead, they’re primarily due to errors in inputted forcings, and due to Christy not bothering to properly account for stratospheric cooling [4].

    The inputted forcings explanation also likely explains much of the discrepancy between the models and the lower tropospheric warming trends. By the way, you also conveniently failed to mention that RSS admits that their version 4.0 TLT likely under-estimates lower tropospheric warming [5].

    And I don’t see how folks can take UAH version 6.0 TLT seriously when:

    A) UAH TLT is about the same as for ERA-I [6], even though the ERA-I team admits that they under-estimate lower tropospheric warming [7].
    B) UAH has long history of under-estimating tropospheric temperature [8].
    C) There’s continuing criticism of UAH’s homogenization methods, methods that conveniently seem to almost always under-estimate tropospheric warming and to diverge from other satellite-based estimates [9].
    D) Consistent with UAH’s history of conveniently under-estimating tropospheric warming, UAH reduced their tropospheric warming trend from version 5.6 to version 6 [10].

    Moving from satellites to radiosondes: discrepancies between models and radiosonde trends largely stem for internal variability and heterogeneities in the radiosonde data [11]. Basically, a 1980s shift in radiosonde equipment caused 1980s radiosonde tropospheric temperatures to be artificially high, affecting radiosonde-based tropospheric temperature trends [12]. Christy exploiting that is just Christy being Christy. He did this before over a decade ago and was called on it [13], yet he’s still pulling the same exploitation to this day. Amazing.

    References:

    1) https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/26/tropical-troposphere/
    2) For example: DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0205.1; DOI: 10.1007/s00382-013-1805-x
    3) DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1, page 2285
    4) DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1; DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2973
    5) DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1, page 7715
    6) DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v68.31503, figure 3
    7) DOI: 10.1002/qj.2317; DOI: 10.1002/qj.2949
    8) For example: DOI: 10.1126/science.1216273; DOI: 10.1126/science.310.5750.972
    9) For example: DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1; DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1
    10) DOI: 10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y; http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
    11) DOI: 10.1002/2017GL073798
    12) DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3717.1; DOI: 10.1126/science.1115640; DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI1929.1
    13) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/

    • “Which is like saying “smoking causing cancer” isn’t relevant from a policy perspective, since human civilization has flourished even in the presence of smoking and cancer.”

      CO2 causes warming. Warming is not cancer. The warming cancer is not apparent as detrimental to overall well being.

      Whatever it has caused or will cause has not obtained the status of the danger of cancer. We might say it could be cancer, could be cancer in 25 years. But it hasn’t caused it yet.

      If it is or will be cancer, CO2 mitigation will not cure it. Yes there is that 5% chance we can mitigate enough. But to survive any warming cancer, the best approach is to adapt. This warming cancer may get some, but we don’t have to let it get us the United States.

      • Re: “CO2 causes warming. Warming is not cancer.”

        Ragnaar, please don’t pretend not to understand the point of the analogy; I’m already familiar with how you regularly misrepresent the points others make.

        The point is not that warming is cancer. The point is that neither 2 nor 3 follow from 1:

        1: “Human civilization flourished as never before in the presence of X”
        2: “The science on X is not relevant to policy”
        3: “X is not detrimental to humans and/or other organisms”

        That’s the case regardless of whether X is cancer, global warming, or the Easter bunny. It’s a point about logical reasoning that applies regardless of what X is.

        Re: “The warming cancer is not apparent as detrimental to overall well being.”

        Yes, I get that this is an article of faith for many of you politically conservative “skeptics” (*cough* faux skeptics *cough*); you dislike the liberal policy proposals made in response to climate change, so you distort the science and act as if everything will be OK. Fortunately, not everyone engages in that sort of politically-motivated denialism on science.

        Let me know when you can acknowledge the scientific on the impact of CO2-induced, anthropogenic climate change. These impacts include:
        – sea level rise
        – ocean acidification
        – increased drought intensity

        Or you can read:
        “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation
        […]
        The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change”

        Or read:
        “Assessing the observed impact of anthropogenic climate change”

        Or you can address how the combined impacts of CO2-induced ocean acidification and warming contributed to past extinctions:

        “Initial pulse of Siberian Traps sills as the trigger of the end-Permian mass extinction”
        “Climatic and biotic upheavals following the end-Permian mass extinction”
        “Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction”

        Or you can address some of the research on the current anthropogenic mass extinction:

        “Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction”
        “Could a potential Anthropocene mass extinction define a new geological period?”
        “Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions”

        Or…

      • Easter Bunnies have increase by 40% and most are better off. I don’t think Easter Bunnies are going to cause our demise. Putting a sign that says, ‘Cancer’ on the Easter Bunnies doesn’t change that. Having a lawyer put the sign on them and then suing the pants off the Easter Bunnies and making them raise the price of Easter Eggs didn’t work, did it?

      • “Yes, I get that this is an article of faith for many of you politically conservative “skeptics”” (It’s not bad or hardly so.)

        Balancing claims of Antarctica’s soon and large contributions to sea level rise, wildfires, droughts and more Godzilla super storms.

        Leaving us the resulting gradual sea level rise and warming. Time to save the planet and support policies. And I have some for your skeptics.

        Or we can just play Climateball.

      • Re: “Easter Bunnies have increase by 40% and most are better off. I don’t think Easter Bunnies are going to cause our demise. Putting a sign that says, ‘Cancer’ on the Easter Bunnies doesn’t change that. Having a lawyer put the sign on them and then suing the pants off the Easter Bunnies and making them raise the price of Easter Eggs didn’t work, did it?”

        I’m not interested in your usual evasions and gibberish, Ragnaar. So answer the question below; if you don’t, then I’ll just take that as a tacit admission that you can’t actually address the point I made.

        Does either 2 or 3 follow from 1?:

        1: “Human civilization flourished as never before in the presence of X”
        2: “The science on X is not relevant to policy”
        3: “X is not detrimental to humans and/or other organisms”

      • Now I am worried about the coming Easter bunny catastrophe.

      • “Which is like saying “smoking causing cancer” isn’t relevant from a policy perspective, since human civilization has flourished even in the presence of smoking and cancer.”

        “CO2 causing warming” isn’t relevant from a policy perspective, since human civilization has flourished even in the presence of CO2 and warming.

        The second sentence is fine. I might remove the word ‘even’ from the second sentence.

        Smoking causing cancer is generally agreed to.
        CO2 causing harmful warming is not.
        Some long term are benefiting from increase CO2 and some will be penalized. Smoking while generally bad and without upsides is not the same as warming which has upsides for some, including Minnesota farmers and I imagine Canadian farmers.

        So it’s not cancer, it is the redistribution of the climate. Like the emergence from the last glacial period about 15,000 years ago.

        CO2 causing warming as a guide 100 years ago would have prevented a great amount of advancement in our standards of living. And let’s go back to smoking. No amount of smoking or tobacco is Okay. Ask doctors. Same goes for emitted CO2.

        Let’s go back again. The hate of tobacco makes some loss their sensibilities and devote a fair amount of their time to hating. Seeing tobacco conspiracies and banning advertising. The list of their obsessions is not insignificant. I don’t think it’s much a playbook to follow with global warming, but we’re going to see if it works? And we are going to see the economics play out.

      • Ragnaar, you disingenuously evaded my question, as expected. Here is the question again, since I’m curious how many times you’ll dodge it and it’s nice to have your evasions as an object lesson in what disingenuous denialism looks like:

        Does either 2 or 3 follow from 1?:

        1: “Human civilization flourished as never before in the presence of X”
        2: “The science on X is not relevant to policy”
        3: “X is not detrimental to humans and/or other organisms”

      • Atomsk’s:

        Logically, you win on 2) and 3) not following from 1).
        We live in a practical world.

        2) Has many things indicating it’s true enough. Our policy’s impact on the problem as regards to mitigation might as well not exist for all the good it has done. A straight line prediction of SLR is good enough. Politics has taken over policy in regards to 2), pushing aside the science anyways or riding it for political reasons, until they throw it aside to get elected.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: Which is like saying “smoking causing cancer” isn’t relevant from a policy perspective, since human civilization has flourished even in the presence of smoking and cancer.

        An important difference is the amount and quality of the evidence showing that smoking causes harm. All you have against CO2 is that it might cause some of the warming and sea level rise — but the effects of the concurrent rise of CO2, rainfall, and temperature have been beneficial to life.

        Just McIntyre distorting climate science again, in much the same way that Christy, Curry, Spencer, etc. do.

        Can you quote some specific “distortions”?

        The more one reads up on the climate science literature, the easier it is to spot the misrepresentations offered by McIntyre and his ilk.

        The more I have read the more exaggerations by people demanding “urgent” action I have come across. As I have read during the past 6+ years, I have moved well toward the “lukewarmer” view.

  56. “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams (2007)

    “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” Julia Slingo, Tim Palmer (2011) – Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction

    “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of (perturbed physics) ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.” IPCC TAR 2001 – WG1 s14.2.2.2

    Very few understand chaos. Tomas Milanovic put it at 1% of climate scientist. This may mean that 97% of climate scientists agree on BS, 2% are wrong in other ways and only 1% has any freaking clue at all. Models are undoubtedly chaotic – it is the first thing that was understood about climate models way back in the 1960’s. There are 1000’s of feasible solutions for any model that exponentially diverge with time. Atomski of course has not the slightest clue and is simply defending group memes gleamed from blogospheric gatekeepers. I’d be very surprised if he understood much at all of even the very limited range of science he waves his hands at.

    There may indeed be theoretically justifiable uses for models – I have been a hydrodynamic modeler for decades – but opportunistic ensembles are utter nonsense.

    We may indeed see stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming in the satellite record. I certainly have never said that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. But this says nothing about the quantity of anthropogenic warming – nor does sea level rise or glacier melting. The increase between 1944 and 1998 was 0.4 degrees C. Perhaps this can be attributed to greenhouse gas – but the rest was purely natural and that will be lost this century. This can only be understood in terms of Hurst effects.

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

    Climate has spatio-temporal chaos – which is much more intractable than even temporal chaos.

    The land ocean divergence is a problem for them. Here’s both HadCRU and RSS data. The problem is that the divergence is hardly noticeable in the satellite record.


    And the reason for this has indeed to do with latent heat flux at the surface. Thermometers at the surface measure only sensible heat. Latent heat flux at the land surface varies with soil moisture – drought condition result in an apparent increase in surface temperature – such as over this century and in 2016. It is – however – unreal as much of climate science unfortunately is.

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

    Atomski of course repeats a garbled version of nonsense science.

    • Very few understand chaos. Tomas Milanovic put it at 1% of climate scientist. This may mean that 97% of climate scientists agree on BS, 2% are wrong in other ways and only 1% has any freaking clue at all. Models are undoubtedly chaotic – it is the first thing that was understood about climate models way back in the 1960’s. …

      Abject political rubbish.

    • Robert I Ellison: And the reason for this has indeed to do with latent heat flux at the surface. Thermometers at the surface measure only sensible heat. Latent heat flux at the land surface varies with soil moisture – drought condition result in an apparent increase in surface temperature – such as over this century and in 2016. It is – however – unreal as much of climate science unfortunately is.

      Latent heat flux is unreal?

    • Can we get a moderation filter for inanity?

      • Robert I Ellison: Can we get a moderation filter for inanity?

        Robert I Ellison: And the reason for this has indeed to do with latent heat flux at the surface. Thermometers at the surface measure only sensible heat. Latent heat flux at the land surface varies with soil moisture – drought condition result in an apparent increase in surface temperature – such as over this century and in 2016. It is – however – unreal as much of climate science unfortunately is.

        Let me put it differently: What is the “it” in that last sentence that is “unreal”?

      • If there was moderation filter, the water chef’s bore hole would have plug stuffed in it.

    • Your passive-aggressive responses are rather cute. Keep it up.

      Re: “Very few understand chaos.”

      Yes, I’m familiar with the tricks you denialists pull on this topic, including the quote-mines you offer from the IPCC. I suggest you do some reading:

      “A complex, non-linear system may display what is technically called chaotic behaviour. This means that the behaviour of the system is critically dependent on very small changes of the initial conditions. This does not imply, however, that the behaviour of non-linear chaotic systems is entirely unpredictable, contrary to what is meant by “chaotic” in colloquial language.”
      https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/042.htm

      Re: “We may indeed see stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming in the satellite record. I certainly have never said that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. But this says nothing about the quantity of anthropogenic warming”

      You screwed up again. Tropospheric warming + stratospheric cooling is a sign that the recent warming was caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, instead of the warming being caused by factor such as the Sun. And it’s already established that the CO2 increase was caused by humans. So congratulations: anthropogenic warming has been established. I suggest you finally look up some of the other lines of evidence:

      1) Post-1950s stratospheric cooling
      2) Post-1950s mesospheric cooling
      3) Post-1950s thermospheric cooling
      4) Horizontal/regional distribution of warming and the temporal pattern of warming [DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1, pages 1683 and 1684]
      5) Exclusion of other likely causal factors, such as the Sun [ex: solar-induced warming causes warming of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere, yet scientists observed cooling in these layers].
      6) Estimate of climate sensitivity which, when applied to current warming, imply that most of the warming is caused by CO2.
      7) Increased radiative forcing in energy frequencies CO2 is expected to absorb in.

      Re: “The increase between 1944 and 1998 was 0.4 degrees C. Perhaps this can be attributed to greenhouse gas”

      You really need to do some reading. There are two main explanations for the 1940s to 1970s global temperature stagnation (or slight cooling): aerosol forcing and the negative phase of an ocean cycle known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), with the former contributing more than the latter. For example, see:

      Ray Pierrehumbert’s 2012 video: “Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions – 2012 AGU Fall Meeting” from 40:28 to 45:56

      “Deducing multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trends using multiple regression analysis”
      “The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus”
      “The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century”

      But given how AGW denialists typically reason, I know how you reason, and so I’ll debunk the distortion you’ll likely offer: AMO did not cause most of the post-1950s global warming. See:

      “On forced temperature changes, internal variability, and the AMO”
      “Tracking the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation through the last 8,000 years”
      “The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as a dominant factor of oceanic influence on climate”
      “The role of Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation in the global mean temperature variability”
      “The North Atlantic Oscillation as a driver of rapid climate change in the Northern Hemisphere”
      “The Atlanto-Pacific multidecade oscillation and its imprint on the global temperature record”
      “Imprints of climate forcings in global gridded temperature data”
      “North Atlantic Multidecadal SST Oscillation: External forcing versus internal variability”
      “Forced and internal twentieth-century SST trends in the North Atlantic”
      “Interactive comment on “Imprints of climate forcings in global gridded temperature data” by J. Mikšovský et al.”
      “Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures”

      Re: “The land ocean divergence is a problem for them. Here’s both HadCRU and RSS data. The problem is that the divergence is hardly noticeable in the satellite record”

      Not really a problem, since it’s a prediction of climate models and has been observed. And you do realize that the satellites measure (proxies for) tropospheric temperature, right? And you do realize that there’s mixing of air in the troposphere, right, resulting in a muted horizontal gradient for tropospheric temperature? Don’t you think that might affect the magnitude of the land-sea contrast for the troposphere, vs. the land-sea contrast for the air?

      Try reading the following, if you still have trouble grasping this:

      “Response of the Large-Scale Structure of the Atmosphere to Global Warming
      […]
      Although it is only in convective regions where the moist adiabatic lapse rate directly controls the temperature aloft, horizontal temperature gradients tend to be small at low latitudes (Sobel et al. 2001) and the warming spreads throughout the tropics.”

      Next time, please don’t claim phenomena are a problem for climate models, when those phenomena have been explained for decades. Also, please stop getting your information from WoodForTrees, though I get that a lot of you denialists like going there, instead of to reputable, peer-reviewed sources. Pay attention to what the WoodForTrees blog says about itself:

      “The algorithms used on this site have not been formally peer reviewed and hence should not be used unverified for academic publication (and certainly not for policy- making!). This site is only intended to help find interesting directions for further research to be carried out more formally.”
      http://woodfortrees.org/credits

      • I think he’s attributing a quote to the wrong person.

        “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams (2007)

        (see ref. 26).

        ↵ Penrose R (1990) The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK), p 466.

        The quote is a footnote that follows these sentences in the McWilliams paper:

        Implications for AOS Practices and Expectations

        An appreciation of the AOS property of sensitive dependence has led to the practice of ensemble weather forecasting on the basis of a set of solutions using initial conditions perturbed around the estimated atmospheric state (24, 25). The evolving spread among the individual forecasts exposes the degree of reliability in the ensemble-mean forecast. Similarly an appreciation of the property of structural instability ought to lead to the practice of ensemble AOS modeling on the basis of a set of deliberately varied model formulations, to expose the reliability and precision of the simulated behaviors. §

        (see ref. 26).

        ↵ Penrose R (1990) The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK), p 466.

        When it comes to climate science and the future pathways of the 21st-century climate, I bet James C McWilliams thinks the water chef can boil water, and that’s about it. Same for the plethora of other victim scientists he frequently quotes in his continuous spewing of his scientific nonsense.

      • Atom-san

        You eloquently confirm your membership of the majority that remain wilfully ignorant of chaotic phenomena in relation to climate.

        Also warmist reactions to chaos miss the point. Granted if gas is ignited under a saucepan of water, it will heat up and boil. No amount of chaotic spontaneous pattern formation of hexagonal cells in the saucepan will stop this heating.

        So the argument is made that chaos only provides “noise”, while the dominant trends are due to heat and radiative balance.

        But that misses the point. As already pointed out, chaos does not deny that things get hotter if you heat them up.

        In this case of climate change chaos addresses the null hypothesis that the Climagesterium tries so persistently to evade. The implication of chaos is that it is possible that all the climate change of the last century was due to chaotic oceanographic processes, and is this entirely “natural”.

        Of course we know far too little about chaos-driven climate processes to be sure about this, since the lion’s share of research funding is squandered on the usual narrow linear stories.

        But the alarmist neo-Arrhenius camp have never seriously addressed this null hypothesis which is primarily connected to chaos, nonlinearity and related pattern formation. As Robert points out, this is not helped by ongoing stubborn ignorance of chaotic processes.

      • “…This does not imply, however, that the behaviour of non-linear chaotic systems is entirely unpredictable, contrary to what is meant by “chaotic” in colloquial language.”

        That’s a ringing endorsement.

        Chaos on small and medium scales.
        Chaos on all scales.

        Maybe we will not have it at on this large scale, and then we will have been correct.

        Our Solar System Might Have Had Another Planet, But Jupiter Kicked It Out
        Turns out, Jupiter is kind of a jerk.
        FIONA MACDONALD
        4 NOV 2015

        “…our Solar System could have had an extra gas giant planet in the mix around 4 billion years ago…”

    • This completely over the top response is amusing if not very illuminating.

      Matthew should actually read the linked Roger Pielke Sn commentary to understand the components of energy flux at the surface.

      JCH’s angry little outbursts are not worth anyone’s time.

      Atomski’s obviously understands passive agressive and then launches his trademark denialist harangue. Get a new songbook Atomski.

      All very amusing – but is there any substantive point there?

      Is this predictable Atomski?

      “The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts,” says Prof. Latif. “We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.” Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm

      The NAS long ago defined abrupt climate change. Neither they nor I are talking chaos in the colloquial sense.

      “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

      He quotes me agreeing with him on warming or cooling in the troposphere and stratosphere and then launches in another harangue about how I screwed it up again. None of it says anything about the balance of natural and anthropogenic change in the system – which is what I actually said.

      The radiative effects of greenhouse gases seem fairly obvious and have been since I read the first IPCC report all those years ago. I went back to my hydrological interests until it became evident that there were other things happening in climate on decadal scales.

      e.g. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

      He really doesn’t need to say the same thing yet again.

      The sulphate explanation for mid 20th century cooling is very wrong – and the AMO has not much to do with it except as a quasi standing wave in the globally coupled flow field. In the washup AMOC may be a fundamental driver of abrupt climate change in the Quaternary – e.g. but the 20-30 year decadal variations have a different origin.

      “The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.” Wally Broecker

      Other work is identifying abrupt climate changes working through the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Artic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.

      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 northern hemisphere climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise 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.

      Satellites microwave sounding instruments. measure emissions in the oxygen excitation frequencies – excitation is a result of changing energy states in oxygen molecules. It is not a ‘proxy’ – but a measurement that has a fundamental relationship to temperature. The land/ocean divergence appears in the surface record and not in the satellite records. Energy flux from the surface has two components latent and sensible heat. Thermometers measure only sensible heat. As soil moisture declines in drought the energy flux balance shifts to more sensible heat. Thermometers measure only sensible heat. It appears to be hotter but this is an artifact of the methodology.

      “Although climate change and variability involves all aspects of the climate system [Pielke, 1998],the assessment of anthropogenically-forced climate change has focused on surface temperature as the primary metric [Mann and Jones, 2003; Soon et al., 2004]. Our contribution only addresses this very specific (and limited) metric of the climate system. The term “global warming” has been used to describe the observed surface air temperature increase in the 20th century. However, this concept of “global warming” requires assessments of units of heat (that is, Joules). Temperature, by itself, is an incomplete characterization of surface air heat content.” Roger Pielke Sn

      Satellites have the virtue of measuring total energy content of the troposphere with a near global coverage. The wood for dummies graphs show a land and global comparison in both the Hadley Centre surface temps and Remote Sensing System data. Is it not evident that the divergence appears in one data set and not the other? It is more than time to move on from surface records – or else account for total energy flux from the surface.

      As for JCH – the quote is a footnote from the McWilliams paper. The abstract reads.

      “Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.”

      He is talking about perturbed physics ensembles and not the opportunistic ensembles of the IPCC. There is a more recent Rowlands et al study that purports to show an even greater range than the IPCC forecast with a perturbed physics ensemble. It seems to me to barely scratch the ground of ‘irreducible imprecision’.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1430

      “The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial. The large-scale climate, for instance, determines the environment for microscale (1 km or less) and mesoscale (from several kilometers to several hundred kilometers) processes that govern weather and local climate, and these small-scale processes likely have significant impacts on the evolution of the large-scale circulation (Fig. 1; derived from Meehl et al. 2001).

      The accurate representation of this continuum of variability in numerical models is, consequently, a challenging but essential goal. Fundamental barriers to advancing weather and climate prediction on time scales from days to years, as well as longstanding systematic errors in weather and climate models, are partly attributable to our limited understanding of and capability for simulating the complex, multiscale interactions intrinsic to atmospheric, oceanic, and cryospheric fluid motions.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1

      Like weather forecasts – initialized decadal climate modelling might indeed be possible – but these are orders of magnitude more difficult than weather forecasts. But there is another reality in vast gaps in fundamental knowledge of the processes in play and their coupled interactions.

      Chaos has implications for the future evolution of climate. The next Pacific climate shift is due within a decade and it may be either warmer or cooler. There are ‘Hurst effects’ seen everywhere in climate data. Abrupt shifts and persistent regimes. Other and more consequential outcomes are possible and there are no grounds for complacency – but then the world is rapidly moving to restoration of soils and ecosystems and innovative 21st century energy sources and production technologies. As I suggest earlier somewhere.

      “Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.

      Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

      Atomski accuses me of not reading – JCH accuses me of misrepresenting hundreds of scientists. It is clear that neither of them have a freakin’ clue. It is not I who is the science denier here.

  57. ”Past greenhouse episodes may have been linked, in part, to degassing of CO2 from continental rifts.”

    We are seeing the Lysenko-isation of climate science. The politico-charlatans are force-feeding us the fiction that only CO2 and nothing else ever drives climate change. Like most fasc1ist propaganda memes this involves an inversion of cause and effect.

    There never have been and never will be episodes of “greenhouse warming”. The only greenhouse effect on earth is the beneficial boost to plant growth from increasing CO2 which is why greenhouse growers pump extra CO2 into greenhouses (until the climate gestapo soon will stop them from doing this due to it’s inconvenient symbolism).

    Please write 100 times:

    CO2 is a lagged proxy of temperature
    CO2 is a lagged proxy of temperature
    CO2 is a lagged proxy of temperature
    CO2 is a lagged proxy of temperature
    CO2 is a lagged proxy of temperature

  58. ASA satellite study shows that last year’s spike in CO2 resulted from El Nino-induced heat & drought in tropics

    The satellite images of CO2 conc and emission are always interesting.

    Take this one of South America. The largest city in the world, Sai Paulo, makes no impact whatever on the blue color of the south of Brazil. Urban CO2 is insignificant compared to that coming from the Amazon forest.

    I’m not among those that doubt that the current spike in CO2 ia anthropogenic. Still, it makes one wonder.

  59. “We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system…

    The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/abstract

    I have a much longer comment in moderation for way too many links – after all this is a competition with Atomski as to how many Youtube videos you can wave your arms at.
    There is a weirdness to the warminista response to this. They can’t quite grok it either because it is way beyond their pay grade or too far outside the meme set to contemplate. I have been trying to help them out for a decade – but it is a lost cause until enough cognitive dissonance kicks in.

    • Re: “I have a much longer comment in moderation for way too many links – after all this is a competition with Atomski as to how many Youtube videos you can wave your arms at.”

      I’m embarrassed for you on your behalf, since I don’t think you’ve realized how badly you screwed up.

      You cited the below 2007 paper co-authored by Tsonis:
      “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts”

      That 2007 paper was updated by a 2008 paper and 2009 paper co-authored by Tsonis:
      2008: “The pacemaker of major climate shifts”
      2009: “Has the climate recently shifted?”

      Then came this 2011 “paper”:
      “Climate mode covariability and climate shifts”

      The 2009 paper argued that a climate shift occurred in 2001/2002, such that the warming trend of 1976/77–2001/02 was over. This contributed to Tsonis later claiming the following in 2013:

      “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

      Of course, Tsonis was wrong, as global warming continued post-2002. There’s been global warming over the past couple of decades, as observed in ocean warming, surface warming, warming of the troposphere, and Earth’s energy balance (i.e. comparing the amount of energy the Earth takes up vs. the amount of energy the Earth releases):

      Atmospheric warming (tropospheric warming):
      “Tropospheric warming over the past two decades”
      “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
      “Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment”
      “A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”
      “A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets”
      “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)”

      Surface warming:
      “Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls”
      “Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends”
      “Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend”
      “On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming”
      “Global land-surface air temperature change based on the new CMA GLSAT dataset”

      Surface warming / ocean warming:
      “A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets”
      “Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period”
      “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”
      “Assessing the impact of satellite-based observations in sea surface temperature trends”

      Ocean warming:
      “Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records”
      “Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus”
      “A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change”
      “Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006”

      Energy balance:
      “The Earth’s energy balance” [ http://lecuyer.aos.wisc.edu/publications/2015_stephens_lecuyer_EEB_ar.pdf ]
      “Insights into Earth’s Energy Imbalance from Multiple Sources”

      Of course, Tsonis has now been reduced to pretending that warming ceased in 1998, even when his own graphs contradict him. He does this on behald on the laughably inept and disingenuous GWPF:

      “Figure 3 shows an annual global temperature anomaly record (negative anomalies in blue, positive anomalies in red). It is easy to see from the annual anomaly values (not the five-year mean smooth line) that the record exhibits ‘regimes’ of changing trends:
      […]
      From about 1976 to about 1998 it is strongly positive.
      After 1998 it is more or less flat.”
      https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Tsonis-17.pdf

      So basically, Robert, you screwed up. You tried to act as if you knew the literature, by citing a 2007 Tsonis paper as if that would impress me. Of course, you conveniently left out how the predictions from Tsonis’ line of research have been debunked.

      Nor did you explain how this research would account for the evidence in support of the CO2-induced warming hypothesis, such as stratospheric cooling and mesospheric cooling [hint: it doesn’t account for these].
      Nor did you address the fact that temperature records for ENSO, AMO, etc. still show most of the post-1970s warming.

      Nor did you address relevant points on a possible relationship between anthropogenic forcing and ENSO, NAO, etc. For instance:

      “ENSO and greenhouse warming”
      “The 1990–1995 El Niño-Southern Oscillation event: Longest on record”
      “Temperature-precipitation relationship of the Common Era in northern Europe”

      Next time, Robert, please do your homework before citing debunked papers from 2007, as if that’s going to fool me. You can’t fake knowledge of the scientific literature; you have to earn it through patient reading. Let me know when you finally decide to earn it.

      • First of all – stop copying, pasting and bolding – everyone knows already what you are responding to. Secondly – and while I haven’t read your comment yet – let me anticipate a strident and much exaggerated lack of humor, a wounded sense of decorum ans a stilted and smamy style. Now let’s see what pejorative nonsense you have come up with now.

        No Tsonis et al is far from debunked – the idea is at the core of future progress in climate science. These 20 to 30 regimes in the Pacific state are so apparent in the climate record that they demand an explanation. They are best described as quasi standing waves in the Earth’s spatio-temporal chaotic flow field.

        e.g. – https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

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

        The explanation comes with network math and the idea of sychronization.

        “Synchronization is a fundamental nonlinear phenomenon and one basic mechanism of self-organization in complex systems 14,and synchronization of nonlinear oscillators to external forcing(see Supplementary Information) is commonly encountered in physics, chemistry, biology, engineering and climatology 13–17. We shall use the term forced synchronization 15 (also called master–slave) to describe how the climate system (slave) gradually adjusted its natural rhythms to those of the forcing (master) over the past 5 million years.” https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1756

        “The term synchronization as used here describes how two or more coupled nonlinear oscillators adjust their (initially different) natural rhythms to a common frequency and constant relative phase. In the case of the Polar Regions heat and mass transfer through the intervening ocean and atmosphere provided the coupling.” http://www.ajsonline.org/content/312/4/417.abstract

        There are “simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity.”

        It is not clear why I need an alternative hypothesis for late century warming. Both of these things did happen in late century warming – indeed as was stated quite clearly in the quote from Tsonis et al.

        Nor is it clear what your list has to do with anything. I would suggest in future that you actually read the articles in your lists and provide some pertinent observation or pithy quote in support of something or other. What is the point you are trying to make about ENSO? We can’t tell.

        I am a university trained hydrologist, engineer and environmental scientist. I have read a few papers in my time. You it seems not so much science as blogospheric echo chambers.

      • Robert I Ellison: First of all – stop copying, pasting and bolding – everyone knows already what you are responding to.

        No, no, no!

        It is quite useful to all readers if you copy, paste and highlight exactly what it is that you are responding to.

  60. “Similarly an appreciation of the property of structural instability ought to lead to the practice of ensemble AOS modeling on the basis of a set of deliberately varied model formulations, to expose the reliability and precision of the simulated behaviors.” http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

    What this means to JCH is not what it actually means – I would suggest he read the entire conceptually very difficult paper over weeks and months. As I did. This just reveals JCH’s superficial and negative knowledge approach to science.

  61. “There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [NW note: Hayek was writing not in prosperous post-war America, but in war-torn, austerity-ridden Britain in 1943] the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.

    “Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

    “To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.”

    I quote from here – https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing – but by all means and as suggested – read the ‘masters words’ for yourself at the source.

    Climate and weather has been far more extreme in the deep past than in the 20th century. There are ways to build resilience and to provide assistance – but it all costs money. Economic growth is the key to resourcing responses to weather and climate.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/

  62. “Together, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world’s freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year).” https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html

    It is always a hallucinatory experience trying to decipher Jimmy D’s immensely repetitive stories on very limited subject matter.

    He presents us again and again with a single variable over a 541 million year period in a graph that ignores other changes that are an order of magnitude more significant. There is an alternative graph that I have shown him – that is with unintended irony called the Hansen curve.

    No one but Jimmy expects more than 1 metre of sea level rise this century – and that is a small fraction of the total ice mass.

    But there is a wider context of both science and policy to which Jimmy remains oblivious. On the basis of realistic emission trajectories – we should probably expect the lower limit of projections – and that with great uncertainty.

    • RIE, a lot of skeptics here won’t believe you when you say that the glaciers are already contributing a mm/yr of the sea-level rise rate, but yes they do, and about half of it is Greenland.

      • “An ice sheet is a mass of glacial land ice extending more than 50,000 square kilometers (20,000 square miles). The two ice sheets on Earth today cover most of Greenland and Antarctica. … Together, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth.”

        And skeptics have a far more nuanced understanding of sea level rise than you can possibly grasp.

      • If nuanced means neglecting calving like Heller does, I guess so. Amazing stuff.

      • I don’t know the name or the relevance. Most climate blogs are fake science – which you know all about Jimmy dear. I do not read climate blogs.

      • So don’t complain when I debunk the worst examples like Heller. You should join in. Nuanced? No, plain wrong in these cases. Right?

      • RCP6 shows CO2 concentrations at 600 ppm at the end of the cantury. A 70m sea level rise this century? You are a joke Jimmy dear.

      • Oh and somebody has something wrong on the internet? I doubt it is more wrong than you Jim – but I am still not wasting my time on it.

      • RIE, re: all melted by 2100. Huh? That is not what I said. Read it slower.

      • Lol. What a dick.

      • RIE, it would be fine if someone was wrong on the internet, but when skeptics quote that to me as though they deeply believe it, I just help them to see the error of their ways.

      • And you are the one that raised Heller – both not interesting and not relevant whatever you think of it. No complaint from me. I didn’t know the name. But I am inclined now to approve of him purely on the basis of my experience with your fallacies.

      • Obviously you didn’t look at my conversation here with SoF where he linked Heller’s web pages on his wrongheaded musings about the Arctic. SoF fell for that stuff, hook, line and sinker.

      • You said that there would be no ice at 600ppm. Now you say glaciers and talk about Greenland and Antarctica. So I assumed you meant ice sheets – and I did attempt to correct your terminology.

        And what has Heller to do with anything I said? Stick to the point and try to be honest and real.

      • Nope, I said 610 ppm does melt all the ice. Did I give a time scale? No.

      • And JCH is like the rain man – without the savant bit.

      • So you don’t believe the RCP consensus? Says a lot about what and who you are.

      • The RCPs don’t say it melts all the ice either, and had nothing to do with the comment I was responding to.

      • Absurd greek fallacies are like, whatever, really old. So are you.

      • It would be surprising if the representative concentration pathways said anything about anything but carbon dioxide concentrations. But I was wondering – if all ice disappeared at 600ppm – and I am not going to give credence your very oddly precise claim that there would be no ice at 610ppm – how the ice would all disappear this century.

        So all you are saying really – again and again – is that the ice is melting and it will continue to do so until it all melts? Based on a graph that has such broad uncertainty and that moreover neglects the most important term in the forcing equation? Each to his own I suppose.

      • 610 ppm was the supposed level we reach if we burned all the fossil fuel reserves, which is also in dispute. Anyway paleoclimatic evidence indicates that somewhere around 600 ppm we didn’t have any ice in past climates. It’s the equilibrium state – iceless, high sea levels. No comfort there, right?

      • Conditions 500 million years in the past are not remotely similar to conditions today. The usual timeframe given – as in the NSIDC site I linked to is 5,000 years. So disaster way in the future? There are so many variables that worrying about it – and wasting everyone’s time with such a repetitive song and dance – is just utter nonsense. Say something real and sensible about development pathways instead.

        “The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

        The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.”
        https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

        Frankly – even there I am utterly bored with the obsessive madness of pissant progressives. We are making progress on goals utterly removed from global warming nonsense. No thinks to you.

      • The last time we were at 600 ppm was less than 40 million years ago. There are apparent tipping points to sea level and CO2 levels indicating levels at which various ice sheets tip. 600 ppm is the last one of them – Antarctica.

      • Even 40 million years the Antarctic had not seperated from South America and the Isthmus of Panama was in the far distant future.

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

        This fundamentally nature the nature of flows in the Earth system. The antarctic froze and the planet cooled – plunging occasionally into a deeper freeze. You have no idea other than carbon dioxide and therefore nothing you repeat endlessly makes any sense at all.

      • Actually continental drift is important too, because the CO2 dropped as a result of the Himalayan growth and this was a big driver of the gradual cooling since 50 million years ago. Not just another coincidence that you have to dismiss.

      • As Wally Broecker said in a quote above – over the last few hundred thousand years the big kahuna seems to be thermohaline circulation. This is even madder than usual – but at least it is not the same talking point.

      • I would have said Milankovitch cycles.

      • Let’s say albedo changed by -2.1 W/m2 in the last decades of the 20th century?

        Ignore it? Apparently so.

        “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751

        The distinction between random and deterministic my be far more subtle than Jimmy knows.

        e.g. https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/923/

        The nature of the climate system is in changes on control variables initiating shifts in the climate system.

        I am a climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom – but Jimmy just shows again that he doesn’t have a freaking clue.

      • If such even existed, and it is all just wiggles, it was possibly a positive cloud feedback to the warming, so it would have been predicted. It destroys the negative feedback arguments too. We’ve been through this before.

      • You confuse control variables with a nonlinear system response. Small changes in northern summer insolation cannot in itself transform the planet.

      • There goes Milankovitch then. It’s positive albedo feedbacks according to him, of course, but you’re not having any part of that, right? Control variables are important. The level of GHGs is one of them. Volcanoes and the sun provide other noticeable variations that are observable even at ~1 W/m2. You would just say coincidences.

      • Irredeemable word salad.

        “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.” NAS

        Runaway ice sheet feedback is a planetary response to a small change in a control variable.

      • With the level of GHGs being a control variable, you may therefore understand why the ice sheets have responded to it so much in the past millions of years. Or maybe you don’t and it is all just coincidental.

      • Let me be utterly clear. If the consensus is defined by the IPCC summary for policy makers – it is utter nonsense. Climate doesn’t work like that. Climate is an emergent state in the Earth’s spatio-temporal chaotic flow field.

        “These observations of the growth of range of what is now known as the ‘Hurst’ effect stimulated much debate, because Feller showed rigorously that for a very general class of finite variance stochastic processes, the rescaled range grows asymptotically with the record length L as L1/2 4. Many explanations centered on pre-asymptotic effects, but a more mathematically elegant explanation came with the introduction by Mandelbrot, Van Ness and Wallis of fractional Gaussian noise (fGn), the first stationary model which was able to reproduce them. fGn was in itself controversial, however5,6, because it gained the desirable and tractable property of stationarity at the price of introducing infinite-ranged temporal memory or LRD. LRD implies that in order to predict the next state of a system its whole past is needed. This is different from typical dynamical systems whose next state is determined just by the current state. Such systems are called Markovian. This property appeared to many to be inconsistent with the Markovian nature of the equations of motion.” https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09068

        You don’t understand this – nor do many climate scientists. You in fact can’t even acknowledge it as a possibility.

        But we have wasted decades of opportunities in chasing a chimera – it is more than time to move on to real things.

      • So, you have something with neither predictive nor explanatory power and you believe in it anyway. Suit yourself.

      • I occasionally get this objection. Hurst effects explain – famously – Nile River flows. And appear everywhere in climate series.

        There is an old adage about scientists who solve the problem that can be solved rather than the actual problem. It is akin to the drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp because that’s where the light is.

        As I said somewhere above initialed decadal models may be feasible – but that is not the model we have now. Network math is providing valuable insights. We may as well consider potentials in a risk assessment framework – as the NAS does in a quote above. But all this is a foreign language to Jimmy dear.

      • OK, so if the sun warmed by 1%, you would dismiss that this added forcing of only 4 W/m2 would also warm the earth. How about small orbital parameter changes, like Milankovitch’s theory? Also dismissed? What about volcanic cooling of a few W/m2? Impossible? All random, right? Got it.

      • That’s your spontaneous self-clouding mechanism, right?

      • I don’t know what JCH’s Greek phalluses have to do with anything – but it is too much information.

    • I quoted the NSIDC and showed the Hansen curve you nitwit.

      • You quote them because you don’t believe them or is this an area of consensus science that you do agree with? It is unclear when you just quote things with no additional comment. Like I said, skeptics won’t like that glaciers are contributing so much to sea-level rise, so congratulations on taking the consensus side (if that is what you intended).

      • Sorry – there is a fairly basic approximate volume calculation and a broad estimate of current ice sheet (not glacier) losses. I haven’t done the calculation – but the NSIDC is a reputable source and I saw no reason to question it.

        But your consensus is utter nonsense.

      • Do you distinguish NSIDC from the consensus?

      • Oh for God’s sake – get real and honest.

  63. These quotes refer to a long time ago. Seems they provide an explanation to their point of view. The author tells a story of science being brought into government.

    If I know science and think government should be more sciency, what do I do?

    I do know accounting and see government torture accounting with some of its tax laws. I don’t think I am neutral and have no advice to give. When I give this advice, do I want to change the world? I just want them to stop telling lies. No, I am sorry, in no universe did you balance the State of Minnesota’s budget. You just pushed some liabilities into the future which you can’t do, as they exist now. We send normal people to jail for what you did.

    “Progressivism was first and foremost an attitude about the proper relationship of science and its bearer, the scientific expert, to the state and of the state to the economy and polity. And so these experts—I also want to think we should make clear, this was not a fringe group of intellectuals and academic professors. This was—would you say it was the mainstream or at least a kind of who’s who of American intellectuals and all the great Ivy League institutions?
    Thomas Leonard: Absolutely.”

    https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/illiberal-reformers-race-eugenics-american-economics-progressive-era?utm_content=63565553&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

    “They believed that they not only could be experts serve the public good but they could also identify the public good and that’s what I mean by a heroic conception. Not only do we know how to get to a particular outcome, we know also what those outcomes should be.”

    “The idea that our politics should be scientific, not political if you will and that economic life is best governed by the visible hand of an administrative state that investigates and regulates and supervises the economy.”

    Do scientists have some kind of insight as to what we should do? We have a democracy where everyone’s vote is equal.

    • I saw a girl at the Eureka Awards on the red carpet saying that we should listen to scientists because they know what they are talking about. I think a lot of people think they know what’s best for us. What’s best for us is a very prosaic individual freedom – let the chips fall where they may.

      • “They saw uneducated men getting rich and this upending of the old social order in their view was not only inefficient, it was also un-Christian and immoral and it needed to be reformed, and they were sort of—it’s important to say unabashed about using evangelical terminology. They referred to— this is the first generation of progressives. They referred to their project as bringing a kingdom of heaven to Earth.”

        In our past, higher education often involved some amount of religion. Higher education grew science and then we had another political input, science. Where was the science before this happened? Science has been trying to push aside competing views for a long time.

    • Correction:
      I don’t think I am neutral and have advice to give. When I give this advice, do I want to change the world? I just want them to stop telling lies.

  64. Death by Algae
    Under the right conditions—warm water and a boost of nutrients—algae can grow so explosively that those toxins become a problem, creating what’s called a harmful algal bloom, or HAB. The toxins end up in filter feeders, such as shellfish, which draw algae out of the water, and in the stomachs of zooplankton and other small animals that feed on algae. As larger animals eat these organisms, algal toxins get passed up the food chain. The largest animals tend to receive the strongest dose, a phenomenon known as biomagnification.
    https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/death-killer-algae/

  65. “If such even existed, and it is all just wiggles, it was possibly a positive cloud feedback to the warming, so it would have been predicted. It destroys the negative feedback arguments too. We’ve been through this before.” Jimmy dear

    This would be a wiggle that is 7 times the decadal increase increase in greenhouse gas forcing. The reality is very different of course.

    “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

    “That’s your spontaneous self-clouding mechanism, right?”

    Absolutely – it is one of the reasons toa radiation changes so much.

    e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

    Cloud can’t change unless it is a greenhouse gas feedback? Funny that.

    • A large influence is volcanoes like Pinatubo in the 90’s too, don’t forget. That may dominate the 90’s radiation budget variations that you are looking at, and it is within the science to include this factor. Once you subtract volcanoes, what do you have left?

      • This is an evasion and not a response Jimmy dear. With Loeb et al 2012 CERES was the source and not the earlier ERBS and ISCCP records. The latter in which the Pinotubo effect can be seen clearly.

      • Before the 90’s there was already nearly a degree of warming in the century. Was this also a conspiracy of clouds and oceans or just the expected forcing change from GHGs that far exceeds any of the solar and volcanic trends that you seem to accept?

      • The regimes that you cant quite get your head around caused some cooling from 1944 to 1976 and warming to 1998. Net warming between 1944 and 1998 was 0.4 degrees C. This might be anthropogenic warming – but the rest will be lost this century.

        Somebody might understand more about this than I do – but that somebody is not Jimmy dear.

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

      • So you are saying 5-6 W/m2 by the end of this century will have a negligible warming effect, and cooling will ensue for some reason that you can’t quite pinpoint. OK, then.

      • Cooling will commence because of surprises. Surprises never warm; they only cool.

      • Your last surprise warmed. Why not again? Randomness goes both ways, right?

      • Your claims of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is wildly exaggerated. There will be some 100 billions tonnes of carbon returned to soils and ecosystems over the next 40 years – and we will of a necessity transition to 21st century energy sources and production techniques within decades for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming.

        The surface temperature increase – and this is working with the immensely inadequate data that there is – is 0.4 degrees C between 1944 and 1998. After that the record diverges from reality because of drought. There is a need to either transition to satellite data – despite the neo-Luddite objections – or fully account for energy at the surface.

        And we will transition to a more La Nina like regime over the next few centuries in what looks to be s solar UV/ozone mediated solar amplification mechanism.

        Now I may be wrong – but Jimmy dear is at the wrong ballpark entirely.

      • The energy imbalance is positive but that is not a factor for you.

      • Damnable!

        The 2002 NAS report – Abrupt Climate Change – inevitable surprises – was written by a committee of climate science luminaries. They still haven’t got their heads around it.

        “Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.”

        Is still true today.

        “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.” Tomas Milanovic

        So what happens when we disturb the flow with greenhouse gases. It depends.

        I swear it’s like living in goldfish bowl with retarded goldfish.

      • Yes, forcing pushes the tipping points – summer sea ice, Greenland, the AMOC, Antarctica. Exactly! We’ve never had such a large rate of change in forcing as now, so those tipping points are being pushed harder.

      • Freshwater inflows to the Arctic might change AMOC – and initiate a glacial in the right insolation conditions –
        but we have no idea how close to an abrupt shift we are.

      • That’s just Hansen’s meltwater pulse idea. Europe cools when the surge in Greenland meltwater stops the AMOC. This has happened before under abrupt climate change – possible. It is accompanied by rapid sea-level rises too.

      • No, it’s you who has not got your head around it.

      • Without looking it up, was the scientific paper that inspired the NAS report all about shutting down the AMOC and abruptly cooling the planet, or was it about an abrupt warming event?

      • The energy imbalance is positive if oceans are warming. It seems clear that since 1998 oceans have both warmed and cooled.

      • So you think La Ninas are impossible with a positive imbalance? Hmmm. You have to view the decadal trends to see the imbalance signal and, decade on decade, the ocean has warmed, and the land has too. The imbalance has remained positive on decadal scales. A positive imbalance weights the future towards warming, and with GHG forcing still growing at 4 W/m2/century, it will remain positive for some time to come.

      • La Nina not possible… that’s an utterly bizarre response even for you Jimmy dear.

        Not sure you have shown that oceans have warmed in this century – since the last climate shift – or that late 20th century warming was even mostly greenhouse gases.

        But by all means repeat your nonsense narrative yet again.

      • Have you looked at the OHC trend since 2000. It has been steadily increasing even during the so-called pause in surface temperatures, and that gives you the positive imbalance I speak of.
        E.g.

      • Or maybe you prefer this one. Note how the OHC is higher now than a decade ago. That’s the imbalance.

      • oops, this one.

      • Have I looked at ocean heat? No jimmy I just make it up because it sounds good.

        The Wong et al Fig 7 show annual XPT ocean heat for the nineties compiled by Josh Willis. This was possible because the increased density of data allowed annual averaging. It shows a peak in 1998 associated with cloud radiative forcing in low frequency climate variability (IPCC, AR4). There is such a range of corroborating evidence that it takes a very special sort of science denial to neglect it all.

        It shows a peak in 1998 decling to 2004 – where the Argo record starts. They plot it here using the Scripps Institute Roemmich-Gilson Argo Climatology.

        http://sio-argo.ucsd.edu/RG_Climatology.html

        But you need to know what TOA radiant flux is to make any sense of it at all.

        Energy budgets change all the time from large natural variations in ocean and atmospheric circulation. The imbalance is both positive and negative on annual to decadal scales at least. What you have in a single number is a gross and misleading oversimplification.

      • The OHC integrates the radiative imbalance making it a much less noisy quantity than instantaneous fluxes you keep wanting to show. You only need to know the OHC at two times to know the mean imbalance between them. Not so simple with radiative fluxes, and few even try it that way, but they tell you the same thing. The imbalance has been positive for any decade you care to choose in the last few decades. This tells you that the warming has not kept up with the forcing even though we have had a lot of surface warming.

      • Jimmy – where have you been? I have missed you. The TOA radiant cannot tell you anything about imbalances – it can tell you something about the Earth processes behind the data. Clouds, water vapour and solar variability. The contributions to ocean heat variability is far from limited to anthropogenic emissions. If it weren’t it would be as simple as you imagine – it isn’t.

        But you are right – I don’t actually believe that there is warming in the pipeline – which depends on oceans slowly warming. Oceans don’t slowly warm – they rapidly warm and cool.

      • The OHC graph shows a slow warming of the ocean, which is a sign of the positive and sustained imbalance. How has the imbalance been sustained in the face of steady global warming for the last few decades, you ask? Increasing GHG forcing. No mysteries here. Move on. Anything else I can explain for you?

      • No there is absolutely nothing you can explain to me Jimmy dear.

      • As long as you understand, forcing leads to an imbalance, leads to warming. Simple.

      • Yes – very simplistic.

      • It’s a lot of CO2 forcing, and I think you have not realized that yet. Not only ten times anything the sun does in any of its variations, but sustained for a century and growing. Warming has followed the forcing change. Only you are completely taken by surprise by this. It’s too easy and straightforward for physics to explain. Must be some kind of plot, right?

      • Your thinking that the simple bits escape me is wrong – it is the complex bits that you should try to get. I don’t think it’s a plot – we should never underestimate human stupidity as an explanation.

      • The hard part for you is explaining why it isn’t CO2 when its forcing has been so dominant, and it also explains other warming and cooling episodes over the last billion years that you have to regard as also coincidental. Those “coincidences” are a bit of a nuisance to other explanations. Good luck with that.

      • You see your narratives don’t actually qualify as science – as breathtakingly ambitious as they are. A billion years – predating even the formation and breakup of Pangea. I’m impressed – I can barely cope with the last 20,000 years. I will have to totally reconsider my 100ky problem comment below because I’ve seen the light and climate is all carbon dioxide.

      • So the temperature does this in the last couple of centuries and you are still clueless and searching for the energy source that explains why this and why only now? Does that summarize your plight?

      • In truth – a series of unfortunate events Jimmy dear. In the late 1980’s – as a relatively bushy tailed hydrologist – I read a study of flood and drought regimes in eastern Australia. Stream morphology changed in the late 1970’s in response to much drier conditions. By that time the ‘Great Pacific Climate shift’ had been recognized and the narrative had it that this was in response to global warming. There would be endless drought and ghost cities by the end of the century. I knew that this had happened before – earlier in the century in fact – and I wondered if this was permanent or if it would change again. One problem was how ENSO influenced rainfall on a multi-decadal basis. In 1996 the PDO was descried but the problem there was how something in the north east Pacific affected rainfall regimes in Australia. By 2003 it was obvious that ENSO was again in a cooler state and that the PDO had turned negative.

        But then I was staring at the HadCRUT data and it struck me like a ton of bricks that break points in surface temperatures exactly matched transitions to flood and drought regimes in Australia. I don’t think I slept for 3 days – and finally rang Australia’s leading hydrologist who told me that – no – I wasn’t going mad. The rest is a very sad history.

        Temperature rising to 1944, declining to 1976 and rising again to 1998. A pattern that only vaguely matched CO2 concentrations. To make CO2 fit you have to have a narrative of mid century sulphate cooling – something that doesn’t bear close scrutiny.

        A warm Pacific surface to 1944, cool to 1976 and warm again to 1998. Once you see it – it cannot of course be unseen. By then it was clear as well that the PDO and ENSO had the same multi decadal stochastic forcing – just what was still a mystery. These were not separate phenomenon. The temperature effects were in one sense not all that mysterious – energy transfer to and from the ocean in shifting regimes of sea temperature.

        By 2007 I had read AR4 – and noted that there were associated radiative effects from cloud and water vapor.

        “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 2007

        Equivocal – but even I suspected that looking for Pacific cloud in a few observations on the US mainland was probably not definitive. Within a couple of years of that observations emerged of low level cloud feedbacks to sea surface temperature. The narrative switched to purely cyclical variability that cancelled out over 60 or so years. By this time I wasn’t buying what they were selling. I was trying to disentangle regimes from anthropogenic warming – and starting from 1950 just seemed wrong.

        The rate of warming – accounting for regimes – that might be attributed to greenhouse gases was 0.1 degree C/decade and the total was 0.4 degrees C.

        Then the new paradigm of spatio-temporal chaos provided an underlying mechanism for climate shifts that was very different to the alternative story being told. I was late to the party there. 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.

        It very quickly became evident the the Pacific state shifted at these 20 to 30 year intervals in ways that summed to variability at millennial scales – and that the millennial peak in the 20th century was likely to pass this century. Those damned Hurst effects.

        Professor Jonathon Nott of James Cook University was interviewed by the ‘The Australian’ newspaper in the tense day before cyclone Yasi hit. Cyclones in Australia are much bigger and much more frequent in La Niña years than otherwise. He said that ‘what the record shows is we go through extended periods, hundreds of years, of high activity and extended periods of little activity.’ God help us – the past 150 years have been a period of little activity. There is little to suggest that we have more than skimmed the surface of Pacific Ocean variability.

        As I say – a long and sad story and I become a bitter and angry old man insisting on things that are profoundly arcane and that no one really cares about. My one driving obsession is – what if I am right? What if the climate shifts to cooler conditions in the next climate shift due in a decade driven by UV/ozone chemistry, polar surface pressure and sub-polar gyres in amplifying a dimming sun. We would have then both the risks of extreme and abrupt climate change and a triumphant skepticism. I have just mailed Christmas presents off to my grandchildren. Is this the world we want to leave them?

      • Not reading your screed. You need to write shorter. Anyway, you didn’t respond to what I said. The recent warming goes with 2 W/m2 of CO2 forcing. While there is no surprise we get a degree of warming with 2 W/m2 of forcing, you seem not to accept any of that as even possible and look for other sources to exceed the CO2 effect when none is needed. By itself it is enough to explain why the last couple of centuries shows up like that.

      • You don’t see the forest for the trees. It has been a 1 degree rise. Natural oscillations (mainly solar) and variable non-CO2 forcing like aerosols have caused fluctuations up to +/-0.1 C about that trends so no one expects it to follow the CO2 curve more closely than to within about a tenth of a degree, but the overall rise remains 1 C (+/-0.1 C) and the overall CO2 forcing of 2 W/m2 is consistent with that.

      • He asked me what happened in the past couple of hundred years – complains that it is too long and says he won’t read it – but that I didn’t answer his question anyway? Hmm…

        So logically x implies both y and not y.

        So which is it really – y or not y?

        And just how easy does he think hundreds of years of climate complexity is to summarize?

        And why quibble about a few paragraphs of my typically fluid, elegant, lively and concise writing – with some fascinating points on the natural science of the Earth system – when he has wasted a decade at least repeating the same little meme?

        Answer the questions Jim or I will assume that everything you say is a sham. Not that I don’t already.

      • You didn’t have a question.

      • You will find the questions just before the question mark – turn right and down the rabbit hole.

      • Yes, a deflection. Good one.

      • I think your central question, when you think about it, is whether 2 W/m2 really can fully explain 1 degree of warming, and the answer is, yes it can. Glad to help. In fact with as much as 2 W/m2 it is difficult not to get 1 degree of warming. That’s physics.

      • Well – no it doesn’t – it won’t – and while is some very basic radiative physics involved – the fundamental mechanism of climate is chaos. Which is after all the third great idea in 20th century physics. Climate is largely internally driven and will shift again within a decade. What fun.

      • You have invoked forcing to explain temperature changes in the past. Do the Ice Ages ring a bell? Now those are going to be random too, I guess? So long, Milankovitch. Your ideas change from post to post making you a slimy customer for arguments.

      • “… over glacial–interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, inc… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 1 day ago

        The live link is at the top right hand corner.

        We are looking at small changes in control variables triggering state changes in the system.

        I thought you agreed with this just yesterday – but then we live in the retarded goldfish bowl.

      • Did you agree that CO2 is a control variable? When injected quickly it is rather more powerful than the orbital parameters Milankovitch has. Especially a kick of 2 W/m2 in a century which is a much higher rate of change than the orbital forcing that is measured in W/m2 per millennium. The warming rate is at least 20 times larger than the previous Milankovitch cooling trend in this last millennium that ended with the LIA.

      • Welcome to the goldfish bowl – welcome to the goldfish bowl – welcome to the goldfish bowl

        Climate science is immensely uncertain – despite the nonsense we see here from the denizens. It has Hurst effects – that means that the system is even less predictable – according to Demetris Koutsoyiannis – http://www.itia.ntua.gr/dk/ – than randomness that people imagine I write about.

        blacklist #22

        https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/19/week-in-review-science-edition-73/#comment-861746

        blacklist #8

        https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/19/week-in-review-science-edition-73/#comment-861763

        blacklist #69 – just for you Jimmy

        https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/19/week-in-review-science-edition-73/#comment-861783

        blacklist #12 – the infamous Jose Rial

        http://doc.rero.ch/record/4899/files/1_beniston_nfc.pdf

        What say you read something that isn’t the summary for policy makers or realclimate – there is a brave new world out there.

      • Note that TSI varies as much as 0.2 W/m2 in 11-year cycles and that is immediately detectable in the temperature series. You would have it drowned out by randomness, but sadly for you that does not happen. Forcing changes are immediately seen, volcanoes too, and CO2 with its 2 W/m2 so far as seen in the graph plotted above. In fact it is kind of interesting how little randomness contributes to make all these forcing effects so detectable even at tenths of a degree as in the case of TSI.

      • I’d look more at solar UV variability – and it is not random. Get back to me when you understand either of those ideas.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

        http://doc.rero.ch/record/4899/files/1_beniston_nfc.pdf

        Until then – silence is golden.

      • Exactly! Neither is the 11-year cycle random, and the point was that this cycle is detectable in the temperature record. When you can detect a weak regular forcing of a few tenths of a W/m2 in a decade why would you not be able to detect a strong forcing of 2 W/m2 over a whole century? If the earth’s CO2 level was 300 ppm one century and 600 ppm the next, you would surely see that temperature difference in the century average temperatures the same way you see the temperature difference between a solar max and solar min that is an order of magnitude less forcing change.

      • “The sun’s total irradiance decreased from 1980 to mid-1985, remained approximately constant until mid-1987, and has recently begun to increase. This time interval covered the decrease in solar activity from the maximum of solar cycle 21 to solar minimum and the onset of cycle 22. The sun’s ultraviolet irradiance also decreased during the descending phase of cycle 21 and, like the total irradiance, is now increasing concurrently with the increase in cycle 22 activity. Although only 1 percent of the sun’s energy is emitted at ultraviolet wavelengths between 200 and 300 nanometers, the decrease in this radiation from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1985 accounted for 19 percent of the decrease in the total irradiance over the same period.” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/244/4901/197

        Yet this 19% change from solar max to min is far more influential than the 80% contribution from TSI. Ah – the wonders of nonlinear responses in the planetary system.

      • Influential in what, surface temperature? You say the temperature record is too noisy to detect forcing changes, so let’s take a look shall we.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
        Hmm, I think I see a signal there, and at 2 C per doubling it also is the response AGW would predict. If you increase CO2 by 100 ppm, it has a noticeable and immediate effect that you can’t attribute to just coincidence which appears to be your line.

      • UV/ozone is far more influential in global climate than TSI.

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

        But I forget – you are above reading my screeds. Reinforcing ignorance from a cultural bias. Such a pathetic attitude is the epitome of ignorance.

        The increase from 1944 to 1998 – was 0.4 degrees C at 0.1 degree/decade.

        The world has not warmed since.

      • Not warmed since? Can you read graphs?

      • I am an engineer and an environmental scientist. You can be assured that I have made a few graphs in my time. And you may dissimulate all you like – the errors of the surface record accumulate. The physics of it is damned obvious.

      • Thanks for your input.

      • Robert

        ‘My one driving obsession is – what if I am right? ”

        Rest easy, you are not correct. Now, go play with your grand kids or
        get a nice hobby.

      • But science and technology is such fun Emperor Mosh – I urge you to try it some time. It would beat wasting all that effort on surface temperature records.

        “The term “global warming” has been used to describe the observed surface air temperature increase in the 20th century. However, this concept of “global warming” requires assessments of units of heat (that is, Joules). Temperature, by itself, is an incomplete characterization of surface air heat content.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004EO210004/abstract

        Not merely incomplete but with varying proportions of latent and sensible heat with varying soil moisture.

        “The heat content of surface air (i.e.,z right above ground level, so that z = 0 can be assumed) can be expressed as:

        H = CPT + Lq

        where Cp is the specific heat of air at constant pressure,T is the air temperature, L is the latent heat of vaporization, and q is the specific humidity [Haltiner and Williams, 1980]. The quantity, H, is called moist static energy and can be expressed in units of Joules/kg.” op. cit.

        So if you would like to do the rest of the job by accounting for L and q – knock yourself out. My preference is 21st century tech.

        There are very fundamental things that are as nearly certain as the sun rising this morning. I am inclined to think that most 20th century warming was quite natural. Anthropogenic warming in the post – war period was 0.4 degrees K. 1944 to 1998 including both the mid century cool and the late century warm Pacific Ocean regimes – as seen in surface temperature records. Starting at 1950 is just wrong.

        With a dimming sun and associated resurgent upwelling in the eastern Pacific suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting perhaps with the next Pacific climate shift due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise.

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

  66. Hello again TonyB. Long time no see!

    You mention “Scoresby, the first Arctic scientist, who investigated the rapid disappearance of Artic ice in the early nineteenth century”.

    What “rapid disappearance of Arctic ice in the early nineteenth century” would that be exactly?

    P.S. Why can’t I reply directly to your comment?

  67. Atomski Chomski says –

    Of course, Tsonis was wrong, as global warming continued post-2002. There’s been global warming over the past couple of decades, as observed in ocean warming, surface warming, warming of the troposphere, and Earth’s energy balance (i.e. comparing the amount of energy the Earth takes up vs. the amount of energy the Earth releases)…

    The global energy equation is very simple.

    Δ(H&W) ≈ Ein – Eout

    The change in heat energy content of the planet – and the work done in melting ice or vaporising water – is approximately equal to energy in less energy out. There are minor contributions with heat from inside the planet and the heat of combustion of fossil fuels that make it approximate but still precise enough to use. Energy imbalances – the difference between energy in and energy out – result in ocean warming or cooling. The oceans are by far the greatest part of Earth’s energy storage – and the Argo record gives us a real sense of whether the planet is warming or cooling – or both at different times.

    And from pre 21st century instruments.

    ERBS shows a cooling influence in IR of 0.7W.m2 and
    a warming in SW of 2.1W/m2 – for a net warming of 1.4W/m2. The rate of warming in oceans – dominated by cloud radiative effects – is consistent with the change in TOA power flux.

    On climate I am inclined to think that most 20th century warming was quite natural. Anthropogenic warming in the post – war period was some 0.4 degrees K. 1944 and 1998 being the peaks of 2 successive 20 to 30 year warm Pacific Ocean regimes – as seen in both sea surface and surface temperature records.

    With a dimming sun and associated resurgent upwelling in the eastern Pacific suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting perhaps with the next Pacific climate shift due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise.

  68. I think the climate shift to cooler is coming and by next summer a much better thought on this shift will be known.

  69. The entire reply by RIE is irrelevant to the point by Atomsk that the Tsonis prediction was wrong. So tell us, Robert I Ellison, whether you agree that the Tsonis prediction was wrong.

    So says the utterly gormless Matthew Marle. The oceans are most of the global energy is stored – some 90%.

    “It is hypothesized that persistent and consistent trends among several climate modes act to ‘kick’ the climate state, altering the pattern and magnitude of air-sea interaction between the atmosphere and the underlying ocean. Figure 1 (middle) shows that these climate mode trend phases indeed behaved anomalously three times during the 20th century, immediately following the synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s. This combination of the synchronization of these dynamical modes in the climate, followed immediately afterward by significant increase in the fraction of strong trends (coupling) without exception marked shifts in the 20th century climate state. These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full

    This paper is about the 4th synchronization event in 1998-2001. If the trajectory of both surface and ocean changes following 1998 – then that says there has been a change in the radiative budget of the Earth. Decide for yourself. The Clement et al graph above somewhere shows cloud changes in the north-east Pacific from both satellite and surface observations.

    One can see readily the changes in the Pacific state.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full

    Blue dominant to 1976, red to 1998 and apparently fairly neutral since. The test comes with the next shift due within a decade.

    Tsonis is undoubtedly correct – and Atomski is a weird little climate fanatic.

    • Robert I Ellison: Tsonis is undoubtedly correct – and Atomski is a weird little climate fanatic.

      So you say, but where is the evidence that Tsonis made a correct prediction?

      • “We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged… This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.”

        It is an astonishingly elegant science with far reaching implications –
        but Matthew is not capable of appreciating even that there is no prediction.

        On the basis of the past behavior of the climate system – the current regime will persist for 20 to 30 years. We have perhaps a decade of at least non-warming to come before climate shifts again. Is this a prediction or an analysis on which to base a solid hypothesis? I will leave it to reasonable people to decide – and this does not include Matthew, JCH or Atomski.

        Rather than standing on the shoulders of giants – they are lap dogs yapping at the heels of a visionary scientist. And this is by no means confined to Anastasios Tsonis.

        They believe that they can sit in judgement of science – but have such little knowledge and capacity they succeed only in appearing foolish and deluded. This is an awful indictment of the culture they are building.

      • Robert I Ellison: Is this a prediction or an analysis on which to base a solid hypothesis?

        Could it possibly be disconfirmed? If it is a hypothesis with consequences that can be compared to future data, how is it not a “prediction”? Is it not expected that the fit of future data to the deductions from the hypothesis will be close?

        Atomsk’s Sanarkan correctly quoted a clear prediction from Tsonis, a prediction that has been wrong. Perhaps in the future, as you expect, there will be cooling.

      • What I doubt is that ocean warming in this century has been conclusively demonstrated.

        What I know is that the satellites show little to no warming since 1998 – and that the surface records have drought artifacts in recent years. Account for all of the surface energy flux – and I might have a better opinion of this data.

        But Matthew has not the understanding to even distinguish between latent and sensible heat.

      • Robert I Ellison: But Matthew has not the understanding to even distinguish between latent and sensible heat.

        Another claim that you can not back with an exact quote.

        What I doubt is that ocean warming in this century has been conclusively demonstrated.

        You and I both. But Tsonis predicted actual cooling, which has not been observed.

      • Usually it is polite not to reach a premature conclusion.

        With the next super La Nina emerging in the Pacific – perhaps the fat lady hasn’t climaxed yet.

    • Dream on. Pray. Get a bone for your nose. The cargo planes will come back.

      • “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

        JCH doesn’t have a pilot’s licence – he has crashed, burned and joined the zombie apocalypse. .

  70. That’s just Hansen’s meltwater pulse idea. Europe cools when the surge in Greenland meltwater stops the AMOC. This has happened before under abrupt climate change – possible. It is accompanied by rapid sea-level rises too.

    Jimmy dear will find that it is one possible explanation for the Younger Dryas – AMOC won’t stop entirely but the associated high northern cooling brings with it ice sheet growth and sea level falls.

    Are there other possibilities? In between wasting my time here – I have been reviewing the latest theories on the 100,000 year glacial problem.

    The 100,000 year problem is that the periodicity of glacials changes from ~41,000 years to ~100,000 years some 800,000 years ago. There are Milankovitch cycles of around 21,000, 40,000, 100,000, and 400,000 years – in the 100,000 year cycle involving orbital eccentricities the change in insolation is much smaller than with the 21,000 and 40,000 year cycles.

    One theory is that the 100,000 year regime is a synchronization of a resonant frequency of the Earth system with the 100,000 year eccentricity forcing. The mid-Pleistocene transition in this theory is the result of continental drift and sea floor spreading changing the resonant frequency.

    see – https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1756

    There are other theories.

    “Orbital inclination has a 100ka periodicity, while eccentricity’s 95 and 125ka periods could inter-react to give a 108ka effect. While it is possible that the less significant, and originally overlooked, inclination variability has a deep effect on climate,[11] the eccentricity only modifies insolation by a small amount: 1–2% of the shift caused by the 21,000-year precession and 41,000-year obliquity cycles. Such a big impact from inclination would therefore be disproportionate in comparison to other cycles.[8] One possible mechanism suggested to account for this was the passage of Earth through regions of cosmic dust. Our eccentric orbit would take us through dusty clouds in space, which would act to occlude some of the incoming radiation, shadowing the Earth.[11] In such a scenario, the abundance of the isotope 3He, produced by solar rays splitting gases in the upper atmosphere, would be expected to decrease—and initial investigations did indeed find such a drop in 3He abundance.[12][13] But the idea of an inclination effect has been deemed unnecessary (Rial 1999). However, there is still the possibility that the 100ka eccentricity cycle acts as a “pacemaker” to the system, amplifying the effect of precession and obliquity cycles at key moments, pushing the system out of a locally stable state and triggering a swift melting phase, by a small perturbation.[8][14]”
    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/100%2C000-year_problem.html#cite_note-Ellis2016-20

    The link above is to a well written piece and there are a number of good references.

    I like the dust-ice albedo theory.

    “It is claimed that after an initial Milankovitch insolation cooling, the ice-sheet albedo contribution to cooling is so great, that subsequent insolation maxima cannot melt the growing ice sheets, nor raise temperatures. So the ice age deepens via increasing ice-albedo and cooling, and would continue to deepen almost indefinitely. However, after some 70 ky or so, CO2 concentrations lower to a value at which flora is decimated and new CO2 deserts are formed, especially in China and Mongolia. These large CO2 deserts cover the northern ice sheets with dust, as is recorded in the ice core data, and the ice sheet albedo is lowered sufficiently so that the next insolation maxima can melt the ice sheets.
    So in this proposal, the 85 ky or 115 ky ice age cycle is initiated by Milankovitch insolation, but modulated by the slow rate of cooling and CO2 reductions. An interglacial cannot occur, so it is claimed, until sea-level CO2 concentrations have reached 190 ppm, at which point CO2 deserts can form and dust storms can be initiated. And since the rate of ice sheet growth, and temperature and CO2 reduction have been fairly constant over the last 800 ky, the glacial-interglacial oscillation maintains a regular cycle.[20]”

    Was the Antarctic ice sheet responsible for the transition by modulating CO2 uptake and release?

    “The ~100 k.y. cyclicity of the late Pleistocene ice ages started during the mid-Pleistocene transition (MPT), as ice sheets became larger and persisted for longer. The climate system feedbacks responsible for introducing this nonlinear ice sheet response to orbital variations in insolation remain uncertain. Here we present benthic foraminiferal stable isotope (d18O, d13C) and trace metal records (Cd/Ca, B/Ca, U/Ca) from Deep Sea Drilling Project Site 607 in the North Atlantic. During the onset of the MPT, glacial-interglacial changes in d13C values are associated with changes in nutrient content and carbonate saturation state, consistent with a change in water mass at our site from a nutrient-poor northern source during interglacial intervals to a nutrient-rich, corrosive southern source during glacial intervals.” https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geology/article-lookup/44/12/1035

    What remains is a nonlinear response to insolation that involves CO2 and ice sheets. From the last glacial max – CO2 forcing had about a 2W/m2 increase and ice sheet albedo change amounted to some 25W/m2 less reflected SW. .

  71. Mr. Ellison,
    You need to pick up the pace. You haven’t even posted a hundred times on this thread yet. You are in danger of the real world intruding on your posting life.

    • I respond to comments from numbers of climate tragics – and even to irrelevant, smarmy and pointless snark like this.

      • Mr. Ellison,
        Instead of a gentle tease let me be more direct. #1) My comment was not irrelevant, In previous years when she had more time to devote to CE, Dr. Curry would throttle people when they contributed more than 10% of comments on a thread. You were in the 20–25% range in this one. By word count your postings would approach 50%. You have your own blog, why do you obsessively contribute here? I’d suggest parasitism rather than symbiosis is the answer.
        #2) Smarmy? Could you point out what words in my comment qualify for the definition of “smarmy?” There was nothing insincere or ingratiating in my comment. It was mostly irony/sarcasm with some snark.
        #3) Pointless? I think my point was pretty obvious. Your obsessive bloviating decreases the value of this forum in my opinion and I find it uninteresting, generally skipping over your comments. I’m willing to miss whatever gems they might contain to avoid terminal boredom. That’s unfortunate as the gems might sparkle if you changed your style. Quality not quantity usually wins the day.
        Lastly, whatever I find of interest to me, is my business. Your usage of “damned” to make your assertion seem more powerful was an interesting tell.
        I researched you, wondering what makes you tick. You are a smart fellow in many ways. But, if you think devoting your time to this obsessive behavior is a good use of your talents or the fleeting moments you have on this world, I feel sorry for you.
        I’d urge you to commune more with nature, socialize more with people in the flesh and try to comment less frequently and more succinctly. Or put them all in a book and list it on Amazon. I promise I’ll buy it, read it and review it fairly.

      • You may add long winded whines about things that are none of your concern to irrelevant, smarmy and pointless snark.

        In this post I have made pointed responses to a number of people – sometimes in discourse with Jimmy dear – which I try to keep relatively light and at least amuse myself. What we do in a private thread is a matter for consenting adults – and not of much interest to anyone else.

        I seem to have provoked vehement responses to arcane science that is after all mainstream. I am no sky dragon slayer. I have made a few highly substantive comments both on science and policy.

        You had a choice – ignore me and say something with some substance or waste everyone’s time with this nonsense. But no – you count comments and words and research me – and give me unwelcome and condescending advice without having the slightest clue about my circumstances. What on Earth happens in that head of yours to make that seem reasonable? This is not the place for it despite any and every accusation of prolixity.

        As I said – I spend most of my days and nights reading science. Why is none of your damned business and you seem no great loss to my world.

      • “your concern to irrelevant, smarmy and pointless snark.”
        Very much of concern Ellison…. and to several now it seems.

        Here a random selection of the treatment “The one who knoweth all” metes out to his underlings on this one thread alone …

        “Tony avoids mention of endlessly and smarmily”

        “Here is a person who routinely uses hyperbole and calumny, ….”

        “Your purpose – which we have seen in many others of the pissant progressive persuasion – seems to be to ram your narrow views down peoples throats with an obsessive persistence that is remarkable ”

        “Your mission – embraced obsessively – is in constantly repeating simplistic nonsense to demonstrate your moral and intellectual superiority over deniers….”

        “it means that both you and Banton are a complete waste of everyone’s time here.”

        “We can compare this with Jimmy D’s pontifications on both mechanism….”

        “The comment above seems a relatively representative sample of meaningless twaddle.”

        “JCH’s is an endless litany of repeated error and hyperbole”

        “I simply cannot believe that you believe that is an appropriate comment from any serious and responsible adult.”

        “Can we get a moderation filter for inanity?”

        “JCH’s angry little outbursts are not worth anyone’s time.”

        “It is clear that neither of them have a freakin’ clue. ”

        “let me anticipate a strident and much exaggerated lack of humor, a wounded sense of decorum ans a stilted and smamy style. Now let’s see what pejorative nonsense you have come up with now.”

        “I am a university trained hydrologist, engineer and environmental scientist. I have read a few papers in my time. You it seems not so much science as blogospheric echo chambers.”

        WELL BULLY FOR YOU – TAKE A BOW FOR THE PLEBS

        “This just reveals JCH’s superficial and negative knowledge approach to science.”

        “It is always a hallucinatory experience trying to decipher Jimmy D’s immensely repetitive stories on very limited subject matter.”

        “You are a joke Jimmy dear.”

        “Frankly – even there I am utterly bored with the obsessive madness of pissant progressives. ”

        “You have no idea other than carbon dioxide and therefore nothing you repeat endlessly makes any sense at all.”

        “In this post I have made pointed responses to a number of people – sometimes in discourse with Jimmy dear – which I try to keep relatively light and at least amuse myself. ”

        Ellison you are a nasty, arrogant and (in my personal experience) dishonest POS with zero integrity.
        An intellectual bully and one who of all I’ve come across on Climate Blogs that truly fits the epithet of “Thug”.

        Basic psychology my friend is to treat people with respect and you will get likewise back.
        That you so patently don’t, relegates your unending wordiness on here to just that – and is the primary reason I do not post here. You are quite simply a pollutant, your endless posts just something to be skipped over/ignored….. as I will your inevitable reply.

        As Watts once said to someone on his execrable Blog… “how about you rethink your posting attitude”.

        Your attitude towards me regarding false accusations and refusal to admit being wrong, were so graceless that you merit the pejoritive POS in my book just for that.

        So ta ta my oh, so omniscient friend, and may you drizzle your intellect on us, your, so clearly, inferior.
        Such that we marvel in your magnificence.

      • These comments Banton copies and pastes are both out of context and quite in keeping with the demeanor of the people involved. I do not randomly follow anyone around with gratuitous vitriol. It is inevitably an even handed and quite moderate response to the sort of nonsense seen around here – and always in the context of detailed technical commentary.

        Banton follows me about with evident obsessiveness. What is his purpose? Again he appears out of nowhere to heap on the calumny. This is not the place for it.

        Banton stridently repeats the global warming memes, he is a progressive activist, someone who thinks that any disagreement is a personal slight – and who responds with an endless stream of petty vitriol. As is true to type for these people.

        Banton still seems to be harboring a grudge about a discussion in a now long ago post. It seems the only time he come out of the woodwork is to berate and malign me. I’d guess that his purpose is to win an argument that has nothing to do with the technical points that he has such a limited grasp of. But then he is a meteorologist with a ‘big swinging dick’ and we are supposed to take him at his own assessment of his personal intellectual authority.

        This is the study we discussed.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

        It clearly involves surface pressure at the poles – it says so – and is concerned with NH blocking patterns involving the polar annular mode in a low solar UV environment.

        Somehow he got it into his head that sudden stratospheric warming was the mechanism under discussion, interpreted the study in that light and went off on a series of mad rants. Yes I took some delight in shooting him down. He really needs to move on.

        For most of these people – Atomski, Banton, JCH and even dear Jimmy – it is political. It is about the progressive meme set, disparagement of old white conservative males especially and demonstration of their moral and intellectual superiority on a range of topics from Trump to AIDS. Skeptics have certainly seen a great deal of this nonsense over the years. In the light of their extreme disdain – calling them pissant progressives seems fair play – but they don’t like it. Nor do they like denial of the climate change shibboleth in ways that they have no answer for. This provokes the wildest and maddest denunciations.

      • That regime shift had a sell-by date on it. It’s come and gone. It caused a short flattening in the GMST from around 2007 to 2014; the divine wind, and then it died of extreme exhaustion. Spent. Used up. Beaten.

        You’re a dead ender.

        The little blue spot with the purple corpse trend line, that was your NV’s last moment of glory. Now a long time ago:

      • “Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26),
        leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8bfb/97567b891d26a364e905df68b371d5a30f65.pdf

        20 to 30 years? We may have had a Pacific climate shift to a warmer trajectory – but it is a little early to tell. Either way – climate will continue to shift as it has over the Holocene.

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

        With such a complex and dynamic system I am almost guaranteed to be wrong – but JCH’s rants are complete rubbish. I’d call it feral science but people would whine.

      • And that’s a date source that has no credibility at all.

      • Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

        A major reason I thought the PDO was about to go positive was something I read in a Tsonis paper. Lol. He went, just like you and Professor Curry, around 100% political.

        Al Gore is fat. I hate Mann. Surely physics agrees with that. Whoops.

      • Robert I Ellison: With such a complex and dynamic system I am almost guaranteed to be wrong

        My one driving obsession is – what if I am right?

        My obsessions are more along the line of: How accurate can such a statement be (e.g. climate regime change in the time frame 2018-2028); and how can we tell? Consider Tsonis’ prediction of 15+ years of cooling: it is wrong so far, but might it be correct in some different time frame? The 1998-1999 el Nino was followed eventually by a global mean temp plateau that had a higher mean temp than the pre-1998 global mean temp; will the 2015-2016 el Nino likewise be followed by a higher mean temp than the pre-2015 global mean temp? It is too soon to tell from the extant data — it looks like we’ll need 5 more years of data. In the mean time it is clearly too soon to claim that Tsonis made a correct prediction.

        These comments Banton copies and pastes are both out of context and quite in keeping with the demeanor of the people involved.

        In context those comments are inappropriate, and distract from your scientific messages.

        t JCH’s rants are complete rubbish.

        JCH does not post rants, and his comments are almost always on point.

        About your many interesting links to and quotes from the dynamic systems literature the most pertinent thing you wrote is that they do not (at least not yet) illuminate the discussion of whether increasing CO2 will increase or decrease or be independent of global mean temperature.

      • You missed the last rant? Or do you have a different definition of rant?

        Climate has shifted at 20-30 year intervals for a millennia at least. But there is also variability over millennia. I expect reversion to the mean to kick in and the surface of the Pacific to cool over centuries.

        But I also expect a low emissions trajectory – with 2-3Gtc/yr sequestered in soils and vegetation over 40 years – and innovation in energy and productive systems.

        Another little ice age pending?

        5 years revealing everything however is extreme optimism. Tsonis and many others are right about the dynamic past – the future is another country.

        Tell you what – why don’t you review Nile River flows for the ‘statistics of extremes’.

      • And quoting things out of context seems par for the course for such as you. Fsair

      • Pressed post accidentally. I was going to add that fair use says that linking to the source is required.

        https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/19/week-in-review-science-edition-73/#comment-861783

    • It all makes perfect sense now. Put that in a peer reviewed science paper and the PDO turns positive.

  72. You are in danger of the real world intruding on your posting life.

    I spend most of my days and nights reading science. Why I can and do is none of anyones damned business.

    But science is fun when you can get past the retarded goldfish bowl. I always rather move onto something new but the climate blogosphere is all about well rehearsed talking points.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016WR020078/full

    • “Remember, then, that scientific thought is the guide to action; that the truth at which it arrives is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we can act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress itself.”
      William Kingdon Clifford, The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885)

      And just while I am encouraging consideration of the fruitfulness of science. Where we can act without fear is in restoring agricultural lands and environments to boost agricultural productivity, development, health and education, drought and flood resilience and biodiversity conservation. Mostly through free markets and democracy. The other strategy is to innovate on energy and production techniques.

      “Climate change can’t be solved on the backs of the world’s poorest people,” said Daniel Sarewitz, coauthor and director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. “The key to solving for both climate and poverty is helping nations build innovative energy systems that can deliver cheap, clean, and reliable power.” https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet

      “This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that’s effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases…

      The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

      The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.” https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

      Climate science is immensely uncertain – despite the nonsense we see here from the denizens. It has Hurst effects – that means that the system is even less predictable – according to Demetris Koutsoyiannis – http://www.itia.ntua.gr/dk/ – than randomness that people imagine I write about. But we do know enough to create practical ways forward.

  73. “When asked by Spiegel if it would not be better to invest the money in renewable energies, Hansen scoffs at the question:

    “More renewable energies? You’re joking. The subsidies set aside for renewable energies are forcing consumers to pay higher rates – a sort of invisible tax. The power bill keeps rising, but the customer does not know why.”

    http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.MKXuMFnR.dpbs

    Joking. So much faith in renewables. It’s faith without a path forward to slow CO2 emissions. Renewables are now a talking point against nuclear power. I love wind turbines that hardly do anything worthwhile and I hate nuclear power that does many things reliably.

    “In the interview the former GISS head appears frustrated and concerned by the appointments of anti-nuclear activists to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – by recent Democratic presidents – and is afraid our children will be disappointed over “how foolish we were and the mess we created.””

    In the future regrets department, Why didn’t we add nuclear power plants? We were afraid.

  74. Who knows? Mount Agung might do something. I think it was Zeke who gave a prior eruption in about 1963 weight as far as impacting the short term GMST.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-volcano/indonesia-raises-bali-volcano-alert-to-highest-level-warns-of-imminent-large-eruption-risk-idUSKBN1DR036?feedType=RSS&feedName=newsOne

  75. This is great:

    “CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen wishes the entire world a happy time of thanksgiving — for the fossil fuels, hydroelectric power, and other contributions to reliable, affordable energy that has powered a dramatic shift in life expectancy and standards of living and world health, lifting billions out of poverty.”
    Some see the the world as a glass almost full, and others see it as almost empty.

    I am thankful for the things I have and those that have made my life much easier than my grandparents had it. I too am thankful for the utility corporations that provide me electricity and heat and the oil and gas corporations that help with that while providing cheap gasoline.

  76. “Officials issued a red alert and ordered Bali residents to evacuate after the Mount Agung volcano erupted, blasting ash up to 5.6 miles into the air.”

    Which is about 9 kilometers.

    “When eruptions are powerful enough to reach the stratosphere (18 km or more above the surface at the equator), these sulphate aerosols can stay aloft for a number of years and have a strong cooling effect on the climate.” – Hausfather

    The height has been increasing over the last day or so. Might just get tired and go back to sleep though.

  77. “Such surveys are often cited as demonstrating a near-unanimous scientific consensus in favor of a climate policy, when they never ask any question about whether and to what extent the anthropogenic component in recent warming might be dangerous or about whether a ‘‘climate policy’’ should be adopted in attempted mitigation of future warming.” http://wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf

    The graphic I found in an image search – but that it cited the wrong study confirms yet again the intellectual sloppiness of WUWT. They are however far from alone in this.

    The standard definition is of course that at least fifty percent percent of post 1950 warming was anthropogenic. With they say a likelihood that it was all anthropogenic based on forcing estimates.

    There is no alternative hypothesis – simply an additional factor in internal variability at all scales. Jimmy dear posited again yesterday that cooling over the last 5 million years – using sea level as a proxy below – was Milankovitch forcing.

    https://wordpress.com/post/watertechbyrie.com

    The reality there is that the ~100,000 year Milankovitch eccentricity forcing is so very minor – and the ~21,000, ~41,000 and ~413,000 periodicities don’t change total global insolation. The secret here is in internal climate dynamics. I say periodicities and not cycles – there is only the appearance of cycles due to the huge relative mass of the Sun. It is as chaotic as any complex and dynamic system if you understand what Poincaré was doing with his non-integrable Hamiltonian.

    Chaos in the mathematical sense is not random – but provide simple rules at the heart of climate complexity. It operates at all scales in time and space – and it results in Hurst effects in climate data. Hurst in the middle of the last century discovered regimes and climate shifts in data on Nile River flows available from recordings of water levels from the 7th century of the common era.

    In the 20th we saw climate regimes and shifts that ultimately add up to climate variability over millennia.

    The usual narrative is that the mid-century cooling was sulfate induced. But as a science reality that is far from satisfactory – considering NASA forcings. It is an example of ignorance from a cultural bias. Try the other Legate et al paper for a discussion on agnotology.

    We do of course have the additional hypothesis from NASA.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

    Internal variability masked athropogenic warming between 1944 and 1976 – and added to it in the period to to 1998. Starting at 1950 is – thus – completely nuts.

    Mosh suggests above that I should play with my grandkids and get a hobby. I mentioned in passing – https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/19/week-in-review-science-edition-73/#comment-861783 – that I had sent them some gifts. Including some very beautiful Balinese kites. My son of whom I am inordinately proud – he is an example of the current generation being very much improved over the last – will play with his boys. But I have spent most of my life as a natural philosopher. That will not change now despite the the aggressive, disputative, angry and disdainful behavior of the culturally biased.

    And – no – we don’t need a climate policy. We need policies for human development and biodiversity conservation.

  78. Corporations Make Big Climate Promises Only To Retreat After A Few Years, Study Finds

    “The findings highlight the limitations of relying on market forces to combat climate change and dangers of allowing corporations beholden to the financial interests of shareholders to shape policy. It suggests the systemic changes scientists say are necessary to avoid the worst effects of warming temperatures will require massive government spending and regulation.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/corporations-big-climate-promises-only-222818397.html

    “…beholden to the financial interests of shareholders…”

    How dare people like me expect you not to fritter the shareholders money away chasing unicorns.

    I went to a big corporation once and said, Your customers want you to put solar panels all over your buildings. It will make you more money. They did that. 3 years later they got back to me and said I was selling snake oil. What their customers really wanted was affordable, reliable quality products.

  79. Energy Policy in Minnesota: The High Cost of Failure

    https://2lffqo2moysixpyb349z0bj6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/10.17-MN-Energy-Policy-Report-Final.pdf

    Long story short. It costs significant money. Results, well.

  80. Geoff Sherrington

    RIE,
    You have not revealed what grudge you hold against blog host Judith, whereby you are attempting to dominate the word count with your dreaming aloud rambles. You and I shall not see eye to eye no matter what you write because of your discourtesy of which you have been warned more than once. Now apologise to Judith and buzz off for a while.
    For others, few Aussies are as discourteous as this odd specimen. Geoff.

    • This I don’t read – but this is a guy who vehemently insists on his own authority – talk about the appeal to authority fallacy. This guy takes it to a whole new level.

      The great authority opined repeatedly and with considerable calumny that soil carbon sequestration was emphatically not possible. He has decades of experience in soil carbon – he is just not very bright it seems.

      e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706117300095

      Science says otherwise – and he seems to hold a grudge because I told him so. His spiels consist entirely of personal anecdote – and again a long, gratuitous whine about me. This again is not the place for such nonsense.

  81. Population control the natural way:
    “11 percent of drugs in poor countries are fake”
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/11-percent-drugs-poor-countries-fake-51430318
    “Experts reviewed 100 studies involving more than 48,000 medicines. Drugs for treating malaria and bacterial infections accounted for nearly 65 percent of fake medicines… Between 72,000 and 169,000 children may be dying from pneumonia every year after receiving bad drugs. Counterfeit medications might be responsible for an additional 116,000 deaths from malaria mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, according to scientists at the University of Edinburgh and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine”

    I really like this approach because it’s pretty effective. We should try it with diabetic drugs. If we can do this in the USA it will save billions in future entitlement spending.

  82. “A major reason I thought the PDO was about to go positive was something I read in a Tsonis paper. Lol. He went, just like you and Professor Curry, around 100% political.

    Al Gore is fat. I hate Mann. Surely physics agrees with that. Whoops.” JCH

    Yes it all makes perfect sense now. Put that in a peer reviewed science paper and the PDO turns positive.

    • Actually, I’m pretty much in the camp that the PDO has gone positive 3 times in the last ~30 years; each time resulting in warmest years ever, a plethora of them: 1995; 1997; 1998; 2005; 2010; 2014; 2015; 2016. Your paradigm is broken; it’s unhinged; because of, of all things: chaos. But keep betting on your linear 20 to 30 year “cycles” and your 2018 to 20whatever udder nonsense bull stuff prediction.

    • It also peaked in 1985 or some such. I can’t be bothered.

      • Yes, you’re permanently wedded to Mrs. Understanding. It is hilarious. Me, a cowboy guitar oil guy, smarter than than the world’s greatest-ever intellect.

  83. Pingback: Vähämerkityksellistä voivottelua pohjaveden käytön ilmastovaikutuksista | Roskasaitti

  84. Hot spots underneath Antarctica represent the “tip of the iceberg” (please excuse the pun). Antarctic geothermal heat flux has been matched by subaqueous heat flux, a much ignored phenomenon. Please see the following:
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/18/new-papers-seismic-activity-flux-explains-1979-2016-temperatures-enso-events-better-than-co2/#sthash.UgSQcLox.tyZKDuMe.dpbs

    • It might have been a pun, but there is a lot of truth to it. This entire area has been under researched, not just the Antarctic and Greenland, but under the oceans as well. This is a fascinating topic. Thanks for the link.

  85. Scott,

    I’m wading in without much cred, but the paper:

    From 2012 to 2016, California experienced one of the worst droughts since the start of observational records. As in previous dry periods, precipitation-inducing winter storms were steered away from California by a persistent atmospheric ridging system in the North Pacific. Here we identify a new link between Arctic sea-ice loss and the North Pacific geopotential ridge development. In a two-step teleconnection, sea-ice changes lead to reorganization of tropical convection that in turn triggers an anticyclonic response over the North Pacific, resulting in significant drying over California. These findings suggest that the ability of climate models to accurately estimate future precipitation changes over California is also linked to the fidelity with which future sea-ice changes are simulated. We conclude that sea-ice loss of the magnitude expected in the next decades could substantially impact California’s pre-cipitation, thus highlighting another mechanism by which human-caused climate change could exacerbate future California droughts.

    One might ask the authors why there is confidence in such claims when models evidently fail at predicting the past multi-decadal tropical precipitation, which is the precursor of the claimed effect, and modeling the past has gotten worse from CMIP3 to CMIP5.

    No doubt, temperature gradients ( along with geography ), largely determine Rossby waves in the atmosphere. But reflect that for any gradient, there remains an infinite number of physically equally valid future Rossby wave states. And that gradients change over the course of the seasons. And that Arctic sea ice doesn’t alone determine the Northern mid-latitude temperature gradient. And that wave motion itself reshapes temperature gradients.

    ENSO variation appears to be as important to California precip as any measure. And of course, ENSO represents fluctuation of Rossby waves, but is unpredictable. There was once a time that AGW was supposed to increase El Ninos, but I think that has been abandoned as a narrative.

    I don’t see much support for the ideas in this paper.

  86. TE.
    Thanks. Very good initial reaction in my view.

    I keep going to the 1200 year drought record in the west that shows multiples 100 year long droughts from 900 AD to modern era. 20 or 30 years are not very impressive in that context. It is difficult to understand the emphasis on model projections when the historical record variations can overwhelm signal in the short recent record.

    But more information is better than less as long as one maintains an objective and inquiring mind set.
    Scott

    • The “Santer et al.” paper has featured in my own musings on Xmas in the Arctic, in which Rudolf et al. take a refreshing dip in the Chukchi Sea.

      Here’s the hopefully helpful infographic:

      • One ( of the numerous ) problems with even entertaining this is all the models that the IPCC uses which all indicate an increase in tropical convection ( Figures f and j, compared with figure b ):

        While this increase hasn’t happened ( hence the missing hot spot ), the authors would do well to explain what magic they’ve accomplished and why then, we should throw out all other models and use theirs.

        Another issue is ENSO variation, which produces similar, though not identical variation as this model. ENSO variations occur with pretty much the same Arctic sea ice starting point. Things are multi-factoral, but it would not appear as if predictions, which must include such other unpredictable variations, are very certain.

    • The Austral spring on the Tropic of Capricorn in eastern Australia has been utterly brilliant. Cool Antarctic air pushing this far north keeps things coolish – a partly cloudy 24 degrees C at the moment – while the emerging La Niña results in regular evening showers.

      Here is a near real time super computer visualization of surface winds with a total precipitable water overlay.

      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-153.69,-0.80,226

      In the north the Aleutian low has been relatively intense. At the moment it is pushed to the west by a high pressure system over much of the western USA.

      In both hemisheres cold polar winds and storms pushing into lower latitudes are spinning up the oceanic gyres and increasing deep ocean upwelling in the eastern and central Pacific in the self reinforcing pattern of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. Which is a combination of ENSO and the PDO with the realization that they share a common 20 to 30 year – and much longer – signature.

      The variation in polar storm tracks is the result of changing surface pressure in the polar regions – that seem related in part to solar UV/ozone chemistry modulating atmospheric pathways.

      But it does indeed add up to centennial variability in floods and drought and in global ocean and atmospheric heat content.

      This is sea salt in a Law Dome ice core and eastern Australian rainfall.

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

      All of these studies should have a disclaimer that it is all so freakishly complex and non-linear that nothing is certain.

      “The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.” http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751

      Very few do.

    • Hi Scott

      I had a read of your link. It is a good paper in as much it references a lot of material. Whether the suppositions it makes that there is a cause and effect underpinned by mans activities are accurate or not will take more time to elapse and a better understanding of the natural processes over many centuries to evolve..

      I get a little nervous when models are used that utilise novel proxy data, or paleo material which tells us what conditions may have been like when the world was utterly different.to today

      So whether that paper will turn out to be significant or not is difficult to tell and whether the tele-connections found are real or imagined is also unknown at this point.

      A couple of years ago I spent some time in the Met Office library and archives and became interested in the ‘US Weather Review’. As you know it was a monthly and annual summary and dates in one form or another to around 1850, but is somewhat sporadic in the variety of readings, as of course much of America was still being discovered and weather observers were a very motley crew.

      However, I was very struck by the comparisons that were drawn between temperature, wind and rainfall changes from one year to the next.

      California drought and heat was often remarked upon, with some very high winter temperatures on the west coast of California being noted.

      I remember writing here that they had problems with severe drought well over 150 years ago when the population numbered in the low hundreds of thousands, so was not surprised at the frequent droughts now experienced with water hungry Californians now being numbered at over 30 millions.

      As regards one type of weather system predominating when El Nino or other forces come to the fore, you might be interested in this paper from the 1930’s by the renowned meteorologist Bliss, who was very active in drawing together records and looking at tele-connections and examined the embryonic systems they could discern such as the Southern Oscillation

      https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/ww5.pdf

      You are right that droughts can be very long and I believe that Al Gore in his good book ‘Earth in the balance’ pointed to many of these that affected the Americas. Certainly we have Roman records that point to severe droughts at times in various parts of the Byzantine empire which affected trade routes.

      Hope this is of some interest. The historical record is a worthwhile resource and is perhaps not given as much regards as it should be, as it can give many indicators of the past, as well as the possible future.

      Also, many historical papers such as the one that I link to from the 1930’s may be outdated, but most have the merits of being based on actual observations rather than speculative models.

      tonyb

  87. “…Emanuel says, and (Lorenz) made it clear that even if tracing the effects of small things is too hard to let anyone predict the weather a month ahead, the effects of large things, like the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, are not hard to discern.”

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422809/when-the-butterfly-effect-took-flight/

    The article also said something like, if we knew the condition of everything, then we could see the future. We can’t know everything and if we could, we wouldn’t know it to the 10th decimal place but if we could, that still wouldn’t be good enough.

    It seems the determinists were shown the limits of that approach.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s