by Judith Curry
In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public. – Rupert Darwall
Rupert Darwall has written a tour-de-force essay “A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm“, which has been published by CEI [link to full essay].
Foreword
I was invited to write a Foreword to the essay, which provides context for the essay:
While the nations of the world met in Bonn to discuss implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration was working to dismantle President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and to establish a climate “red team” to critically evaluate the scientific basis for dangerous human-caused climate change and the policy responses.
The mantra of “settled science” is belied by the inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific problem, the plethora of agents and processes that influence the global climate, and disagreements among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a “consensus” on the topic of human-caused climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of climate change, and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate, disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed.
This essay by Rupert Darwall explores the expressions of public certainty by climate scientists versus the private expressions of uncertainty, in context of a small Workshop on Climate organized by the American Physical Society (APS). I was privileged to participate in this workshop, which included three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who do not—all of whom were questioned by a panel of distinguished physicists.
The transcript of the workshop is a remarkable document. It provides, in my opinion, the most accurate portrayal of the scientific debates surrounding climate change. While each of the six scientists agreed on the primary scientific evidence, we each had a unique perspective on how to reason about the evidence, what conclusions could be drawn and with what level of certainty.
Rupert Darwall’s essay provides a timely and cogent argument for a red/blue team assessment of climate change that provides both sides with an impartial forum to ask questions and probe the other side’s case. Such an assessment would both advance the science and open up the policy deliberations to a much broader range of options.
Excerpts
Here are some highlights from the full essay (but you’ll want to read the whole thing!):
Introduction. How dependable is climate science? Global warming mitigation policies depend on the credibility and integrity of climate science. In turn, that depends on a deterministic model of the climate system in which it is possible to quantify the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) with a high degree of confidence. This essay explores the contrast between scientists’ expressions of public confidence and private admissions of uncertainty on critical aspects of the science that undergird the scientific consensus.
Instead of debating, highlighting and, where possible, resolving disagreement, many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media to stoke fear about allegedly catastrophic climate change, providing a scientific imprimatur for an aggressive policy response while declining to air private doubts and the systematic uncertainties.
Two Statements, Two Perspectives. Two statements by two players in the climate debate illustrate the gap between the certainty that we are asked to believe and a branch of science shot through with uncertainty. “Basic physics explains it. If global warming isn’t happening, then virtually everything we know about physics is wrong,” states Jerry Taylor, president of a group that advocates for imposing a carbon tax on the United States. In so many words, Taylor says that the case for cutting carbon dioxide emissions is incontrovertible: Science demands conservatives support a carbon tax.
The second statement was made by an actual climate scientist, Dr. William Collins of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Speaking in 2014 at an American Physical Society climate workshop, Collins, who was a lead author of the chapter evaluating climate models in the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, talked of the challenges of dealing with several sources of uncertainty. “One of them is the huge uncertainties even in the historical forcings,” he said. Commenting on the “structural certainty” of climate models, he observed that there were “a number of processes in the climate system we just do not understand from basic physical principles. … We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.”
The 2014 APS Climate Workshop: A Perfect Venue for Open Debate. Things are different when climate scientists are on the stand alongside their peers who know the science as well as they do, but disagree with the conclusions they draw from the same body of knowledge. Such open debate was on display at the 2014 American Physical Society climate workshop, which took place in Brooklyn and lasted just over seven hours. A unique event in the annals of the climate debate, it featured three climate scientists who support the climate change consensus and three climate scientists who do not. That format required an unusual degree of honesty about the limitations of the current understanding of the climate system. For the most part, circumspection, qualification, and candid admissions of lack of knowledge were the order of the day.
The IPCC’s Use and Abuse of Climate Models. The discussion in Brooklyn shows that putting the words “gold standard” and “IPCC” in the same sentence demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the reliability of IPCC-sanctioned climate science.
“It’s clouds that prevent us from fundamentally in some reductive fashion understanding the climate system,” Princeton Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Professor Isaac Held, senior research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, declared from the IPCC climate consensus bench. Collins made a similar point toward the end of the session. “My sense, to be honest with you, is that, and I think this all makes us a little bit nervous,” he said; “climate is not a problem that is amenable necessarily to reductionist treatment.”
Yet the IPCC’s top-line judgment in its Fifth Assessment Report—that it is “extremely likely” that the human emissions of greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century—was described by Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as likely to be conservative. The basis for this claim? General circulation models.
Santer’s claim would have sounded impressive if earlier in the day Collins had not presented charts showing GCMs performing poorly in reproducing temperature trends in the first half of the 20th century. Lindzen asked, what in the models causes the 1919-1940 warming? “Well, they miss the peak of the warming,” Held replied. While the IPCC is extremely certain that the late 20th century warming is mostly man-made, to this day it cannot collectively decide whether the earlier warming, which is of similar magnitude to the one that started in the mid-1970s, is predominantly man-made or natural. “It actually turns to be very hard to use the past as prologue,” Collins conceded before explaining: “We do not have a first principles theory that tells us what we have to get right in order to have an accurate projection.” And, as Held noted, over the satellite era from 1979, GCMs over- estimated warming in the tropics and the Arctic.
Steven Koonin, chairing the APS workshop, read an extract from chapter 10 of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Model-simulated responses to forcings—including greenhouse gas forcings—“can be scaled up or down.” To match observations, some of the forcings in some of the models had to be scaled down. But when it came to making the centennial projections, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-projection of the 2100 warming, Koonin said. Only the transcript does full justice to the exchange that followed.
Dr. Koonin: But if the model tells you that you got the response to the forcing wrong by 30 percent, you should use that same 30 percent factor when you project out a century.
Dr. Collins: Yes. And one of the reasons we are not doing that is we are not using the models as [a] statistical projection tool.
Dr. Koonin: What are you using them as?
Dr. Collins: Well, we took exactly the same models that got the forcing wrong and which got sort of the projections wrong up to 2100.
Dr. Koonin: So, why do we even show centennial-scale projections?
Dr. Collins: Well, I mean, it is part of the [IPCC] assessment process.
“It is part of the assessment process” is not a scientific justification for using assumptions that are known to be empirically wrong to produce projections that help drive the political narrative of a planet spinning toward a climate catastrophe.
Climate Science and Falsifiability. A lively exchange developed between Christy and Santer. Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry, the third member of the critics’ bench, had crossed swords with Santer on whether the IPCC’s statement that more than half the observed warming was anthropogenic was more than expert judgment. In subsequent testimony to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Curry explained:
Science is often mischaracterized as the assembly and organization of data and as a collection of facts on which scientists agree. Science is correctly characterized as a process in which we keep exploring new ideas and changing our understanding of the world, to find new representations of the world that better explain what is observed. … Science is driven by uncertainty, disagreement, and ignorance—the best scientists cultivate doubt.
Curry’s approach to science stands firmly on the methods and philosophical standards of the scientific revolution—mankind’s single greatest intellectual achievement.
Politicized Science vs. Red/Blue Team Appraisals. The APS workshop provides the strongest corrective to date to the politicized IPCC process. It revealed the IPCC’s unscientific practice of using different assumptions for projecting future temperature increases from those used to get models to reproduce past temperature. One need not be a climate expert to see that something is seriously amiss with the near certainties promulgated by the IPCC. “I have got to say,” Koonin remarked to climate modeler William Collins, “that this business is even more uncertain than I thought, uncertainties in the forcing, uncertainties in the modelling, uncertainties in historical data. Boy, this is a tough business to navigate.”
Koonin came away championing Christy’s idea of a red/blue team appraisal, a term drawn from war-gaming assessments performed by the military rather than from politics, which EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has since adopted.
A revealing indicator of its potential value is the response to it. A June 2017 Washington Post op-ed, condemned calls for red/blue team appraisals as “dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions.”
Conclusion: Climate Policy’s Democratic Deficit. Open debate is as crucial in science as it is in a democracy. It would be contrary to democratic principles to dispense with debate and rely on the consensus of experts. The latter mode of inquiry inevitably produces prepackaged answers. But, as we have seen, relying on “consensus” buttresses erroneous science rather than allow it to be falsified.
The IPCC was created to persuade, not provide objectivity and air disagreement. By contrast, the APS workshop gave both sides an impartial forum in which they could ask questions and probe the other side’s case. In doing so, it did more to expose the uncertainty, disagreement, and ignorance—to borrow Judith Curry’s words—around climate science than thousands of pages of IPCC assessment reports.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposal for red/blue team assessment is a logical progression from the workshop. The hostile reaction it elicited from leading consensus advocates strongly suggests that they fear debate. Climate scientists whose mission is to advance scientific understanding have nothing to fear and much to gain. Those who seek to use climate science as a policy battering ram have good reason to feel uncomfortable at the prospect. The biggest winner from a red/blue team assessment will be the public. If people are to buy into policies that will drastically alter their way of life, they should be fully informed of the consequences and justifications. To do otherwise would represent a subversion of democracy.
JC reflections
I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to revisit the APS Workshop on Climate Change, and am delighted to see that a journalist of Darwall’s caliber interpreting this. Drawl’s essay provides an eloquent argument in support of a climate red team, perhaps more so than what I, Steve Koonin or John Christy have provided.
The thing that really clicked in my brain was this statement by Bill Collins:
We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.
Trying to leverage our understanding of the infrared emission spectra from CO2 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases into a ‘consensus’ on what has caused the recent warming in a complex chaotic climate system is totally unjustified — this is eloquently stated by Bill Collins.
My key take away conclusion from the APS Workshop is that the scientists on both sides are considering the same datasets and generally agree on their utility (the exception being the 2 decade debate between Santer and Christy on the uncertainties/utility of the satellite derived tropospheric temperature data). There is some disagreement regarding climate models, although I can’t say that I disagreed with much if anything said by Held and Collins in this regard.
The real issue is the logics used in linking the varied and sundry lines of evidence into drawing conclusions and assessing the uncertainties and areas of ambiguity and ignorance. I don’t think that any of the 6 scientists were using the same chain of reasoning about all this, even among scientists on the same ‘sides’.
Darwall’s essay deserves to be widely read. Here’s to hoping that it will reignite the discussion surrounding the climate red team.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
“I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to revisit the APS Workshop on Climate Change, and am delighted to see that a journalist of Darwall’s caliber interpreting this. Drawl’s essay provides an eloquent argument in support of a climate red team, perhaps more so than what I, Steve Koonin or John Christy have provided.
The thing that really clicked in my brain was this statement by Bill Collins:
We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.
Trying to leverage our understanding of the infrared emission spectra from CO2 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases into a ‘consensus’ on what has caused the recent warming in a complex chaotic climate system is totally unjustified — this is eloquently stated by Bill Collins.” —Dr. Judith Curry
“Trying to leverage our understanding of the infrared emission spectra from CO2 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases into a ‘consensus’ on what has caused the recent warming in a complex chaotic climate system is totally unjustified”
Is proceeding from thermodynamic incomprehension and vociferous ignorance of HiTRAN and emissivity any better?
Much of the dialog among self styled ‘climate skeptics ‘ is predicated on arguments from incredulity about the intensity of IR absorbtion that came to a scientific end with the Victorian invention of of alkali halide infrared optics and bolometers.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/11/watts-sidekick-enters-plea-bargin-on.html
Irrelevant to the argument
The argument concerns the competition between propaganda and counter propaganda- which symbolizes more, the social construction of a >95% agreement on physical causes and effects in complex thermal equilibria, or that of >99% agreement among the few % disiinclined to believe that physics began working before they were born, and that the integrals that define its systemic consequences will continue uninterupted after they are dead ?
“vociferous ignorance of hitran and emissivity”
Your link is “fake” in the tradition of clickbait. It does not address hitran or emissivity. Your link merely pokes fun at Willis’ homespun physics, which arrives at the correct answer in spite of its technical failings.
I suspect it is you who is vociferously ignorant of the emissivity of CO2. The Schwarzschild equation used in radiative transfer models assumes an emissivity of 1. All measured emissivities are less than half of unity.
Google it.
Russell: Your comments demonstrate a considerable lack of understanding of the scientific debate. You might take a look at the last 100 pages of the APS transcript, where leading climate scientists do the real debate. The issues do not even resemble your claims.
When I last briefed Will Happer and Richard Garwin on progress in CO2 laser , I don’t recall seeing Gymnosperm or David Wojick in the audience .
If they want an easy lesson in the history f the science in question, they will find one on this URL at the blog linked earlier:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-very-large-grain-of-salt.html
russellseitz: Much of the dialog among self styled ‘climate skeptics ‘ is predicated on arguments from incredulity about the intensity of IR absorbtion that came to a scientific end with the Victorian invention of of alkali halide infrared optics and bolometers.
Most criticisms here are directed toward particular claims about the quantitation of particular mechanisms in the chain of causation beginning with CO2 absorption spectra and leading to demands that the US (among others) urgently invest great sums of money to build windfarms and solar farms in India, China, or Africa. Where exactly is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has caused any harm to polar bears, or natural forests? Given that the Earth surface transfers energy to the atmosphere and space by radiative transfer, advection and convection, and evapotranspiration; how much can the mean surface temp increase in response to a mean DWLRIR power of 4 W/m^2? Given that the experts did not expect “the pause”, what is the evidence that their expectations of the sequel are trustworthy?
And so on.
The argument concerns the competition between propaganda and counter propaganda
Sez you. Much of the argument concerns what propositions, aka “claims”, are reasonably justified by the evidence?
Dr Curry, Thank you once again!
Is the full transcript available to the rest of us?
APS workshop transcript:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Don Bishop: APS workshop transcript:
Thank you for the link.
As An APS member, I’d like to compliment Steve Koonin on summing up the predicament of homespun pundits like Willis on page 12-13 of the transcript:
” it’s important to realize that physicists do bring a body of knowledge and set of skills that are directly relevant to assessing the physical basis for climate science. Radiation transfer, including the underlying atomic and molecular processes, fluid dynamics, phas transitions, all the underpinnings of climate science are smack in the middle of physics. Physicists also have a deep expertise in the handling of large observational data sets and in modeling complex physical systems.
And indeed, there has been enough APS interest among the membership that a topical group on the physics of climate was established two years 25 ago.
Those of you who know me know I am not inexperienced in wielding a gavel. And so I won’t hesitate to cut off remarks that are out of scope, that go on too long, or that are unproductive toward the goals that we are trying to establish. As you go about the day, you might just bear in mind that unsupported appeals to authority just aren’t going to fly with the APS membership. And our discussions today are going to be read and commented upon by an extraordinarily technically literate and experienced group of more than 50,000 physicists from all over the world. So, in that sense, this is on the record.”
There fairy and the
talefib:Instead of debating, highlighting and, where possible, resolving disagreement, many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media to stoke fear about allegedly catastrophic climate change, providing a scientific imprimatur for an aggressive policy response while declining to air private doubts and the systematic uncertainties.
JCH: many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media to stoke fear about allegedly catastrophic climate change, providing a scientific imprimatur for an aggressive policy response while declining to air private doubts and the systematic uncertainties.
Where is the fib?
How about quantifying what ‘many mainstream climate scientists’ is. A few, some, most? Painting the entire profession as in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media is hyperbole.
If you ignore climate scientists and just watch what biologist are studying they will let you know when we have reached a crisis. I am watching what’s happening to the smallest organisms in the food web. Without them the whole edifice will collapse.
Go do a Google news search on toxic algae, zooplankton and phytoplankton…
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/death-killer-algae/
“When 343 sei whales died from a harmful algal bloom in Chilean Patagonia, they opened a window into the effect changing climate is having on marine mammals, our oceans, and us.”
Check out the algae blooms in the Great Lakes or the huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Our attempts to solve this problem are pathetic.
Remember the last scene in the classic Sci-Fi movie “War of the Worlds”?
“Ultimately, the aliens lack of defense against tiny bacteria indigenous to Earth, causes their destruction.”
jacksmith4tx: How about quantifying what ‘many mainstream climate scientists’ is. A few, some, most?
That might be a good idea. One could start with a list and elucidate the symbiotic relationships. For example, in its exoneration of Michael Mann, the famous Penn State committee noted how much research funding Mann brought to the University. One could subsequently add the employees of the EPA who lost their positions when their policy views based on a selection of scientific papers proved not to be persuasive to the newly elected president and the polity at large. The AAAS routinely (i.e. today) uses the global warming scare both to inform its decisions about what papers to publish (and how fast to publish them, and when to require a priori archiving of data and computer code), and to solicit members for new donations to help it lobby Congress for more research funding for its favorite researchers. A “symbiotic relationship” does not require the symbionts to acknowledge or be aware of the symbiosis.
Painting the entire profession as in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media is hyperbole.
Whether [a few, some, or most], they are not “the entire profession”, as is clear from the presence of some of the contrarians in the profession in the APS Workshop on Climate.
Thanks for the reply matthewrmarler.
Going forward it looks like the EPA will function more like FEMA. When something gets really bad (economic losses) I’m sure they will subcontract some scientist to study the specific issue and get the answers they need. If you look at the big picture most world governments are much more interested in directed research with near term economic value.
Just for the record I am pretty numb to the endless debate about record climate observations, ice caps, long range global forecasts, hottest ever…, most rain ever…, doesn’t matter until the biosphere reacts and does so in a way that can be economically quantified. In my view we are changing the chemical composition of the planet in a million different ways at a ever increasing rate and I expect the biosphere will change. What part(s) and how fast will be interesting to watch. Maybe some of us will live long enough to see if A.I. can tell us how to avoid the worst choices we will have to make in the future. I’m betting the Chinese will get there first. That shouldn’t surprise anyone since 90% of their top party leaders are either scientists or engineers and they plan to dominate the industry by 2025.
From a recent news article: “there is a massive amount of money flowing into innovation in artificial intelligence in China, as part of “national AI development plan” which committed it to spending $29.8 billion on AI research by 2020 and $79.48 billion by 2025. Under the national plan, introduction of technology into education system is compulsory.”
That choice of the word compulsory is not surprising.
I expect that Ikea will get there first.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/19/cyberpunk-is-the-future/
That struck me as a political rather than factual phrase too. Why cast the debate as scientists being environmentalists unless you are speaking to an audience that hates environmentalists (and the news media). This is a statement that shows a clear prejudice in the author as regards environmentalists. and the media. He is not appealing from the middle, which does not help his case.
This is a good analysis of the essence of the problem. The expression “settled science” is an oxymoron, and a contradiction in terms. It is an ideological debate that cannot be solved with a scientific discussion alone. So lets admit this is what we are dealing with and stop the facade about a so called “scientific consensus” which is nothing more than a Delphi poll / show of hands by people who have some sort of direct or indirect vested interests. A blue/red team approach should go a long way in eliminating the thick cloud of smoke in the room. The first step in any addiction is to admit you have a problem.
Pingback: A veneer of certainty « How to s..t on humans
Pingback: A veneer of certainty stoking climate alarm — Climate Etc. – NZ Conservative Coalition
“Open debate is as crucial in science as it is in a democracy. It would be contrary to democratic principles to dispense with debate and rely on the consensus of experts. The latter mode of inquiry inevitably produces prepackaged answers. But, as we have seen, relying on “consensus” buttresses erroneous science rather than allow it to be falsified. ”
Meanwhile, back at ‘The World’s Most Viewed Site onGlobal Warming’, debate remains subordinated to, in the words of one censorious ‘Moderator’ :
Seys you. I think otherwise. And visit WUWT several times a day. And contribute posts, not just comments. My comment above here is in current moderation despite having commited no known sin and being well known to Judith based on many guest posts here. WordPress is buggy. Get over it.
russellseitz: Meanwhile, back at ‘The World’s Most Viewed Site onGlobal Warming’, debate remains subordinated to, in the words of one censorious ‘Moderator’ :
That has happened to me to, and to others. Wait it out.
Where have you been for the last five years?
Watts instituted automatic censorship in 2013, and has been bragging about it ever since.
The creation of blogospheric echo chambers is far from limited to WUWT. Very few climate blogs are worth the bandwidth.
Russell
its also happened to me, both here and at WUWT.
Have you got any stored examples of the type of censorship you claim?
tonyb
Next,
Russell will take his bat and ball and go home. Because nobody cares about his personal crusade against wuwt.
The insanity of Curry’s stance is frightening. Only one factor correlates with the rise in average global temperatures – the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The consequences of rising temperature are readily and abundantly apparent. The rate of the change and exactly how it will play out is more complicated and uncertain and the research subject to debate. But to delay action to contain and reverse CO2 emissions is deeply irresponsible.
Absolutely, see this article in Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
Or this graph. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.2/isolate:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1961
This shows the big picture.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
Uncle Robot is the only sane person in the world. There are asylums for the only sane persons.
Uncle Robot – What you say (“Only one factor correlates with the rise in average global temperatures – the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration”) is clearly untrue. As explained in the article wrt 1910-1940.
UR, you merit a double barreled reply.
Barrel one, medium choked. About 35% of all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1957 (Mauna Loa Keeling Curve) happened since 2000,this century. Yet except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino temp spike, there has been no cooling this century—except by Karlization.
Barrel 2, full choked. The warming from ~1920-1945 is indistinguishable from that of ~1975-2000. Yet the earlier warming could not have been AGW, since not enough delta CO2 per IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4. Your problem is that natural variation did not magically stop in 1975. Your belief that the later period warming proves AGW is doubly falsified.
ristvan: Yet except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino temp spike, there has been no cooling this century
Did you mean “no warming this century”?
Yup
ristvan: Your belief that the later period warming proves AGW is doubly falsified.
The situation is unfortunately ambiguous, or confused. I have referred often to the book “Modern Thermodynamics” by Kondepudi and Prigogine, whose last few chapters provide a short introduction to dynamical systems theory after introducing non-equilibrium thermodynamics more generally. They show that with a high-dimensional nonlinear dissipative system, via computational and experimental examples, a continuous or continuously increasing input does not necessarily produce a continuously increasing output. Steady inputs can produce square waves and such. With the coupled oscillators of the Earth climate system, which are now known at least partially, it is quite possible that the monotonically increasing CO2 might have produced the non-monotonic general increase in global mean temperature.
The CO2 is not necessarily what is driving the temperature increase, however. If there really is a repetitive process with a period of about 950 years, as included in some of the harmonic modeling, then that might be what has produced the non-monotonic increase in global mean temperature.
Either way, without more knowledge, the form of the response does not constrain the form of the input as required to confute the CO2 hypothesis.
“The terrible [maybes] accumulate.” c.f. Winston Churchill
“The warming from ~1920-1945 is indistinguishable from that of ~1975-2000.”
There is a very obvious distinction. The warming of 1920-45 stopped, and downturned for a while. The warming of 1975-2000 continued another 17 years, and shows no sign of letting up:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
OMG! We are all doomed! … or maybe not. Remain calm. Technology has a way of fixing things. Few years back, we had the “peak oil” crisis. Oops … fracking saves the day.
As more efficient technologies emerge, greenhouse gas emissions flatten out and decrease as a happy byproduct of capital market’s never-ending quest for more profitable processes. US power markets demonstrate how that occurs, in spite of the dim-witted actions of the government and green-energy fanatics. The inefficient (old coal plants) are replaced by vastly better technologies (gas turbines) with significant reductions in CO2 emissions. All this the result of competitive forces and the drive to make a profit.
Contrast this with say Germany, where is spite of massive government intervention, CO2 emissions are going in the wrong direction while the hapless poor and middle class have their pockets drained. California exhibits similar dumbness.
Please note, I do not have a fundamental problem with renewable energy. I do, however, have a problem with putting it where it does not belong.
Right Robot.
With that level of scientific reasoning and expertise, I think you have a future as someone’s national science advisor.
Robert Mugabe perhaps.
Ed Lorenz, father of GCM, published a paper in 1962, revised 1963, entitled “Deterministic Non Periodic Flow”.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281963%29020%3C0130%3ADNF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The upshot is that long term predictions using PDE/ODE models are not possible. Only deterministic, quasi periodic solutions are stable. As well, the model must include all relevant variables and their exact measurements must be simultaneously known at a specific time in the history of the system. Barring such completeness and exactitude, it seems unlikely that long term predictions are possible.
Interesting read.
Uncle Robot, do you believe that the price of Bitcoins causes the rise in average global temperatures?
“One of them is the huge uncertainties even in the historical forcings,” he said. Commenting on the “structural certainty” of climate models, he observed that there were “a number of processes in the climate system we just do not understand from basic physical principles. … We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.”
I’d say that most parties are trapped in a Lorenz bubble and haven’t even though to ask the question whether the NAO/AO, ENSO, and the AMO, are solar driven. From the widely assumed construct of internal variability, it’s all shadows on the wall of a cave.
*thought* to ask etc..
Darwall’s story of a third year university student “discovering” 91 volcanoes under West Antarctica highlights a failure of the climate science establishment. Why did it take a student to uncover what should have been known decades ago? The first time I saw an overlay of what was known about the rift and suspected geothermal activity, it became obvious that a candidate for the unstable glaciers in that region was geological in nature. Why weren’t researchers trying to find out everything there was to know about the potential effect on the Ice Sheet and Shelves long ago? A study came out in 2014 identifying some level of hotspots but the relationship to glacial instability was deemed as tenuous at best.
Why did it take so long to find these additional volcanoes? One obvious reason is that disincentives abound. Why rock the boat when there is such an easy, no brain answer, and it has an elegant hypothesis and impressive equations to boot. Any other field with scientific inquiry as its core value should have been all over the mystery of whether there were more volcanoes generations ago.
And people wonder why skeptics have so little faith.
ceresco kid
I remember writing here some 5 or 6 years ago that I sat next to a newly minted volcanologist at a dinner at Cambridge University.
She was unequivocal that it was known that there were at least 10,000 more underwater volcanoes than the scientific literature currently said.
There was a lack of money to definitively prove they existed as a scientific certainty, as by definition this sort of observed proof is very hard to research without major funding and the technology needed was also lacking
tonyb
So what? This is just hysterical.
jch
what an odd response. I was merely remarking to ceresco kid that it has been known for some time that there are many more underwater volcanoes than appear in the literature. In due course, as research is carried out and technology improves, we will know much more about them.
Whether they have any effect on anything we know about climate I have no idea
tonyb
“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)
I quote this from “Debates—Hypothesis testing in hydrology: Pursuing certainty versus pursuing uberty” that was published this year in the AGU Journal of Water Resources Research.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016WR020078/full
The article is well worth a read for an approach to science that is less certain but more fruitful. Falsification is far less an issue for this investigative science – and the scientist is more akin to a detective. The article above is far less than and is just one more example of the ignorance of cultural bias – from the skeptic side this time. We have known for a long time that both sides tell themselves stories and claim the culturally potent imprimatur of objective science. (Gwyn Prins & Steve Rayner, 2009)
While it is an intellectually fascinating exercise to describe dynamical mechanisms at the heart of climate complexity – to enable prediction of future states (Swanson et al, 2009) – there has been very little progress on the mathematics of spatio-temporal chaos. (Tomas Milanovic, 2011)
“The biggest difficulty comes from the fact that we lost this convenient finite dimensional phase space. That’s why almost nothing transports from temporal chaos to spatio-temporal chaos. There are no attractors, bifurcations and such. The whole mathematical apparatus has to be invented from scratch and it will take decades. To know the state of the system, we must know all the fields at all points – this is an uncountable infinity of dimensions.” Tomas Milanovic
“Finally, Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.” Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer, 2011
And while reductionism may allow the formulation of simple equations – when put into a climate model a very different dynamic emerges as a result of non-linearity of the core partial differential equations. Solutions to models are non-unique and diverge exponentially. This has been swept under the climate science carpet for a very long time.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709/F1.large.jpg
“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
In typical fashion – the author here makes mathematically naive and thus quite misguided arguments. Neither side seems to have made much progress in understanding what was known 60 years ago. Instead – cultural bias on both sides results in a perennial talking point that is fundamentally unscientific.
“Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.” Marcia Wyatt, 2011
Prediction of future states is as elusive as ever – but there may be a glimmer of light in simple rules at the heart of climate complexity. (Jose Rial, 2012) But it is not all that comforting. What happens when flow in the spatio-temporal chaos of the Earth system is perturbed? Quasi standing waves might change a little or a lot.
The future I believe is with engineers, biologists, agronomists and ordinary people. What we need is for climate scientists to admit ignorance in the face of dynamical complexity – many have – and to get out of the way of scientific and technical progress.
Robert I Ellison – thanks. In a nutshell, climate models with their current bottom-up structure can never work.
” ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known.”
The situation seems analogous to what confronted Boltzmann. We can’t possibly know the position and momentum of every atom and molecule (let alone every boson and fermion) in, say, a table. All we can see is the “course grained” form of the table.
What we can do is estimate the number of ways the invisible components can be rearranged without altering the form of the table. This gives a probability.
Climate science is in the early stages of coarse graining. Entropy currently rules the models, but it need not always be so.
Robert I Ellison: While it is an intellectually fascinating exercise to describe dynamical mechanisms at the heart of climate complexity – to enable prediction of future states (Swanson et al, 2009) – there has been very little progress on the mathematics of spatio-temporal chaos. (Tomas Milanovic, 2011)
Prediction of future states is as elusive as ever – but there may be a glimmer of light in simple rules at the heart of climate complexity. (Jose Rial, 2012) But it is not all that comforting. What happens when flow in the spatio-temporal chaos of the Earth system is perturbed? Quasi standing waves might change a little or a lot.
Worth emphasizing and remembering.
Good paper. Bookmarked.
I used to think the uncertainty monster lurking in Durwall’s paper was the best ‘attack’ on warmunists. I no longer do. Here are three better approaches, IMO.
1. Model computational constraints mean the cells are too large to physically model essential processes like convection cells. These must be parameterized. For CMIP5, the explicit tuning period for mandatory hindcast output 1.2 was YE2005 back to 1975.This covers the entire warming~1975-2000 that is essentially indistinguishable from ~1920-1945. But IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4 specifically said the earlier period was mostly natural rather than AGW—just not enough delta CO2. The natural variation did not stop in 1975, yet the model tuning assumes it is all AGW.
2. Sea level rise is supposed to accelerate. It isn’t. WAIS is supposedly a tipping point. It isn’t. See guest posts By Land or by Sea (academic misconduct) and Tipping Points.
3. Polar bears are supposedly endangered by disappearing Arctic ice. It isn’t and they aren’t. Dr Crockford has shown how the basic bear biology was misrepresented to manufacture a false narrative.
The case that polar bears are suffering from climate change has been debunked from many angles as Crockford has maintained. I have perused all the papers regards climate and polar bears and the bias has been blatant.
http://landscapesandcycles.net/blind-polar-bear-researchers.html
http://landscapesandcycles.net/how-science-counts-bears.html
Jim, I know. But you are more credible on Parmesanter’s bogus climate change butterflies and Great Barrier Reef corals. Highest regards to a true ecologist, a kindred Susan Crockford skeptic.
“This covers the entire warming~1975-2000 that is essentially indistinguishable from ~1920-1945. But IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4 specifically said the earlier period was mostly natural rather than AGW—just not enough delta CO2.”
The 1920-1945 period captures an early first layer look of global warming alarm veneer, in 1941 Hermann Flohn published the first German global warming paper, the papers title translates to:“The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor”. He went on to become the chief meteorologist for Luftwaffe High Command that same year. Flohn survived the war and continued publishing global warming papers as late as the 1980’s. But the1930’s certainly represents the genesis for Leftist ecofascist stoking alarmism in general.
While obviously much of contemporary climate science is unquestionably real, honorable, and serious, not to be conflated with Nazism; the same can’t be said for much of the contemporary “political manifestation” of environmentalism and the propaganda of CAGW alarmism which often aligns itself to environmentalism using virtually the same ideological and revolutionary zeal expressed by Nazi Germany, and earlier, in the 19th century as an extension of the ideology of Marx, Engels and other German intellectual figures. These intellectuals shared much of the same ideas, it’s where the foundation for communism as well as the environmental movement emerged, and ultimately ecofascism that the Nazi’s embraced as a cornerstone to their party platform. The main difference between then and now is that while they focused on jews as the primary instigator of capitalistic greed and urban decay, today the attack is centered on political affiliation in association with capitalistic greed.
Though it hasn’t been described much in contemporary literature, Marx wrote quite a bit about ecology. Early environmentalists targeted Semitic industrialism and urbanization as out of step with nature. Jews were “huckstering”, their “worldly god” was “money”, as Marx put it. Some of the major figures of early environmentalism who shared the views of Semitic industrialization and gross urbanization were: Ludwig Kluges (who wrote “Man and Earth” manifesto); Ernst Haeckel; Ernst Lehmann; Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl; Raoul Francé. All racists, anti-Semites, all founding fathers of environmentalism. Despite the contradiction to Leftist academic historical screeds, Hitler was an avid reader and believer in Marx. The basis for his beliefs are found everywhere you scrub off the misdirection of Leftist academic rewritings of history.
The Third Reich was the greenest regime on the planet during its time. Ernst Lehmann, a professor of botany, characterized National Socialism as “politically applied biology.” Hitler discussed, in detail, various renewable energy sources (including environmentally appropriate hydro-power and producing natural gas from sludge) as alternatives to coal, and declaring “water, winds and tides” as the energy path of the future. Plans for a 1,300 foot wind tower were introduced that theoretically would generate 20 MW of power.
Fascism, where we see it rising on college campuses, literally in expression mirrors much of early 19th century Marxist and 20th century Nazi ideology, not only in ideals, but also in propagandistic methods, readily be seen in the press.
As stated, these things “too” are
“essentially indistinguishable from ~1920-1945.” Perhaps this could be considered one of the first belated CAGW goal post movings: “IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4 specifically said the earlier period was mostly natural rather than AGW.” Sorry Flohn, but as consolation, your ilk is still working hard.
@ R. Ellison: Agreed. Lorenz was trying to classify the types of systems that might be solvable. Deterministic, quasi periodic systems possible, but not likely. Others: not possible due to mathematical instability or data insufficiency or model simplicity. The issue of feedbacks arises. If positive feedbacks, then they actual atmosphere over geologic timescales would have already illustrated runaway thermal heating. If negative feedbacks, then atmosphere is stable or quasi stable and self correcting. We might not be able to model it properly, but the fact we still exist implies the system has negative feedback. System complexity is why weather predictions aren’t worth squat beyond 2 to 3 days, much less century timescales. Methinks the earth will do just fine, with or without human contributions. Elephants don’t care much about a few fleas arguing which of them owns the elephant.
Cowboy79:
re “… the fact we still exist implies the system has negative feedback.”
Can’t a much stronger statement be made (stronger than implies)? Given the geologic evidence that the earth has recovered from repeated “overhottings” and “overcoldings” (and “overCO2ings” and underCO2ings”) over the billions of years? It would seem to provide very strong evidence that negative feedbacks dominate in the long term.
Has anyone asked William Collins to clarify what he means by this?
I would expect that it isn’t quite what is being suggested in Darwall’s article. There are many situations in which a system is so complex that we wouldn’t be able to determine some emergent property from first principles. This doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with the basic physics, or that the properties that emerge are somehow wrong. It simply means that we need to include the complexity (i.e., run some kind of numerical simulation) in order to understand the emergent properties of the system.
Feel free to ask him. He did not say that basic physics is wrong. He says that we don’t know how to apply it in complex situations. Do you know of a good model of a tornado?
No, I don’t think that he’s saying we can’t apply it in complex situations. I think he is suggesting that understanding what emerges in these complex situations is not easy to understand from basic principles.
I agree. Read “Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman”. Feynman and Fermi could tell how physics would work in a complex situation. Not many scientists have that insight. Not many climate “scientists” in particular.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.
This idea is the most modern – and powerful – in climate science and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. A mechanical analogy might set the scene.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/unstable-mechanical-analogy-fig-1-jpg1.jpg
Many simple systems exhibit abrupt change. The balance above consists of a curved track on a fulcrum. The arms are curved so that there are two stable states where a ball may rest. ‘A ball is placed on the track and is free to roll until it reaches its point of rest. This system has three equilibria denoted (a), (b) and (c) in the top row of the figure. The middle equilibrium (b) is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position. In contrast, if the ball in state (a) or (c) is displaced, the balance will merely rock a bit back and forth, and the ball will roll slightly within its cup until friction restores it to its original equilibrium.’(1)
In (a1) the arms are displaced but not sufficiently to cause the ball to cross the balance to the other side. In (a2) the balance is displaced with sufficient force to cause the ball to move to a new equilibrium state on the other arm. There is a third possibility in that the balance is hit with enough force to cause the ball to leave the track, roll off the table and under the sofa.”
This comes from the US NAS. He doesn’t get the idea of emergent properties in a complex and dynamic system. This might not help.
Attp, since it is your specialty, I suggest you re-read Feynman Lectures on Physics volume 2 chapter 41,the flow of wet water. In particular 41-6. Then get back here with more humility.
BTW, your basic stuff is like the difference between his Vol 2 chapter 40,the flow of dry water, and chapter 41,the flow of wet water. No matter what else, Feynman was an incredible teacher, proving indelibly to his Cal Tech students that viscosity makes a BIG difference.
CargoCult Etc. scientists have fumbled into the discovery that AGW means it will snow more on Greenland. This will stop freshwater injection, and that means the AMOC will speed up and save capitalism from abrupt climate change.
I see Kenny is still dedicated to turning his pet squirrels loose in the discussion.
This perspective resonates with Bernie Lewin’s book on the series of scares starting with DDT building up to today’s global warming/climate change. In every case, the public alarm was promoted ahead of scientific evidence, to the point where the science didn’t matter to politicians having to quell anxious voters. A synopsis of the book, Searching for the catastrophe signal:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/progressively-scaring-the-world-lewin-book-synopsis/
Stay tuned for a post on Lewin’s new book, which is superb
I hope you feel better, I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
Slowly doing better. This week is ‘on the rack’ — spinal decompression. Not fun, but seems to be helping
A third century of coding, staring into a computer screen has done a number on my neck and spine which manifest in an episode last year.
Kids are getting ‘iNeck’ from similar head forward screen time.
I had different symptoms and less severity than your experience, and you’re probably already getting PT, but some things that seemed to help me:
Amazon: AshopZ Fashion Portable Cervical Neck Traction Collar Inflatable Device
Book: Treat Your Own Neck 4th Ed
Book: Cervical Spinal Stabilization Exercises
These guys are campy, but the exercises seem to help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdgDg9_SL48
Good Luck
Thx, I’ve watched the bob and brad youtube videos.
Here is how i avoid Ineck. I have a Danish reclining chair, i sit reclined at 45%. I pile several fairly firm pillows on my lab, and manipulate my laptop in that position. minimizes back/neck/wrist strain
A great article and set of comments. The APS workshop was spectacular. I keep an electronic version on my desktop to refer back to. Dr Koonin was Deputy DOE and seemed to be somewhat convinced by the open forum arguments. Never came to a satisfactory conclusion. APS left it in limbo at the end which means the settled science Meme lost.
Scott
A fine example of the use of the royal “we.”
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com.
“We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.” It’s a great quote and it doesn’t just refer to climate.
I am struck by the Hubris of people who believe that they can predict a phenomenon that they don’t understand 100 years later.
As someone who finds the scientific approach important to everything, I find it alarming that we are talking about climate change today in such politicized tones, and yet I still remember vividly articles in newspapers from 1975 promulgating the idea we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. So, in 42 years it has completely changed on Earth, and due to WHAT? I had the fortune to study with a scientist who was a master of the principles of partial pressures of gases, and stoichiometric chemistry. He regularly boiled over at the articles published in the name of global warming and anthropogenic global climate change. He believed to his death that those pushing this agenda were not very well educated in the basic sciences, and felt that until someone came along who understood a BROAD selection of the principle scientific factors in determining climate, that we would have no joy in reaching some sort of valid consensus on what could be happening around us. Take for example the lack of astrophysical input on the changing of the van Allen radiation belt due to polar tilting, and how this altered flux pattern might change countless forces all over the globe. When will these sorts of variables be entered into a superlative climate model for forecasting? Exactly. Just as I thought.
JC, carry on!!
This is all good stuff. It seems rude to say we are dealing with a combination of ignorance and dishonesty, but yes, that seems to be the case. Logical leaps, or wild guesses that happen to coincide with a certain political perspective, turned into a dogma, then presented as if guard-dog-like defence of the dogma is good science.
Some defenders of the dogma will say that “teaching the uncertainty” will do more harm than good. They might use the example, which somehow I always find hilarious, of people doubting that anyone ever walked on the moon. For a while NASA tried to respond to concerns/questions, one by one, but the volume of complaints, in more than one sense of “volume,” kept increasing, so NASA finally stopped acknowledging them. My guess is the problem here is that the commitment to send humans to the moon, rather than a machine which could best make observations, was political (Cold War, etc.). Then there was no follow through. Where else might humans go? To some lame space station, much closer to the earth? Were those lumbering and accident-prone commuter buses, the shuttles, the state of the art? The somewhat comical aftermath made it seem unlikely to some that men actually walked on the moon. For the record: yes, I know this happened, but I find the whole thing funny.
On the one hand, if I am right, the post-Moon launch aftermath encouraged a kind of exaggerated deflation of hope: we didn’t even accomplish what we said we did. On the other hand, the exaggerated hopes may be part of what has inspired the warmists: we need to hit a home run, come up with reasons to transform the entire economy, exploit resources that are right there in front of us, do things that evil capitalists don’t want us to do. In fact, capitalists will apparently pay to sustain the (supposed) lie that the home run either is impossible, or has not been hit yet. The rich are born at third base, and congratulate themselves for hitting a triple. The warmists claim they have hit a home run, hoping we don’t notice that while they hit the ball hard (they certainly made an impressive noise), they were out at first.
“It is part of the assessment process” is not a scientific justification for using assumptions that are known to be empirically wrong to produce projections that help drive the political narrative of a planet spinning toward a climate catastrophe.
Indeed the narrative (of certainty of imminent catastrophe) is driving the mainstream science, not the other way around. Powerful emotive narratives, especially those involving apocalypse and salvation – fear and hope – are at the heart of major cultures repeatedly emergent throughout history. The more familiar examples are religions. Where such narratives are triggered or aided by what was originally tentative speculation in the domain of science, the resulting culture can later come to dominate the relevant discipline, and in the strongest cases social authority institutions too, hence stimulating massive resource releases and infra-structure support in favour of narrative continuance. Plus they garner significant swathes of public support, though always significant skepticism in opposition as well; cultures are natural polarizers.
Consensus is a social device, upon which science should never rest, even if it is an intermediate convenience from time to time. But social dynamics are can be strong, and the process of science is very fragile to the progress from convenience to social dominance.
“In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public.”
Indeed. Even those who don’t advocate, probably a large majority, have not for instance come forward to tell the public that the narrative of *certainty* of imminent (decades) catastrophe, as promoted in the most urgent and emotive fashion for many years by virtually the entire western authority matrix, excepting the latest US administration, is not supported by the mainstream science, let alone by anything Luke Warmer or skeptical. Example snippets of this narrative, from some of the world’s most influential individuals at the time of the quotes follow…
Narrative examples:
[GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND] to 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development : “So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act.” [OBAMA] Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet (2006) : “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” Speech in Berlin (2008) : “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” George town speech (2013) : “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.” State of the Union (2015) : “The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] Paris climate summit Nov 2015 : “To resolve the climate crisis, good will, statements of intent are not enough. We are at breaking point.” [GORDON BROWN] Copenhagen climate plan (2009) : “If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future, no later way to undo the catastrophic damage to the environment we will cause…As scientists spell out the mounting evidence both of the climate change already occurring and of the threat it poses in the future, we cannot allow the negotiations to run out of time simply for lack of attention. Failure would be unforgivable.” [ANGELA MERKEL] to UN summit on Climate Change (2009) : “After all, scientific findings leave us in no doubt that climate change is accelerating. It threatens our well being, our security, and our economic development. It will lead to uncontrollable risks and dramatic damage if we do not take resolute countermeasures.” Same speech : “we will need to reach an understanding on central issues in the weeks ahead before Copenhagen, ensuring, among other things, that global emissions reach their peak in the year 2020 at the latest.” And while president of the EU, on German TV in a wake-up call for climate action prior to 26 leader EU climate meeting (2007) : “It is not five minutes to midnight. It’s five minutes after midnight.” [POPE FRANCIS] Asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris (2015) would mark a turning point in the fight against global warming, the pope said: “I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’. Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.” [MARK CARNEY] governor of the bank of England, speech ‘Resolving the Climate Paradox’, September 2016: “…climate change is a tragedy of the horizon which imposes a cost on future generations that the current one has no direct incentive to fix. The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors including businesses and central banks. Once climate change becomes a clear and present danger to financial stability it may already be too late to stabilise the atmosphere at two degrees.” [PRINCE CHARLES] speech to business leaders in Brazil (2009): “The best projections tell us that we have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change.” [AL GORE] speech to NY University School of Law (Sept 2006): “Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency — a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe.” [JOHN KERRY] as US Secretary of State, responding to UN report (2014): “Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy… …There are those who say we can’t afford to act. But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic.” [HILLARY CLINTON] time.com (Nov 2015): “I won’t let anyone to take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.” [BERNIE SANDERS] US presidential candidate (2016), feelthebern.com : Bernie Sanders strongly believes climate change is real, catastrophic, and largely caused by human activities. [M. LAURENT FABIUS] French Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, in the National Assembly (May 2014): “We have 500 days – not a day more – to avoid a climate disaster. People often talk about climate change or global warming. I attach great importance to words, and as far as the French language is concerned I don’t think those words are very appropriate, because – without alluding to this or that political programme – change is seen as rather a positive thing, but in the case of climate, it isn’t at all. Some French people say: why not, since they might think Lille, for example, is going to join the Côte d’Azur? That’s absolutely not it. We must face up to climate disruption, climate chaos. The scientists, several of whom are present here, have said it: ‘you’d have to be blind not to see it’.” [FRANCOIS HOLLANDE] as French President, at 150 nation climate summit in Le Bourget, France (Nov 2015): “Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high, because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life.” [MERKEL] as German chancellor, at the Lowy Institute in Sydney (Nov 2014): “If we do not put a brake on climate change, it will have devastating consequences for all of us – there will be more storms, there will be more heat and catastrophes more droughts, there will be a rising sea levels an increasing floods.”
That’s an impressive list of climate scientists.
andywest2012: Narrative examples:
That was a worthwhile post. Thank you.
Okay narrative examples will be following… when they emerge from moderation.
I would imagine that this is the most embarrassing day of Dr. William Drew (Bill) Collins’ career.
I agree. It is 3 1/2 minutes but it feels like 3 1/2 days.
JCH’s febrile imagination may not be the best guide. Welcome to the circus.
I love you too.
According to the theme of the head post (and relevant Collins’ private / workshop comment therein), not if he was speaking publicly. Just another day out of thousands more in which the nature of the uncertainties happens not to crop up in the public domain.
Everyone is motivated by irrationality.
Dr. Collins, by advocating solutions without clearly articulating problems, has exposed some of his.
This is all about temperature change, not about the impacts. What matters is whether global warming would be beneficial or damaging. If it’s beneficial, no policies should be implemented to attempt to keep the planet cool.
Exactly– The Climate Science Hoax Dies when the Illusion of Certitude is Lost…
For example, where are we now? No one buys the old charade of a supposed 97% consensus of opinion concerning the impending calamity we face due to human-caused global warming?
The Left’s apocalyptic vison of modernity has already been dashed. Their vison now is that of a long, slow death that we are powerless to avert.
Reblogged this on Floating-voter.
All this high-powered discussion overlooks points flowing from some low-powered principles taught by high-school physics, history, and everyday experience:
* CO2 is not a noxious gas;
* CO2 is a necessary component of our environment, since sunlight acting on CO2 and other components results in the development of carbohydrates of which all life is composed, e.g. sugar, C12H22O11;
* Prehistorically, there have been eras in which enormous CO2 concentrations, enormously higher than now, have supported plant life enormously more productive than now (think: the coal measures), that have fed enormous populations (think: the BC and California bone beds) of enormous creatures (think: dinosaurs and the recently discovered 35-foot wingspread, 440-lb flying dinosaurs) have existed;
* We could probably use more, not less, CO2.
As several have commented, we understand the physics but sometimes misunderstand its results.
Frank Gue,
Professional Engineer
Burlington, Ontario
“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.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2
I think perhaps the physics go a lot deeper than many suspect.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/02/29/climate-science-and-the-third-great-idea-in-20th-century-physics/
As several have commented, we understand the physics
REALLY? you can’t prove that with flawed climate model output.
If you understand something, you can model it. if your model output does not agree with actual data, you do not understand the physics.
franksgue,
You are one of the few who seem to recognise that the only long term data we have to enable us to understand the impacts of a warmer climate, and how much warmer it has been in the past, and how productive life was in those warmer periods, is the geological and geochemical record.
franksgue,
I’d add that the alarmists hate this topic. They dodge it at all costs. Those that do engage, use their usual tactics of simplistic dismissive responses, innuendo, assumptions, selective bias, and a presumption that change must be bad. They seem to completely dismiss the concept that global warming could be beneficial.
Dateline 3 February 2015 – The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However, the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” UNRIC
The urban doofus hipster vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals. The reality understood by environmental scientists the world over is vastly different. Only rich economies can afford environments.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/income-and-lpi.png
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/04/biological-abundance-and-economic-growth/
It is clear that this this is not about science. It is a culture
war based on vastly different values. They would take us down a very dangerous path. It is clear as well that the response to this danger should not be limited to quibbling about climate science talking points. What we need is a new economic rationalist agenda. They will hate you for it.
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade. Increasing productivity and opening access to markets build local economies and global wealth.
Stability brings with it economic growth and reduced scope for fear and greed. Economic growth is faster in well managed markets in low income regions. This leads to a broadening of economic activity and strong nodes of regional economic activity. North and South Americas, Oceania, Asia, Africa and Europe all have scope to be influential partners in the global economy. Multiple regions of economic strength provide buffers against instability in one region or other. It is no longer the case that the global economy is dominated by one region or another. A mutual interest in trade and growth provides as well a path to peace as countries recognize that co-operation is more fruitful than conflict.
Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. The warming from black carbon – by the way – is equal to that of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production and it is for the most part a problem of lack of development.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/
A global program of agricultural soils – and ecosystem – restoration is the foundation for economic development and for balancing the human ecology. Increased agricultural productivity and better use of water enables the building of a brighter future. In last year’s international year of soils – France committed to increasing soil carbon by 0.4% per year. Many countries have since signed up. As a global objective and given the highest priority it is a solution to critical problems of biodiversity loss, much needed development, food security and resilience to drought and flood. We may in addition remove 360 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere and put the carbon to much better use.
Looking at parts Judith left out, this character seems to have bought into a conspiracy theory about acid rain policies being aimed against coal by the Swedes. He keeps calling the sulfate/acid-rain science wrong, and his reference on that seems to be a book about a Russian spy. Remarkable stuff. Where do they get these people from?
It seems? Can’t you do better? Come on Jimmy – you have several great moral panics to defend.
Maybe you believe his idea that acid rain is a conspiracy started by Swedish pro-nuclear(!?) greens, or do you really think it is ridiculous. It’s a new one to me but those who move in his conspiracy theory circles may be familiar with it.
You build magnificent edifices on the flimsiest of foundations. I usually have go back to check that it is not I who has gone mad. I will have to stop doubting myself.
Does that mean you believe Rupert “Drawl’s” Swedish acid rain conspiracy theory?
This appears to be a recent video of Darwall at the Heritage Foundation. We can see at the base, an anti-Swedish attitude here, and conspiracy theories abound, acid rain to nuclear and renewables. Only coal is the future for him. Stay tuned for the questions where he sticks with Sweden as the source of all ills. Heritage seems to be more into Russian conspiracies, judging by their questions. Somebody tells him if global warming is happening, blaming all these countries is not important. His defense appears to be this article where he says basically it must be wrong because acid rain “was”, so no he doesn’t believe it. It’s a conspiracy!
http://www.heritage.org/environment/event/green-tyranny-exposing-the-totalitarian-roots-the-climate-industrial-complex
Reblogged this on pdx transport.
The climate crisis reached a breaking point. So Trump.
https://imgur.com/a/iUT06
More carbon dioxide is better to the tune of about $146 billion per year as calculated by Craig Idso at a recent DDP conference. Matt Ridley gives a very balance presentation for how the world benefits!
Larry Wilhelmsen, Chemical Engineer
Yup. I’ve been saying for years it’s a net benefit. Now factor in the benefits of fossil fuel consumption in the first place. There would be no industrial civilization without it. Billions and billons of people would never have been born, deprived of a chance to experience life.
I wonder who actually believes anything produced by a Lobby Group.
Do you mean the media?
Harry Twinotter: I wonder who actually believes anything produced by a Lobby Group.
AAAS is a lobby group; I know this because as a member I am regularly informed of their lobbying efforts, and encouraged to contribute my own time and money to their lobbying efforts. Yet there are people who believe what they produce, such as Science Magazine reviews and editorials. How about you? Did you believe the multi-authored AAAS production (i.e. essay) “What We Know”?
matthewmarler.
Random posting?
The IPCC has aspects of a lobby group.
yes, indeed, they give governments relevant information on behalf of the scientists, so you might call them a pro-science lobby.
I’d call it disingenuous disinformation based on the ignorance of cultural bias. But then I’m political.
“The IPCC has aspects of a lobby group.”
Really? That is a stretch.
“many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media .. providing a scientific imprimatur for an aggressive policy response…”
Symbiotic relationship with their paymaster, more like, lusting as he is to justify aggressive policies.
“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
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bifurcations1.png
Small changes in control variables result in large changes in system behavior.
Chaotic processes are simple physical processes – such as eddy propagation or breaking Rossby waves – that interact to produce regime shifts in climate systems. The system is tipped out of balance – by solar variability or Milankovitch cycles for instance – and a new and stable state emerges as interacting positive and negative feedbacks – from ice, cloud, vegetation, oceans and atmosphere – settle into a new equilibrium.
There is nothing theoretical about this. The idea of chaos in climate is based on climate data. Regimes are seen in data series as states with a mean and variance – and abrupt changes to states with different means and variance – purely from internal variability.
Thus the idea of emergent behavior. It is not predictable nor tame. It is a wild beast at which we are poking with sticks.
“The idea of chaos in climate is based on climate data.” Only tangentially. Mostly on differential equations first studied by Edward Lorenz.
Poincaré discovered chaos in orbital problems with a non-integrable Hamiltonian. Hurst discovered regime shifts and persistence in Nile River flows recorded in Cairo since year 641 of the common era. The Lorenz model exhibits Hurst effects and the penny dropped. The third great idea – after relativity and quantum mechanics – in 20th century physics.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09068
Chaos provides the template for why data series in climate behave as they do.
It suggests that there may be simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity.
Robert I Ellison: There is nothing theoretical about this. The idea of chaos in climate is based on climate data.
That is a peculiar thing to say about a large collection of nonlinear differential equation models, and other mathematical ideas like Hurst coefficients.
And yours is an impertinent foolishness.
Science at it’s beating heart is data. The climate blogosphere at large seems never to have learnt this.
Unless it has relevance to climate data – chaos my be science but it is not climate science. But of course it does and is.
A hero, who can make minutes feel like days. Enjoy.
Pingback: A Veneer Of Certainty | Transterrestrial Musings
How strange the weather’s been?
Isn’t weather always strange?
Global mean temperature, which probably is at recorded highs, is not weather.
And that’s a logical problem for climate activists and hysterics.
Global warming is general ( hence the name: global ) and slow.
Weather is specific and can be quite intense.
The entire scare tactic is an illogical confounding of the general and slow phenomenon of global warming to the specific and intense phenomenon of weather.
The lay audience gullibly ingests this story.
But the educated are supposed to prevail and distinguish the physics of global temperature ( in-appropriately equated with ‘climate’ ) from the physics of weather.
It’s not as if global warming couldn’t change the nature of weather, but since the earliest circulation models of Manabe, the most frequent aspects appear to be benign. Those aspects are:
* somewhat reduced kinetic energy ( -> reduced severe storms )
* somewhat reduced temperature variability ( -> reduced extremes )
* somewhat increased global precipitation
The principles of global warming, namely that IR opacity should tend to foster energy accumulation, are real.
But the exaggeration of the extent, subsequent effects, and risks are what make climate change a hoax.
I’ve been considering Nietzsche, lately:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?
— Nietzsche
Nietzsche worried ( and proved to be correct ) that when the Enlightenment displaced Christianity in Europe, people would replace the order of the Christian framework with other -isms ( socialism and nationalism, among others ) which would ( and did ) lead to great wars.
It’s more and more apparent to me that a recent replacement religion, the kind of which Nietzsche worried about, has been environmentalism ( or specifically, climatism ). Like religions, it has affirmation of faith ( ‘I believe in climate change!’ ). It has little tolerance for doubt. It doesn’t demand proof ( of model results ). It has atonement for sins ( carbon credits and reducing emissions ). And it has an absolute world view (climate change is bad!), and doesn’t handle moral relativism very well ( maybe a little global warming is even beneficial? ).
Given the competing other -isms, climatism may run out of steam. But it appears to qualify as a psychologically satisfying movement proving order to those in need.
There are some eternal truths about human behavior that transcend civilizations and millennia. Certain founding fathers were steeped in classical education and understood those truths. Somehow Bob Dylan doesn’t have the same gravitas to guide our society in its search for wisdom.
The Übermensch who provided the rationale – not that one was needed – for fascism?
The Scottish Enlightenment on the other hand was America’s foundation stone.
“When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to
pursue different ends.” F. A. Hayek – Why I am not a conservative
Hayek is of course better understood as a classic liberal than as the US perversion of liberal values.
Nietzsche had his contradictions and failings, to be sure ( though he explicitly denounced nationalism, socialism, and racism and the Nazis appropriated his words anyway ).
But his observation that people, stripped of the framework of Christianity, would seek alternative moral orders rather than face their existence as is, appears to apply to the rise of environmentalism.
You are being kind.
Nietzsche I believe saw religion as a means of keeping the sheep in check. Ubermen had no need of such things. From a different perspective – this was a theme of Marx as well.
Indeed Turbulent Eddie,
The major problem I see it, is how people, especially some scientists, see science. For so many science is a catalog of absolute truth about absolute facts. For me nothing could be further from reality.
Science is not an absolute truth, and not a catalog of absolute facts — it is merely a patchy agglomeration of approximations by which we seek to understand and interpret the natural universe and it’s processes. We have just our approximations and part of science’s task is to improve our approximations and our understanding of them, as well as seek out new attributes of nature that were previously hidden from us. However we have no idea of the scale of the task, as we have no idea of the scale of unknowns we do not know.
Science is not some holy writ of unbreakable laws but a work in progress, an expanding continuum of refining our understanding and interpretation of the natural universe.
This is outrageous. A history match is done by adjusting uncertain parameter to improve the match between known historical data and the simulation. The projection should be done using those parameters. Changing the parameters at the start of the projection is unethical or worse. This apparently means that during the historical period the models were run with low climate sensitivity but during the forecast the models were run with high climate sensitivity.
Oh, I remember when the tobacco industry tried this… and AIDS denialists and young Earth creationists and…
It’s called “manufacture of false doubt”. Basically, pretend that stuff is less certain that it actually is, so one can avoid policies/conclusions one dislikes. One can usually do this by pretending that only certain specific topics have any level of certainty, while other topics are in doubt (even though there’s pretty solid certainty on said topics). Some illustrative examples:
1) AIDS denialism: “Yes, it’s fairly certain that HIV exists. But stop leveraging that into fake certainty that HIV causes AIDS and anti-retroviral therapy will save lives.”
2) Creationism: “Yes, microevolution is real. But stop trying to leverage that into fake certainty regarding macroevolution and “molecules-to-man-evolution”.
3) Tobacco industry: “Yes, we admit that many people cough while smoking. But stop trying to leverage that into fake certainty on smoking causes cancer, and the health risks of second-hand smoking.”
For further background on the strategy of manufacturing false doubt, see:
“How the growth of denialism undermines public health”
“Science denialism: Evolution and climate change”
“Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate”
“Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?”
Now on to some of Darwall’s abuse of language (I’ll address his abuse of science is a separate response)
Re: “Rupert Darwall has written a tour-de-force essay “A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm“”
Darwall’s abusing terms like “Alarm”, as expected. The IPCC tends to under-estimate the impacts of climate change, which runs contrary to the charge of alarmism:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/
“Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction
[…]
A constant refrain coming from the denial campaign is that climate scientists are “alarmists” who exaggerate the degree and threat of global warming to enhance their status, funding, and influence with policy makers. The contribution by William Freudenburg and Violetta Muselli provides an insightful empirical test of this charge and finds it to lack support.”
And this is some of the relevant supporting research on this point:
“Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?”
“Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?”
“Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge”
Furthermore, the IPCC’s tone tends to be more tentative and less “alarmist”, with sufficient attention paid to uncertainty:
“The language of denial: Text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics”
“Comment on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” by J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster”
“Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties”
Re: “many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media to stoke fear about allegedly catastrophic climate change“
Yes, those conniving mainstream scientists… who keep correcting media exaggerations on climate science. For instance:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-dan-hyde-earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years/
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/2017-track-among-hottest-year-recorded-scientists-not-surprised-thinkprogress-article-suggests-joe-romm/
And seriously, when will Darwall’s lot drop their “catastrophic climate change” straw man?:
“Another claim advanced by those who reject the mainstream scientific agreement on climate is that the consensus position consists of a claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or the frequently used acronym CAGW […]. However, CAGW is rarely, if ever, defined or sourced to a mainstream scientific organization or study. Any scientific study’s result, or statement by a researcher, that does not fit a contrarian’s personal, flexible definition of CAGW can therefore be adopted as ostensibly supporting their view and refuting the mainstream, even when such results are actually consistent with the mainstream position on climate […].
[…]
Additionally, we find that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming [CAGW] is essentially a term that is never used in the relevant scientific literature by mainstream sources. Furthermore, in the press it appears to be used exclusively by climate contrarians. The term is typically neither defined nor attributed to a mainstream scientific source. Our conclusion is therefore that CAGW is simply a straw man used by climate contrarians to criticize the mainstream position (50).”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-20161-0_3
There is a bizarre fallacy of
false equivalence that he repeats yet again. AIDS, creationism, smoking and vaccinations abused in this way are pissant progressive narratives that have absolutely no relevance to climate science. We might as well add nuclear energy and and genetic engineering – although I see better alternatives to both – as progressive shibboleths. Or any of the other moral panics of the late 20th century. DDT, ozone depletion, vaccination and autism, acid rain or smart phone brain cancers.
Catastrophe is never far the surface – and climate is the cause célèbre.
“The year is 2393, and the world is almost unrecognizable. Clear warnings of climate catastrophe went ignored for decades, leading to soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, widespread drought and—finally—the disaster now known as the Great Collapse of 2093, when the disintegration of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet led to mass migration and a complete reshuffling of the global order. Writing from the Second People’s Republic of China on the 300th anniversary of the Great Collapse, a senior scholar presents a gripping and deeply disturbing account of how the children of the Enlightenment—the political and economic elites of the so-called advanced industrial societies—failed to act, and so brought about the collapse of Western civilization.”
Climate catastrophe is used as a stalking horse for the transformation of capitalism and democracy. The reality – as I say above somewhere – is that only rich societies can afford environments. The goal this century is prosperous communities in vibrant landscapes.
I am happy to support people like this.
http://www.bioneers.org/
https://kisstheground.com/
https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
But Atomski is a disingenuous drone with nothing to offer.
Re: “There is a bizarre fallacy of false equivalence that he repeats yet again. AIDS, creationism, smoking and vaccinations abused in this way are pissant progressive narratives that have absolutely no relevance to climate science.”
False. The fallacious reasoning used by AIDS denialists is the same sort of fallacious reasoning used by AIDS denialists, young Earth creationists, etc. You’ve been cited clear evidence on this point, but you never address it; you simply whine an hurl insults. How sad.
The rest of what you said is just your usual evidence-free, politically-motivated nonsense. I’m not particular interested in it. When you have some actual evidence, let me know.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: The fallacious reasoning used by [climate change] denialists is the same sort of fallacious reasoning used by AIDS denialists, young Earth creationists, etc. You’ve been cited clear evidence on this point, but you never address it; you simply whine an hurl insults.
Actually, the clear differences were clearly pointed out to you but you never addressed them. In the “compare and contrast” exercise, you avoided all the contrasts. To you, a big elephant and a big ant are about the same size because they are both “big”.
He is a great example of the ignorance of cultural bias. The same fallacious and evidence free arguments over and over.
This comment was on his extended “whine” that climate catastrophe was an invention of deniers. It is simply not the case – disingenuous diversions from reality notwithstanding.
it is typical of these types that the endless stream of calumny aimed at deniers is not insult and abuse. But we can’t possibly have any basis for laughing at them.
Re: “Actually, the clear differences were clearly pointed out to you but you never addressed them. In the “compare and contrast” exercise, you avoided all the contrasts.”
Actually, I already addressed that. For instance:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/10/21/campus-insanity-versus-freedom-of-speech/#comment-860124
https://judithcurry.com/2017/10/21/campus-insanity-versus-freedom-of-speech/#comment-860187
Next time, please actually fact-check before making claims. Otherwise, people will think you’re not interested in actually making evidence-based claims.
You made a number of mistakes, including:
1) Offering contrasts that weren’t actually contrasts, likely because you don’t actually understand the position held by AIDS denialists.
2) You didn’t bother to address the similar, fallacious tactics used by AIDS denialists and AGW denialists. Pointing out contrasts between AIDS denialists and AGW denialists does nothing to change the similarities I pointed out. To say otherwise is as ridiculous as saying that pointing out that a cat is brown and a different dog is red, somehow changes the fact that both a similar with respect to being a mammal.
Re: “To you, a big elephant and a big ant are about the same size because they are both “big”.”
Nope. The actual analogy would be that a red dog and a brown cat are similar with respect to being mammals.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Nope. The actual analogy would be that a red dog and a brown cat are similar with respect to being mammals.
You have that backwards: brown cats and red dogs are classed as mammals because of their similarities. Platypuses are also classed as mammals, but you would not therefore try to harvest cat eggs.
The question I was raising was whether a “denier” of mechanism ought to be classed with a “denier” of quantitative details about agreed-upon mechanism because someone notes that they can both have the descriptor “denialist” imposed upon them. Using the same word for such disparate actions is at best sloppy, possibly misleading.
How about: Humans are practically the same as rats? Really low doses can be understood from the effects of really high doses? Those were the reasons why saccharine was banned. And the reasons that aspartame was held up as long as it was.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: 1) Offering contrasts that weren’t actually contrasts, likely because you don’t actually understand the position held by AIDS denialists.
There are different AIDS denialists. Peter Duesberg, who was mentioned by name, denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Clearly contrasted with Judith Curry who does not deny the mechanisms of CO2 in atmospheric warming. Exactly which position held by AIDS denialists do I not understand?
Do you not understand the quantitative argument that an increase of 4 W/m^2 downwelling LWIR might not warm the surface very much because the surface transfers energy by multiple processes? Do you not understand the scientific case that the effects of cloud cover change might blunt any surface warming?
Re: “There are different AIDS denialists. Peter Duesberg, who was mentioned by name, denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Clearly contrasted with Judith Curry who does not deny the mechanisms of CO2 in atmospheric warming. Exactly which position held by AIDS denialists do I not understand?”
I explained this already.
Both Duesberg and Curry don’t accept the accept the evidence-based consensus on a causal attribution claim.
Duesberg doesn’t accept that HIV causes AIDS, despite the abundant evidence in support of that conclusion.
Curry doesn’t accept that humans (predominantly via emission of greenhouse gases like CO2) caused most of the post-1950s warming, despite the abundant evidence in support of that conclusion.
Your problem is that you keep acting as if the only relevant causal attribution claim is whether CO2 causes atmospheric warming. But that is not the case; the evidence-based consensus on causal attribution on CO2 includes more than that, just like the evidence-based consensus on causal attribution for HIV includes more than the claim that HIV is virus that causes antibody formation in humans.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Your problem is that you keep acting as if the only relevant causal attribution claim is whether CO2 causes atmospheric warming.
Where do I act like that? And is this another of your vague “like” as in “cats are like dogs because both can be classed as mammals”, or “Curry is like Duesberg because both deny something”? I wouldn’t deny that cats and dogs can be classed as mammals because the mothers nurse their babies through mammary glands — it does not follow that cats can be trained to retrieve Frisbees or that cats and dogs have equivalent pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics.
The fundamental questions include: How much warming does CO2 cause in the climate? Is the temperature change induced by CO2 equal in all altitudes? Has the increase in temp, rainfall and CO2 over the past 100+ years been harmful, benign, or beneficial? How much of the increase in temperature recorded over the past few decades, past 100+ years etc been due to something other than anthropogenic CO2 (some process with a period of 1000 years? Urbanization? Deforestation? Natural oscillations of a high dimensional nonlinear dissipative system? Evidence for all of those has been published in peer-reviewed journals).
How about “You keep writing as though the only evidence that matters is the evidence supporting the “Urgent Action Required” version of AGW” ? [UARAGW for CAGW, if you will.] Whether true or not, it is irrelevant how you behave. What matters is the weighing and accumulation of all the evidence with respect to all of the details of all the mechanisms.
Fabius Maximus wrote about this:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/27/the-conceits-of-consensus/
While I think there was some discussion of, Did he get it right? The link above shows a number of climate change scientists not saying more than half. About 34% of them. They’d be denialists too. For being at 50% for attribution. They are denying a certain percentage. The quality of denial is at 50%. That makes a lot of sense.
This 50% or more than half is a political statement. Anyone can see that. It changes the science endorsed message to make it stronger. It’s a talking point. The ECS remains poorly constrained yet attribution was tightened.
Denying a political statement. I am sorry, that’s what we are supposed to do. The whole flood of consensus studies was about messaging, not science. The first one by Cook, had the usual messaging suspects going after the big oil messaging conspiracy they’ve told us exists.
I don’t think you could have picked anything more inflammatory than AIDS denial.
Re: matthewrmarler “The fundamental questions include”
As usual, you move the goal-posts and go back to dodging the point the moment it’s explained to you. Try actually addressing it this time. Once again:
Both Duesberg and Curry don’t accept the accept the evidence-based consensus on a causal attribution claim.
Duesberg doesn’t accept that HIV causes AIDS, despite the abundant evidence in support of that conclusion.
Curry doesn’t accept that humans (predominantly via emission of greenhouse gases like CO2) caused most of the post-1950s warming, despite the abundant evidence in support of that conclusion.
Re: Ragnaar “This 50% or more than half is a political statement. Anyone can see that. It changes the science endorsed message to make it stronger. It’s a talking point. The ECS remains poorly constrained yet attribution was tightened.”
Please learn the difference between science and politics, Ragnaar. Or more precisely: stop pretending you don’t know the difference.
By your asinine reasoning, the following is a political claim, not a scientific one:
“HIV caused most the 50% of AIDS cases.”
You’d made Peter Duesberg proud.
To explain this to you for the at least the 10th time (maybe one day you’ll stop disingenusouly pretending this hasn’t been explained to you):
Post-1950 attribution is supported by a number of lines of evidence, including:
B1) Post-1950s stratospheric cooling
B2) Post-1950s mesospheric cooling
B3) Post-1950s thermospheric cooling
B4) Horizontal/regional distribution of warming and the temporal pattern of warming [DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1, pages 1683 and 1684]
B5) 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].
B6) Estimate of climate sensitivity which, when applied to current warming, imply that most of the warming is caused by CO2.
B7) Increased radiative forcing in energy frequencies CO2 is expected to absorb in.
Your point about ECS (equilibirum climate sensitivity is irrelevant) since:
I’ll state these points for you again:
1) Even with a low sensitivity value, humans would still have caused most of the recent global warming.
2) In addition to estimates of climate sensitivity, there are other lines of evidence showing that humans caused most of the recent global warming; this provides further credence for the >=95% certainty on this point. These other lines of evidence include the observed pattern of atmospheric warming and cooling.
3) There are other anthropogenic forcings, such as anthropogenic contributions to black carbon aerosols, methane, and CFCs. These can also contribute to human-induced, and thus help explain the higher confidence in the human contribution to warming vs. climate sensitivity.
The IPCC statement has two parts, and the second part is most often forgotten here: extremely likely most and most likely all. The center of the likelihood distribution is at 100%. There is no good reason for policies to be based on other than the most likely case.
Here is a political statement: We did this.
A scientific statement: This happens. For instance, CO2 does this.
Here’s a political statement: It’s your fault. We blame you.
To call attribution science, ignores attributing blame to support a solution. The blaming tees up a solution so as to make the audience feel less bad about what they did to the climate. It’s a sales pitch. Climate science is not blame nor is it a sales pitch.
What is the mission of the IPCC? To figure out what we did to the climate and will do to it. Why? To ascertain blame. Why? To make us do something. That’s science?
We live in a democracy. We are supposed to oppose political statements. It’s in our nature.
With its attribution statement, the IPCC reminds us of their lack of scientific purity. Of the lobbying aspect of their mission.
Ragnaar, that makes no sense at all. In medicine health problems and diseases are attributed to behaviors all the time, and we are better for knowing. That is science and where science helps society: knowing causes and effects.
Jim D:
“An assignment of blame is a social explanation. It is the outcome of a process that begins with an event having negative consequences, involves judgments about causality, personal responsibility, and possible mitigation. The result can be an assertion, or a denial, of individual blameworthiness. The purpose of this book is to develop a comprehensive theory of how people assign blame.”
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781461295617
The IPCC’s attribution statement says, It’s your fault. There’s a whole wing that says, no it’s not. That’s predictable. You’re not the boss of me.
We can find more blame.
Poor people in Africa will suffer the most. Which has been a theme for at least 50 years about us being rich.
Animals will die.
Crops will die.
Floods and storms.
When 3 hurricanes do this or that, blame.
How much worse was that storm?
In the quote, personal responsibility.
There are a few people going so far as to care about their carbon footprint and really doing something about it. Because we aren’t going to be able to blame them.
That this is this the hard science of physics, doesn’t fly with me.
A similar thing happened with acid rain, the ozone hole, lead poisoning, and I am sure you can think of many more. If science can be used to point to culprits in environmental problems, it should be. You seem to want science to stay out of attributing causes to problems, which is an untenable position to hold. This is exactly where we need science in society. It’s not just to be confined to pottering about in labs, as you would seem to want it. If their results are inconvenient to your favorite industries, that’s no excuse to muzzle them.
So much is not science but ignorance from cultural bias you are so good at. At worst there are simple technical fixes – that you are so bad at.
Yes, they always accept the problems and do the most effective fixes, and they don’t just deny the problem exists or deny its cause. This is what it’s about.
It is about watermelons manufacturing crises to create a ‘transformative moment’ in social and economic systems. It is all absurd green political nonsense.
The urban doofus hipster vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.
People and business just don’t give a rat’s arse anymore. Environmental science requires knowing enough about a very broad range of topics to build synergistic multi-disciplinary teams to solve complex, wicked problems of the environment. We work with business and the community.
Your habitual assumption on the other hand that green activists know something more about ‘problems’ than professionals advising business is just such utter BS. In my vast experience – greenies are the dumbest bunch of misfits ever.
Yeah, I know. It’s just one big conspiracy!
Jim D:
They are blaming about a 1.0 C temperature rise on us. Negative consequences – we don’t know. They used their judgment – yes and I think they were overconfident. Responsibility – implied. Mitigation – already here.
Their attribution is an overconfident talking point wrapped in expert assessment science. One of its purposes is to push climate policies. What good is it for policy where we don’t need to know what happened but what will happen?
We caused all the warming to a typical person who doesn’t look at things means what? We cause everything. That’s not what the science says.
The most likely attribution being 100% is observation based. The imbalance is positive meaning that all the warming so far still lags the forcing change. The forcing itself is almost entirely the GHG change, so yes it is all us, and more in the pipeline even if we stopped emitting now. A lot of skeptics think there is some wiggle room there, but the observations really don’t give you anything less than 100%.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: It’s called “manufacture of false doubt”
As opposed to the “manufacture of evidence”; the solution to this argumentative conundrum becomes one of “empirical” necessity.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: “The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus”
Whether global cooling was “consensus” or was not “consensus” is an interesting detail. It was widely promoted by experts (e.g. Stephen Schneider, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, etc), widely republished in secondary sources (CIA memos [later made public], WaPo, NYT, Time), debated and supported and disputed; and it was wrong.
About the others: you are not denying the claims that expert opinion warned against aspartame, acrilonitrile, and alar, are you? The decision by the Reagan administration to permit the sale of aspartame was quite controversial at the time, and cited as another example of what later was called “the Republican War on Science”.
While you are considering whether I am actually wrong, I’ll start retrieving sources.
Poking the nasty climate beast in the nose by vaulting massive amounts of reflective molecules into the upper atmosphere could cause abrupt cooling.
Re: “Whether global cooling was “consensus” or was not “consensus” is an interesting detail.”
Nope. It shows you’re trying to cherry-pick minority views in order to manufacture doubt on climate science.
“Selectivity of citation: Any paper, no matter how methodologically flawed, that challenges the dominant consensus is promoted extensively by denialists, whereas any minor weaknesses in papers that support the dominant position are highlighted and used to discredit their messages.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.full
Re: “It was widely promoted by experts (e.g. Stephen Schneider, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, etc)”
Since when was Ehrlich an expert on climate science? Just because someone is famous and you heard of them, doesn’t mean they have expertise on climate science.
Schneider co-authored a scientific paper; I don’t see how that qualifies as “promot[ion]”. And he admitted the errors in the paper by 1975:
Ray Pierrehumbert’s 2012 video: “Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions – 2012 AGU Fall Meeting”, from 39:12 to 40:29 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&t=578s
Schneider isn’t engaging in manufacturing doubt here, since:
1) He did what scientists are supposed to do: submit evidence-based claims for peer review
2) He didn’t pretend his claims were representative of the scientific community at the time.
3) He admitted his claims were mistaken when they were corrected; basically: he didn’t pull a Lindzen.
Re: “widely republished in secondary sources (CIA memos [later made public], WaPo, NYT, Time), debated and supported and disputed; and it was wrong.”
So? Scientifically-minded people (or people with scientific meta-literacy) don’t think the media is a reputable scientific source. The media is only as go as the peer-reviewed scientific research supporting it’s claims. Yet you’re really going to try and manufacture doubt by citing the media? Really?
“However, the most comprehensive study in the 1970s was the 1975 report by the US National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council that concluded, “… we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course.” This qualified statement is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Science: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” To compare the handful of cooling predictions in the 1970s (predominantly from media sources, not peer-reviewed literature) to the current scientific consensus endorsing human-caused global warming, is both inappropriate and misleading.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-5757-8_24
Re: “About the others: you are not denying the claims that expert opinion warned against aspartame, acrilonitrile, and alar, are you?”
You cited Wikipedia before when you wrote:
“Meanwhile, here is an introduction to aspartame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy ”
I don’t consider Wikipedia a credible scientific source. But suppose I go with your source. Your source shows that evidence-based consensus (as reflected in the peer-reviewed scientific literature) was that aspartame was mostly fine. Government agencies then accepted that consensus, even though paranoid conspiracy theorists online opposed the consensus position.
Now, what does that sound like?… Oh yeah, there’s an evidence-based consensus (as reflected in the peer-reviewed scientific literature) on anthropogenic climate change. Government agencies then accepted that consensus, even though paranoid conspiracy theorists online opposed the consensus position. Looks like history is repeating himself, if your source is to be believed. Sad.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Nope. It shows you’re trying to cherry-pick minority views in order to manufacture doubt on climate science.
Obviously I disagree. When Schneider, Ehrlich and Holdren (and the secondary reviews) were promoting global cooling, it was not presented as a minority view. If in fact it was a “minority” view, the majority surely waited a long time to dispute it.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: So? Scientifically-minded people (or people with scientific meta-literacy) don’t think the media is a reputable scientific source. The media is only as go as the peer-reviewed scientific research supporting it’s claims. Yet you’re really going to try and manufacture doubt by citing the media? Really?
When did the scientists first explain that the media were wrong? Years later after the experts themselves had changed their minds. At the time those media popularizations were published, they were not discredited by the majority scientists. Were they.
Are you happy with the phrase “manufacture doubt”? Did you entertain any doubt yourself when a British scientist was quoted as saying that snow would be a thing of the past? Do you have any doubt about the claim that 21st century sea level rise could be as much as 2 meters?
OH Please allow me to introduce myself:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-marler-9a921b15/
and
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Marler
Re: “Obviously I disagree. When Schneider, Ehrlich and Holdren (and the secondary reviews) were promoting global cooling, it was not presented as a minority view. If in fact it was a “minority” view, the majority surely waited a long time to dispute it.”
“When did the scientists first explain that the media were wrong? Years later after the experts themselves had changed their minds. At the time those media popularizations were published, they were not discredited by the majority scientists. Were they.”
Either cite evidence for your claims, or stop wasting my time. I’m not interested in you using implication by question, or:
“Just asking questions (also known as JAQ-ing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
I’ve already cited 4 sources for you on what scientists regarding that topic. Yet you’ve cited no evidence for your bare assertions.
“The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus”
“The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century”
“Rebuttals to Climate Myths”
Ray Pierrehumbert’s 2012 video: “Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions – 2012 AGU Fall Meeting”, from 39:12 to 40:29 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&t=578s
So no, I’m not going to accept nonsense made up by some random man on the Internet who doesn’t bother to ever cite evidence. I’m not that gullible. So from now on, if you don’t cite evidence for contentious claims you make, I’m just going to brush them off.
Thanks to Jim D for pointing this out:
“Looking at parts Judith left out, this character seems to have bought into a conspiracy theory about acid rain policies being aimed against coal by the Swedes. He keeps calling the sulfate/acid-rain science wrong, and his reference on that seems to be a book about a Russian spy. Remarkable stuff. Where do they get these people from?”
Darwall makes this move in the following article:
“Climate Alarmists Use the Acid-Rain Playbook”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-use-the-acid-rain-playbook-1508969822
He also may have made the same move in his book “Green Tyranny”, according the the following contrarian/crackpot source:
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/10/8/anatomy-of-an-environmental-scare
This is a great illustration of the “manufacture of false doubt” strategy I mentioned before. It’s the tobacco strategy all over again, a strategy which has been applied to the science on acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, smoking, evolution, etc.:
“Many of the strategies used by the opponents of both evolution and global warming are based on sowing misinformation and doubt. This approach is often called the “tobacco strategy”, because tobacco companies used it effectively to delay health warnings and regulation of smoking.
[…]
Other examples of the tobacco strategy include the denial of a relationship between production of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and depletion of stratospheric ozone (fought by the chemical industry) and denial of a connection between smokestack emissions and acid rain (fought by electric utilities and coal companies).”
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/viewFile/71/64
Maybe Robert I. Ellison buys into this nonsense strategy as well? After all, he wrote:
“Or any of the other moral panics of the late 20th century. DDT, ozone depletion, […] acid rain […].”
For those who want an introduction to some of the scientific evidence on acid rain (or some discussion on policy related to acid rain), see:
“Acid rain and its ecological consequences”
“A fresh look at the benefits and costs of the US acid rain program”
Atomsk’s Sanakan: It’s the tobacco strategy all over again, a strategy which has been applied to the science on acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, smoking, evolution, etc.:
… chlorinated water, fluoridated water, alar, acrilonitrile, saccharine, aspartame, Federal dietary guidelines, global cooling, etc. Don’t forget them
About tobacco specifically, the purported public health benefits of controlling second-hand smoke were never realized. I personally am glad that so many places have become smoke-free, but those who challenged claims that controlling second hand smoke would save many premature deaths proved to be correct.
Re: “…chlorinated water, fluoridated water, alar, acrilonitrile, saccharine, aspartame, Federal dietary guidelines, global cooling, etc. Don’t forget them”
I’m not one of your fellow contrarians; I’m not going to buy into claims you make, without you citing evidence. I’ve heard the sort of talking points you political conservatives like to rehearse; I’m not interested, unless you have evidence. So feel free to cite some evidence next time.
For example, your “global cooling” point is likely you just credulously falling for a myth that’s common in AGW denialist circles. Feel free to read:
“The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus”
“The idea of anthropogenic global climate change in the 20th century”
And this should serve as a useful, contemporary introduction to the water fluoridation, as it relates to dental caries:
“Critique of the review of ‘Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries’ published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2015”
Your “dietary guidelines” point is common talking point in politically conservative circles, usually among the same crowd of folks that are AGW denialists. I strongly suggest you read some of the scientific literature in that topic, instead of just repeating whatever nonsense you see from conservative talking heads.
“About tobacco specifically, the purported public health benefits of controlling second-hand smoke were never realized.”
Once again, please don’t brazenly make stuff up with citing evidence. The health risks of second-hand smoke are well-documented, despite your attempts (and the attempts of other political conservatives) to manufacture false doubt on this topic. For instance, see:
“Second-hand tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease risk: An epidemiological review”
“Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries”
“Second hand smoke exposure and the risk of invasive meningococcal disease in children: systematic review and meta-analysis
I like having people disagree with me, when they cite evidence and/or sound reasoning for their claims. That helps me learn new information I wouldn’t otherwise know. What I have no patience for is politically-motivated people who make stuff up without bothering to cite evidence for their position, nor bothering to engage cited evidence against their position. So please cite some actually evidence for your claims, instead of just asserting whatever you would like to be true.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: I strongly suggest you read some of the scientific literature in that topic, instead of just repeating whatever nonsense you see from conservative talking heads.
I do read “some” of the scientific literature on these topics, mostly in Science Magazine and some statistics journals. Additionally, I follow lots of links that are posted here. If you have any evidence that control of public smoking reduced the alleged detrimental health effects of second-hand smoke, I’ll probably read them. It isn’t that helpful when you only present titles, but I’ll look for those reviews.
I do not get any information from “conservative talking heads”.
Admittedly my knowledge of acrilonitrile combined evidence from Science Magazine and a Monsanto engineer at a time when Monsanto took a huge financial loss from govt action against acrilonitrile — before the bulk of scientific evidence showed that the levels of the stuff in plastic bottles was not a public health risk.
Re: “Feel free to read”:
“The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus”
“The idea of anthroprogenic global climate change in the 20th century”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*jcmooyqbb8mt0qUhRBtwYQ.png
Atomsk’s Sanakan
As regards cooling I have had discussions wth the authors of the paper you cite, after coming to the conclusion that their search of 1960’s documentation was rather perfunctory. The main thrust of scientific literature on the colling was ending by the early 1970’s
Both budyko the great Russian climatologist and Hubert lamb the great British one both cited articles in their respective books and lectures that referred to the cooling noted by Mitchell in his temperature curves, as covering the period from approximately 1940 to 1970
NASA referred to budyko in this piece that confirms this period of cooling.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
You will have also seen the CIA document that referenced the cooling and the problems this would likely bring.
Around 1970 budyko predicted the cooling phase would cease and he and lamb in effect then influenced Hansen. So the lack of papers in the 1970 about cooling was hardly surprising as by then the consensus of opinion was firmly in favour of warming.
A more thorough look at the cooling literature in the decades prior to that would benefit the scientific discussion although of course, in general, papers on climate were far less frequent in the pre 1970 period generally .
Tonyb
Tony – this may interest you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091
The interesting thing about the cooling is its regional nature. One of the largest cooling areas was the eastern US and downstream Atlantic, perhaps due to the rise of the automobiles and industry, coal etc., leading to haze. Sulfates have often been implicated for this trend, global dimming being another manifestation of the phenomenon in areas downstream of the growing post-war industrial areas.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv5_1200km_Trnd112_1940_1970_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps.png
Robert
Interesting paper, thank you
Tonyb
Jimd
The trouble with your NASA graphic is that the white bits give a false impression of virtual climate stability! when what they really represent is a lack of data as I pointed out in my post just above yours.
The temperature was biased to the NH as data in many other parts of the world simply wasn’t available.
Hansen copied the data from Mitchell for his own series but that doesn’t get away from the fact that the majority of the world for which we have a reliable record showed cooling
Tonyb
tony, I have to correct you. The grey parts are where there is a lack of data, primarily Antarctica. White means no change, and mid-century there was only slow change in general. The CO2 signal had not emerged from the local patterns yet.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Thanks to Jim D for pointing this out:
“Looking at parts Judith left out, this character seems to have bought into a conspiracy theory about acid rain policies being aimed against coal by the Swedes. He keeps calling the sulfate/acid-rain science wrong, and his reference on that seems to be a book about a Russian spy. Remarkable stuff. Where do they get these people from?”
Darwall makes this move in the following article:
The lead article on the thread, introduced and praised by our Host Dr Curry, was a review by Darwall of the transcript of an APS Workshop which Dr Curry participated in.
your criticism is ad hominem, namely that elsewhere Darwall has been mistaken, so this is an ignorable article. That’s a fallacious argument.
He was not only mistaken in his other views expressed in that article, but rather zany. He thinks everything he dislikes ties back to Sweden. His video I linked elsewhere doubles down on those views. Such views that reflect deep internal biases disqualify him from being considered a voice of reason on anything.
Jim D: Such views that reflect deep internal biases disqualify him from being considered a voice of reason on anything.
Dr Curry has praised the essay, calling it a “tour de force”. Without reading the essay or the transcript upon which it is based, you are doubling down on the ad hom versus the author.
Re: “Tony – this may interest you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091“
Once again, you show that you don’t read what you cite. Maybe because Judith Curry misled you when she made misleading statements about that paper?:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/19/week-in-review-science-policy-edition/#comment-856665
Anyway, if you actually read the paper, then you’d know the paper specifically says that the longer-term, millennial-scale factors modulated the short-term effects from the Sun and El Nino:
“The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091
So what were these longer-term, millennial scale factors? Well, the paper says:
“As for the most important long periodic signals of 1000 years, a reasonable speculation is that they represent the impacts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the climate system. This long period signal is topmost modulated which controls all scale-components, while GHGs is almost the unique factor to directly heat the air by absorbing the longwave radiation from the Earth surface. Thus, it should be considered that this millennial signal may be an impact of GHGs.
This result differs from the conclusions in Scafetta’s papers [e.g. refs 17, 18, 19], where this millennial period scale (983 years in his papers) is regarded as a harmonic of the solar cycle, but here we prefer to regard it as the GHG signal for the physical energy of the climate system.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091
Oh look, it’s greenhouses gases (GHGs) like CO2. The very thing you continue to refuse to accept. Why am I not surprised?
Thus, it should be considered that this millennial signal may be an impact of GHGs…
It remains an interesting paper – and in science it is permitted to speculate.
Here’s some papers I haven’t actually read but are on my reading list. Like the CET paper I hadn’t actually digested when I suggested that Tony might be interested. I am so thick it sometimes weeks or months to understand papers. So if Atomski Chomski could help me out with his shortcuts I’d appreciate it .
“Our calculation of WP HC shows that even with a deepening heat storage in the Pacific Ocean, the WP is still a large source of positive heat storage anomaly. This would suggest that natural decadal climate variability plays a large role in the global surface temperatures in addition to the more commonly discussed aspects of climate change, such as sea level rise28
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13351-x
“The IPWP is the largest reservoir of warm surface water on the Earth and the main source of heat for the global atmosphere. Small variations in SST of the IPWP influence the location and strength of convection in the rising limb of the Hadley and Walker circulations,
and can thus perturb planetary-scale atmospheric circulation and influence tropical hydrology4. However, tropical hydrology is also responsive to high-latitude temperature change5,6. Recent work suggests that SST of the IPWP has varied during the past millennium, with colder SSTs during the peak of the Little Ice Age (LIA) than during the preceding centuries7. However, no millennial-length SST
reconstructions from the IPWP capture the complete warming out of the LIA or extend into the instrumental era to allow a direct comparison with instrumental data. Therefore, the amplitude of reconstructed SST variations in the context of modern SSTs is still
uncertain. Whereas conventional sediment corers—gravity and piston corers—often disturb surface and latest Holocene sediments, multi-corers are lowered gently into ocean sediment and recover the
sediment–water interface undisturbed, together with about a halfmetre of underlying sediment. Combining records from multi-cores and gravity or piston cores enables the reconstruction of long records that overlap the instrumental record.” http://users.clas.ufl.edu/rrusso/gly6932/Oppo_etal_Nature09.pdf
Thanks in advance.
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.o1lNNLFz.dpbs
This is some pretty good evidence of a concensus. There are hundreds more on this page.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: And seriously, when will Darwall’s lot drop their “catastrophic climate change” straw man?:
It is not a straw man. “Alarmists” such as James Hansen and Al Gore use lots of words for disastrous consequences of global warming, and “catastrophic” is a useful summary for the lot of them. What other words would you use for the flooding of Miami and the periphery of Manhattan? If not “catastrophic”, why is extreme action urgently needed to prevent them?
Meanwhile, here is an introduction to aspartame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
Not so clearly highlighted is the conflict between the academic/NIH scientists and the industrial scientists, similar to what we see in the global warming debates..
Re: “It is not a straw man”
No, it’s a straw man for the reasons already mentioned. Once again:
“Another claim advanced by those who reject the mainstream scientific agreement on climate is that the consensus position consists of a claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or the frequently used acronym CAGW […]. However, CAGW is rarely, if ever, defined or sourced to a mainstream scientific organization or study. Any scientific study’s result, or statement by a researcher, that does not fit a contrarian’s personal, flexible definition of CAGW can therefore be adopted as ostensibly supporting their view and refuting the mainstream, even when such results are actually consistent with the mainstream position on climate […].
[…]
Additionally, we find that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming [CAGW] is essentially a term that is never used in the relevant scientific literature by mainstream sources. Furthermore, in the press it appears to be used exclusively by climate contrarians. The term is typically neither defined nor attributed to a mainstream scientific source. Our conclusion is therefore that CAGW is simply a straw man used by climate contrarians to criticize the mainstream position (50).”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-20161-0_3
Re: “If not “catastrophic”, why is extreme action urgently needed to prevent them?”
This is something you contrarians don’t grasp (or you pretend not to grasp): something does not need to be “catastrosphic” is order for you to do something about it. For example, none of the following things are world-ending catastrophes, but people still do stuff about them:
car accidents, cancer. AIDS, heart disease, shark attacks
Of course, for the reasons I quoted above, climate change will never meet the definition of “catastrophic” you contrarians use. You will keep your definition of “catastrophic” flexible and/or vague and/or ever-changing, such that no observed climate change ever meets your definition. It’s akin to creationists talking about “molecules-to-man evolution”; they define that term in whatever way they need to make sure nothing meets it. To put it another way: your use use of the term “catastrosophic” is just an attempt to move the goal-posts.
“Pushing Back the Goalpost
Of all the characteristics of deniers, repeatedly nudging back the goalpost—or the threshold of evidence required for acceptance of a theory—is often the most telling. The strategy behind goalpost-moving is simple: always demand more evidence than can currently be provided. If the evidence is then provided at a later date, simply change the demand to require even more evidence, or refuse to accept the kind of evidence that is being offered.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256
Meanwhile, here is an introduction to aspartame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
Wikipedia is not a credible, scientific source. But even I thought it was, your own source says that the scientific research showed aspartame was largely fine (consistent with the claims made by government agencies), despite paranoid conspiracy theories posted online. That’s quite a bit like the research-evidence-based scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (consistent with the claims made by government agencies), despite paranoid conspiracy theories posted online.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: You will keep your definition of “catastrophic” flexible and/or vague and/or ever-changing, such that no observed climate change ever meets your definition.
The flooding of Miami is sufficiently close to “catastrophe.”
Additionally, we find that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming [CAGW] is essentially a term that is never used in the relevant scientific literature by mainstream sources.
Relevant scientific sources use lots of other words operationally indistinguishable from “catastrophe”.
something does not need to be “catastrosphic” is order for you to do something about it.
Of course. That is why I repeatedly advocate expanded/upgraded infrastructure for irrigation and flood control. Californians [some, at least] are building vast solar farms, wind farms, and an express train to nowhere because they expect something far worse than historical alternations of floods and droughts, something far worse than historical earthquakes — something “catastrophic” even if they do not always use the word “catastrophe”. “Do something about it” is an understatement compared to “we must act urgently and at great expense to replace our entire fossil-fueled electricity, manufacturing, and transportation because we only have 4 [8, sometimes, or 16] years before irreparable harm is unavoidable.”
Re: “The flooding of Miami is sufficiently close to “catastrophe.””
I doubt it. Based on my experience dealing with contrarians who use the word “catastsrophe”, you’ll move the goal-posts the moment you’re cited evidence of climate change that might me your definition of “catastrophe”. To illustrate this point, here are some sources on climate change, sea level rise, and flooding:
“Economic impacts of climate change in Europe: sea-level rise”
“Future flood losses in major coastal cities”
“Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services”
You can proceed to move the goal-posts now, and claim that this isn’t a “catastrophe”.
Re: “Relevant scientific sources use lots of other words operationally indistinguishable from “catastrophe”.”
Please stop making bare assertions without bothering to cite evidence; we’ve been over this before. And I already cited evidence showing that scientific sources wouldn’t be using your contrarian account of “catastrophe”, since you account if kept intentionally vague and flexible, such that you can always claim that any evidence on climate change does not meet your definition of “catastrophe”.
Re: ““Do something about it” is an understatement compared to “we must act urgently and at great expense to replace our entire fossil-fueled electricity, manufacturing, and transportation because we only have 4 [8, sometimes, or 16] years before irreparable harm is unavoidable.””
I’m not really interested in your politically-motivated attempts to offer a straw man of other positions. What’s relevant is that the examples I gave rebutted your attempt to act as if something must meet your definition of “catastrophe” in order for something to be done about it. I don’t care if you don’t like the political solutions offered on climate change; that’s no excuse for you offering a straw man nor is it an accuse for you offering fallacious logic.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: You can proceed to move the goal-posts now, and claim that this isn’t a “catastrophe”.
Not I. Have you found where I have changed goalposts? Are you asserting that they are in fact “catastrophic”; if they are in fact “catastrophic”, then “catastrophic AGW” is not a straw man.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: What’s relevant is that the examples I gave rebutted your attempt to act as if something must meet your definition of “catastrophe” in order for something to be done about it.
Where did I say that? My example clearly shows that I do not believe something has to be a “catastrophe” to be acted upon. When action is called for “urgently” (in letters from the AAAS, for example), there should be a good case that the action is actually needed and likely to be beneficial. In the case urgently acting to prevent disasters and calamaties resulting from CO2 accumulation, the case for each is full of holes.
California’s decisions to build windfarms and the bullet train to nowhere (called that because it avoids major population areas like San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco and Oakland) is neither warranted by imminent need nor likely to benefit anything.
I’m not really interested in your politically-motivated attempts to offer a straw man of other positions.
Not so. You insinuated that I advocate doing nothing. My descriptions of California’s windfarm and solar farm program and high speed rail line bypassing the major population centers are not straw men.
Re: “While the IPCC is extremely certain that the late 20th century warming is mostly man-made, to this day it cannot collectively decide whether the earlier warming, which is of similar magnitude to the one that started in the mid-1970s, is predominantly man-made or natural”
If Darwall bothered to read the scientific literature, then he’d know why attribution is more certain post-1950 than pre-1950. Post-1950 attribution is supported by a number of lines of evidence, including:
B1) Post-1950s stratospheric cooling
B2) Post-1950s mesospheric cooling
B3) Post-1950s thermospheric cooling
B4) Horizontal/regional distribution of warming and the temporal pattern of warming [DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1, pages 1683 and 1684]
B5) 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].
B6) Estimate of climate sensitivity which, when applied to current warming, imply that most of the warming is caused by CO2.
B7) Increased radiative forcing in energy frequencies CO2 is expected to absorb in.
For warming from 1850 to 1950 (recognizing that there were periods with long-term global warming, such as ~1910s to the 1940s), the evidence for anthropogenic impact is not as strong. This is due to a number of factors, including:
– earlier instrumental, surface temperature records are not as reliable (though there are a number of reliable proxy records that cover this period)
– satellite data isn’t available pre-1970 and radiosonde records are less reliable pre-1950, hampering investigation of points B1, B2, B3, and B7 before 1950
However, one can still fairly good case for anthropogenic impact pre-1950, using evidence such as B4, B6, and model-based tests. See, for instance:
“Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”
“Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause”
“Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations”
“Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years”
“How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006”
“Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis”
“Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records”
Re: “The IPCC’s Use and Abuse of Climate Models. The discussion in Brooklyn shows that putting the words “gold standard” and “IPCC” in the same sentence demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the reliability of IPCC-sanctioned climate science.
“It’s clouds that prevent us from fundamentally in some reductive fashion understanding the climate system,” Princeton Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Professor Isaac Held, senior research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, declared from the IPCC climate consensus bench.”
Darwall doesn’t grasp (or pretends not to grasp) that climate science doesn’t stop with the latest IPCC assessment report. For example, see:
“Climate updates: What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?”
Let’s apply that point to clouds, since Darwall brought that issue up. The IPCC’s AR5 said:
“We estimate […] the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 (-0.2 to +2.0) W m–2 °C–1 [page 574].”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf
There’s been plenty of research confirming GCM-based predictions on clouds, including research showing clouds being a net positive feedback on CO2-induced warming. Much of this research came after the IPCC’s AR5, and thus wasn’t included. For example, see (much of the following not included in AR5):
“Clearing clouds of uncertainty”
“Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models”
“A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011)”
“A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade”
“Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000–10 and comparisons to climate models”
“Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity”
“New observational evidence for a positive cloud feedback that amplifies the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”
“Impact of dataset choice on calculations of the short-term cloud feedback”
“Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record”
“Thermodynamic constraint on the depth of the global tropospheric circulation”
Does Darwall have any clue regarding this evidence? Nope (or he at least pretends not to be aware). He’s too busy ranting about the IPCC to do his homework.
Here’s a tip for Darwall and other politically-motivated critics of mainstream climate science:
Do your homework.
Read some of the scientific literature on a topic, before you launch politically-motivated attacking on experts in those topics. Otherwise, you will look silly.
I’m not going to bother with the rest of what Darwall says, since he looks like just another politically-motivated critic discussing scientific topics he’s willfully ignorant on.
The academic climate science community ,including Dr Curry continue to make the same basic interpretative and forecasting error by ignoring the recent peak in the millennial cycle at about 2003/4 in the RSS data seen in Fig 4 in
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s1600/trend201708.png
Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
“Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003.
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.”
Here is an abstract of the paper:
Energy & Environment
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
And forecasts to 2100:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iSxtj9C8W_A/WKNAMFatLGI/AAAAAAAAAkM/QZezbHydyqoZjQjeSoR-NG3EN2iY93qKgCLcB/s1600/cyclesFinal-1OK122916-1Fig12.jpg
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
“Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.”
Regarding climate sensitivity the paper says:
“The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4): “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer? The IPCC itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way. The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures. ”
For a neat illustration of the “turning point “see Fig 11 of the paper;
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7NM2QoxZqm0/WKM-O0LyXPI/AAAAAAAAAkA/LQmHxQcjPZoazUQUPCBR6-1IZWjCy0quQCLcB/s1600/Tropical%2Bcoud%2Bcover.jpg
And there’s this too:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CC-HC4.png
Cloud cover drops and it warms.
Average temperature is warmer where there are more clouds if everything else is equal (altitude, latitude). Tropical rain forest, for example, is warmer (cooler days but MUCH warmer nights) than a tropical desert.
Given some types of clouds have a warming effect (big fat rain clouds as in tropical rain forests) and some have a cooling effect (thin high altitude clouds in tropical deserts) I suspect the graph is reflecting fewer high altitude clouds.
Science doesn’t stop with the IPCC assessments – it just gets crappier.
“Low clouds tend to have a net cooling effect on global climate. Low level clouds are often thick and reflect much of the incoming shortwave radiation. In addition, because of their low altitude and resulting high temperature they emit large amounts of longwave radiation towards space and higher levels in the atmosphere. Conversely, high clouds tend to have a net warming effect as they because of their high altitude and resulting low temperature only emit little longwave radiation towards space. In addition, they are usually thin, and only reflect little of the incoming shortwave radiation.”
Clouds 101 – http://www.climate4you.com/ – under the Climate and clouds heading.
“Analyses of the spatial trends in ISCCP cloud cover reveal changing biases arising from changes in satellite view angle and coverage that affect the global mean anomaly time series (Norris, 2000; Dai et al., 2006). The ISCCP spurious variability may occur primarily in low-level clouds with the least optical thickness (the ISCCP ‘cumulus’ category; Norris, 2005a), due to discontinuities in satellite view angles associated with changes in satellites. Such biases likely contribute to ISCCP’s negative cloud cover trend, although their magnitude and impact on radiative flux calculations using ISCCP cloud data are not yet known. Additional artefacts, including radiometric noise, navigation and rectification errors are present in the ISCCP data (Norris, 2000), but the effects of known and unknown artefacts on ISCCP cloud and flux data have not yet been quantified.” AR4
They may be wrong but agree with the ERBS and independent ocean heat.
“With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, -2.1, and 1.4 W m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5 W/m2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.
AVHRR – btw – utterly lost the plot. So cooling in IR (0.7 W/m2) because of less cloud – warming of -2.1W/2 from less reflected SW – leaving a net – warming positive by convention – of 1.4W/m2. With a global warming cloud feedback of SFA. Now it could just be a coincidence – but SFA is about how much sense Atomski makes. My guess would be that Ole Humlum is one of these dastardly science deniers.
Re: “Ultimately climate is quasi standing waves in the Earth’s spatio-temporal chaotic flow field. And no this is not random Jimmy.”
All you did was quote Judith Curry’s statement at a political hearing (“STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES”) without bothering to say the statement came from a political hearing.
You realize that those statements are not peer-reviewed, right? Curry is free to make patently false claims at these hearings, without being subject to peer review by informed experts. The politicians invite Curry, on the assumption that she will tell the politicians what they want to hear. I’ve even seen John Christy cite fabrications, and be willfully misleading, in his Congressional testimony. It’s akin to how AIDS denialists like Duesberg were free to say whatever nonsense they wanted to the South African government, free from check by peer review.
Anyway, Curry’s claims have been addressed in the scientific literature already. For example:
“Comment on “Climate science and the uncertainty monster” JA Curry and PJ Webster”
And here’s a quick lesson on the dangers of relying on contrarian nonsense in non-peer-reviewed venues:
“Unlike mainstream climate scientists, who publish primarily in peer reviewed journals, these critics typically employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from *blogs* to the books we are examining. […]
The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded.”
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/01/0002764213477096.full.pdf
“What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14
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.
Atomski would find if objective that there is a vast literature on chaos in climate. Not just the dozens of peer reviewed studies I have quoted recently here.
Spatio-temporal chaos distinguishes the climate system with spatial and temporal properties with the temporal chaos of the Lorenz model. He could easily find out more about dynamical complexity – but that’s not the point is it? Let me Google that for Atomski.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chaos+in+climate
Their ignorance runs deep. It’s total nuts. They miss whole realms of science instead learning memes by rote in blogospheric echo chambers. Nothing exists for them outside of narrow conceptual limits. Everything else is ritually ‘repudiated’.
“For the purpose of academic discourse, the word ignorance can be used therefore in a vastly expanded
manner. Restating and expanding upon Proctor’s Three Facets, Type I Ignorance represents true ignorance (i.e., a basic lack of knowledge), Type II Ignorance represents selective ignorance (i.e., representing an assertion that something is true either without evidence or against existing evidence), and Type III Ignorance represents deceptive ignorance (i.e., the willful exercise of cultural bias).” http://www.landandwaterusa.com/WillieSoon/2013_WillieSoon/3-27LegatesSoonBriggs13-SCED-Agnotology.pdf
I don’t think it’s skeptics with the group think problem.
Re: “https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002.”
I like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). They do a pretty good job of explaining the relevant scientific evidence, often in a way that non-experts can understand. I especially like how the NAS wrote this:
“Climate Change Evidence & Causes: An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences
[…]
Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences./”
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
That matches what I’ve been saying for awhile now, though I normally go into more specifics regarding what the fingerprints are (ex: stratospheric cooling, mesospheric cooling, etc.).
Of course, you won’t accept this claim from the NAS, even though you quote-mine the NAS when you think it suits your purposes. You likely have even bothered to read what your source says; you simply quote-mine. Let me know when you have some intellectual consistency.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences
That “largely” hides a world of ignorance, uncertainties, and imprecision. Of the ca 1.25 C increase in global mean temp over about the past 135 years, how much was independent of human activities, how much caused by deforestation and other agronomical changes, and how much caused by urbanization? The case that “much” was due to CO2 increase depends heavily on the case that “little” was due to the other potential causes, but none of them can be independently assessed.
Likewise, how much of potential climate change can be prevented if California converts to an entirely “green” electricity and transportation economy? How much of future warming can be prevented by the US and EU and Japan collectively converting to an entirely “green” electricity and transportation economy?
Lastly, relevant to policy if not pure science, what have been the consequences to nature and to human civilization of the climate change since the late 1800s? Which are good and which are bad and which are neutral? The reviews of vegetation show beneficial effects. The reviews of property damage show that the increase costs are due to increased construction in “stormy” areas, not due to increased “stormyness”.
Once you get past the basic facts that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere warms part of the troposphere (but not the cloud condensation layer whose temperature is regulated by the freezing of water vapor) and cools parts of the stratosphere, the causal chain to claimed climatic changes is full of broken links.
Re: “That “largely” hides a world of ignorance, uncertainties, and imprecision”
Nope. Please actually read the source before commenting. By your absurd logic, if I tell you that “The electoral college votes largely went to Donald Trump in the 2016 election”, then I’m telling you that I’m ignorant on who won the election, and I’m so uncertain. Come on; do better.
And please don’t follow Judith Curry’s example, where folks act like they don’t know what English words like “most” mean.
““The high likelihood of the imprecise “most” seems rather meaningless”: We disagree. The likelihood describes the assessed probability that “most” (i.e., more than 50%), of the warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This statement has a clear meaning and an associated uncertainty, although explicitly listing “>50%” in the text to ensure that no misunderstandings are possible could be helpful in future work.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1
Re: “Of the ca 1.25 C increase in global mean temp over about the past 135 years, how much was independent of human activities, how much caused by deforestation and other agronomical changes, and how much caused by urbanization? The case that “much” was due to CO2 increase depends heavily on the case that “little” was due to the other potential causes, but none of them can be independently assessed.”
I thought you contrarians knew this already, since your lot kept misrepresenting the following paper:
“Human-induced warming reached an estimated 0.93°C (±0.13°C; 5–95 percentile range) above mid-nineteenth-century conditions in 2015 and is currently increasing at almost 0.2°C per decade.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031
Also please stop making blatantly false claims that others have already corrected (including in this comments section). To repeat this for the umpteenth time:
Most of the post-1950 global warming was caused by humans. Post-1950 attribution is supported by a number of lines of evidence, including:
B1) Post-1950s stratospheric cooling
B2) Post-1950s mesospheric cooling
B3) Post-1950s thermospheric cooling
B4) Horizontal/regional distribution of warming and the temporal pattern of warming [DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1, pages 1683 and 1684]
B5) 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].
B6) Estimate of climate sensitivity which, when applied to current warming, imply that most of the warming is caused by CO2.
B7) Increased radiative forcing in energy frequencies CO2 is expected to absorb in.
For warming from 1850 to 1950 (recognizing that there were periods with long-term global warming, such as ~1910s to the 1940s), the evidence for anthropogenic impact is not as strong. This is due to a number of factors, including:
– earlier instrumental, surface temperature records are not as reliable (though there are a number of reliable proxy records that cover this period)
– satellite data isn’t available pre-1970 and radiosonde records are less reliable pre-1950, hampering investigation of points B1, B2, B3, and B7 before 1950
However, one can still fairly good case for anthropogenic impact pre-1950, using evidence such as B4, B6, and model-based tests. See, for instance:
“Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”
“Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause”
“Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations”
“Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years”
“How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006”
“Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis”
“Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records”
Re: “Lastly, relevant to policy if not pure science, what have been the consequences to nature and to human civilization of the climate change since the late 1800s? Which are good and which are bad and which are neutral? The reviews of vegetation show beneficial effects. The reviews of property damage show that the increase costs are due to increased construction in “stormy” areas, not due to increased “stormyness”.
Once you get past the basic facts that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere warms part of the troposphere (but not the cloud condensation layer whose temperature is regulated by the freezing of water vapor) and cools parts of the stratosphere, the causal chain to claimed climatic changes is full of broken links.”
Nope; causal attribution is doing rather well. You just (willfully or accidentally) act as if there’s no evidence on this subject, when there clearly is. And you offer false claims, without bothering to cite evidence for your claims. For example, on your point regarding “stormyness” and human civilization:
“Economic losses from US hurricanes consistent with an influence from climate change
[…]
We identify an upward trend in economic losses between 1900 and 2005 that cannot be explained by commonly used socioeconomic variables. Based on records of geophysical data, we identify an upward trend in both the number and intensity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin as well as in the number of loss-generating tropical cyclone records in the United States that is consistent with the smoothed global average rise in surface air temperature.”
“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”
Of course, I know the game you and your fellow contrarians are playing: you’ll no move the goalposts to evade the evidence-based points I just made.
“Pushing Back the Goalpost
Of all the characteristics of deniers, repeatedly nudging back the goalpost—or the threshold of evidence required for acceptance of a theory—is often the most telling. The strategy behind goalpost-moving is simple: always demand more evidence than can currently be provided. If the evidence is then provided at a later date, simply change the demand to require even more evidence, or refuse to accept the kind of evidence that is being offered.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256
You are expecting a prediction? Climate will shift again – almost as certainly as day follows night – within a decade.
oops: You are expecting a prediction? Climate will shift again – almost as certainly as day follows night – within a decade.
For some reason, my last two comments seem not to have appeared. Only that mistake.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: By your absurd logic, if I tell you that “The electoral college votes largely went to Donald Trump in the 2016 election”, then I’m telling you that I’m ignorant on who won the election, and I’m so uncertain. Come on; do better.
That is absurd. If you tell me that electoral college votes largely went to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, then you have not told me which states he carried.
Please actually read the source before commenting.
I read it. It is replete with references to the incompleteness and other uncertainties in the knowledge. For example, from the Foreword: r. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is ever
totally settled or completely certain. Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered.
That’s right at the start. Read the whole thing.
At the end is this: There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected.
Note that there are no reviews of adverse impacts of climate change on human or natural ecosystems. The “can adversely affect” is a give-away: there is no evidence that they have “adversely affected” in that review.
But don’t settle for the beginning and the end, read the whole thing. I had more in an earlier note that never (to my knowledge) got posted.
You’re overstating what is known:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-is-shifting-around-earths-clouds-20516
The smart people explain how difficult the problem is.
The ” smart” people have abandoned common sense. The abstract above states the obvious “It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities.
. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. ”
This correlation is apparent by simple inspection of Figs 3,4 (above) ,and 10 in the link…The rest follows and produces the likely reasonably accurate forecasts in Fig 12 above without any great difficulty.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YLvyjyaX2tA/WKMxjcuJlvI/AAAAAAAAAiw/pONkGQYs6IQp6GRzj7lpTXn6lpSuOHjjwCLcB/s1600/Norman%2Bimage-Fig3.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UWSO88ieveo/WKM9gBMvnvI/AAAAAAAAAj8/NPOxSOwhpe0A-OgJl6V4ypOB6vNpaMwmwCLcB/s1600/oulu172.gif
Re: “You’re overstating what is known:”
You have no clue what’s known since (as usual) you refuse to read the scientific literature, and instead just distort whatever media pieces you can find. It’s on the level of a creationist claiming that scientists have no evidence of macroevolution, even though the creationists refuses to read any of scientific literature on macroevolution and the evidence for it. Willful ignorance is not a good look for you, Ragnaar; lose it.
“An unintended consequence of this strategy is that there have been very few resources left over for true
climate model innovations and fundamental research into climate dynamics and theory. Such research
would not only support improved climate modeling systems, but would also lay the foundations for
disruptive advances in our understanding of the climate system and our ability to predict emergent
phenomena such as abrupt climate change. With climate science focusing on climate model outputs rather than on climate dynamics and theory, we’ve lost a generation of climate dynamicists. As a result, we are
lacking the intellectual resources to understand important and challenging issues such as: the effects of
the sun on climate, the network of natural internal variability on multiple time scales, the mathematics of
extreme events, and predictability of a complex system characterized by spatio-temporal chaos.” Judith Curry
We have seen Atomski’s type all too often. Ignorance that is not just a lack of information – although the failure to understand papers i have linked to suggests that as well – but much more through ignorance from his cultural bias. The pissant progressive urban doofus hipster (PPUDH) type – much like sky dragon slayers – cannot process dissonant information.
Ultimately climate is quasi standing waves in the Earth’s spatio-temporal chaotic flow field. And no this is not random Jimmy.
Missed it Atomski? No surprise there.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: I’m not going to bother with the rest of what Darwall says, since he looks like just another politically-motivated critic discussing scientific topics he’s willfully ignorant on.
Darwall wrote a review of an APS proceeding. Does he in some place misrepresent the discussants involved in that APS proceeding?
Ask them.
JCH: Ask them.
I asked Atomsk’s Sanakan because he wrote a harsh criticism; almost accusing Darwall of lying outright.
Issac Held hasn’t made a blog post in over a year. I suspect he was very put off by how a comment he made about tuning was twisted by skeptic bloggers. Just guessing.
MM, as I mentioned above, if you look at his full text he buys into a conspiracy theory about acid rain science being politically motivated and just sees this as another version of that. This person has this underlying conspiracy ideation in his article, and loses his credibility with anything else he says as a result.
The people around here with a conspiracy ideation are Jimmy and Atomski. Do I need to say that Jimmy has provided a smidgen of evidence for this wild claim? Other than ‘it seems’ of course.
You only need to read his linked paper. Maybe he has more conspiracy ideas in his book called “Green Tyranny”.
On the farms the hens brooded, but no chicks hatched. The farmers complained that they were unable to raise any pigs—the litters were small and the young survived only a few days. The apple trees were coming into bloom but no bees droned among the blossoms, so there was no pollination and there would be no fruit. The roadsides, once so attractive, were now lined with browned and withered vegetation as though swept by fire. These, too, were silent, deserted by all living things. Even the streams were now lifeless. Anglers no longer visited them, for all the fish had died.
In the gutters under the eaves and between the shingles of the roofs, a white granular powder
still showed a few patches; some weeks before it had fallen like snow upon the roofs and the lawns, the fields and streams. No witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it themselves.
. . .This town does not actually exist, but it might easily have a thousand counterparts in America or elsewhere in the world. I know of no community that has experienced all the misfortunes I describe. Yet every one of these disasters has actually happened somewhere, and many real communities have already suffered a substantial number of them. A grim specter
has crept upon us almost unnoticed, and this imagined tragedy may easily become a stark reality we all shall know. What has already silenced the voices of spring in countless towns in America? This book is an attempt to explain.” Rachel Carson – Silent Spring
You forget that I am an environmental scientist, was around at the time and read all the books. It was 99% lies at best and a problem with simple solutions at worst. I think that global warming will be a simple problem with many solutions. There is a problem. We don’t know what we are doing to Earth systems.
I was even an environmental activist. I think mostly we just wanted the place to ourselves. Even we didn’t have any respect for greenies. We made global headlines once. We stopped an Australian-US navel exercise. We sent the greenies onto the bombing range. Classic win/win. We couldn’t lose.
I have a friend – Big Daddy John France. He was crying today because there were no more polar bears. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It’s a bit of a story – John was in the psych ward for a few months recently. Not for anything he did. He is utterly harmless and innocent. I know him because we are in wheelchairs. He is a hyper colorful hippy with one leg. Disappeared of the streets. We had him released finally – before a tribunal with lawyers and passionate argument – and against the wishes of the hospital. He is much happier now – and relieved to find out that we had stopped shooting polar bears and that there more of them. I am Captain Bobby Indigo Ellison and I look after him. I don’t have time for hobbies. He is my favorite kind of friend.
Jim D: MM, as I mentioned above, if you look at his full text he buys into a conspiracy theory about acid rain science being politically motivated
I have not found that. Please give me a quote and a specific reference.
I’ll give you a video instead. Note that he appears to be a conspiracy theorist where all the thumb-tacks and strings converge on Sweden. Stay tuned to the questions at the end where he confirms that because acid rain was false (it wasn’t), so is global warming: it’s down to the Swedes in both cases.
http://www.heritage.org/environment/event/green-tyranny-exposing-the-totalitarian-roots-the-climate-industrial-complex
Also he says much the same in his full article.
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Rupert%20Darwall%20-%20A%20Veneer%20of%20Certainty%20Stoking%20Climate%20Alarm.pdf
Sweden has long been a neo-socialist, proto-totalitarian source of ignorance from cultural bias. This includes vast misinformation on topics including acid rain and global warming. Both with elements of extreme over the top misinformation that started in Sweden. Jimmy has never seen an incipient failed state he doesn’t like.
OK, you don’t like social democracies. What about acid rain then? Hoax?
Wildly over hyped to the level of nonsense not worth talking about by the incipient totalitarian watermelon left. Same as global warming. Chronologically starting in a socialist state with a political axe to grind. I thought I had made that clear?
Typical ideations from you.
Re: “Darwall wrote a review of an APS proceeding. Does he in some place misrepresent the discussants involved in that APS proceeding?”
That’s not all he did. He engaged in denialist tactics, abused language, and distorted the science, as I said. He didn’t simply report what was said in the APS proceeding; he added his own distortions to it. Those are what I called him out on. If you think my criticisms weren’t sound, then address the evidence/arguments I cited in support of those criticisms.
Grow up. Matthew is providing a spanking and you still rant away.
Here is a hint, when you have Jim D on your side, it’s a sign you are off wandering along the fringe.
Atomski is all over the place – in truth I doubt that he is worth any reply. Or indeed has read anything on the lists he compiles from Google searches. Here’s what the IPCC said.
“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 AR4 WG1 4.2.2.1
Equivocal – but even I suspect that looking for Pacific cloud in a few observations on the US mainland is not definitive.
This is cloud feedback from the PDO from both satellite and surface observations.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
In a study that was widely interpreted as a demonstration of a positive global warming cloud feedback, Amy Clement and colleagues (2009) presented observational evidence of decadal change in cloud cover in surface observation of clouds from the Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (COADS). ‘Both COADS and adjusted ISCCP data sets show a shift toward more total cloud cover in the late 1990s, and the shift is dominated by low- level cloud cover in the adjusted ISCCP data. This explains the pause.
A number of studies have demonstrated the connection of ENSO to radiative flux and therefore to cloud. In an analysis of global warming cloud feedbacks, Dessler (2010) used short term variations in surface temperature and CERES data to determine that cloud cover was negatively correlated with temperature. Dessler also plotted ENSO against surface temperature leaving no doubt that ENSO was the primary cause of the short term temperature variations. Leaving aside anthropogenic global warming – the finding of a positive feedback here is in the first instance an ENSO feedback. As was reported, ‘the climate variations being analysed here are primarily driven by ENSO, and there has been no suggestion that ENSO is caused by cloud variations.’ The study takes a statistical approach that may gloss over the difference in processes in play in ENSO and from global warming.
Zhu et al (2007) found that cloud formation for ENSO and for global warming have different characteristics and are the result of different physical mechanisms. The change in low cloud cover in the 1997-1998 El Niño came mainly as a decrease in optically thick stratocumulus and stratus cloud. The decrease is negatively correlated to local SST anomalies, especially in the eastern tropical Pacific, and is associated with a change in convective activity. ‘During the 1997–1998 El Niño, observations indicate that the SST increase in the eastern tropical Pacific enhances the atmospheric convection, which shifts the upward motion to further south and breaks down low stratiform clouds, leading to a decrease in low cloud amount in this region. Taking into account the obscuring effects of high cloud, it was found that thick low clouds decreased by more than 20% in the eastern tropical Pacific… In contrast, most increase in low cloud amount due to doubled CO2 simulated by the NCAR and GFDL models occurs in the subtropical subsidence regimes associated with a strong atmospheric stability.”
The surface of observed decadal atmospheric changes have quantified support in satellite measurements of top of atmosphere radiative flux. This is what NASA/GISS says about the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data. The ‘slow increase of global upwelling LW (infrared or heat) flux at TOA from the 1980’s to the 1990’s, which is found mostly in lower latitudes, is confirmed by the ERBS records.’ ‘The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW (visible light) flux from the mid-1980’s until the end of the 1990’s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appears to be caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements.’
Wong et al (2006) find that ‘comparison of decadal changes in ERB with existing satellite-based decadal radiation datasets shows very good agreement among ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Edition3_Rev1, HIRS Pathfinder OLR, and ISCCP FD datasets.’
They estimate the 15 year stability uncertainty of the radiative flux anomaly data (for all three datasets) at 0.3W/m2 to 0.4W/m2.
All global warming in the past 50 years, the period in which the IPCC say most warming occurred because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, happened between 1977 and 1998. This is exactly the same period as the last warm El Niño dominated Pacific decadal mode. In the instrumental record, the trajectory of global surface temperature mirrors the Pacific Ocean states. Cool to the late 1970’s, warm to 1998 and cool since. Sea surface temperature is negatively correlated to marine stratiform cloud. Multiple satellite data sources show that over most of the period of warming there was planetary cooling in the infrared band where greenhouse gases were expected to result in warming – and strong planetary warming as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space. As a testable hypothesis, the current cool La Niña like mode of the Pacific decadal pattern will lead to increased cloud cover and global cooling over perhaps another decade. After that, in a chaotic climate, it is anyone’s guess.
It is my hypothesised that upwelling in the Pacific Ocean is modulated by solar activity over periods of decades to millennia – with profound impacts on communities and ecosystems globally. The great resonant systems of the Pacific respond at variable periods – the tempo increased last century for instance – of La Niña and El Niño alternation. There are variations in this tempo at 20 to 30 years that – throwing this out there – suggest a trigger in the 22 year Hale solar cycle of magnetic reversals. The solar butterfly flutters and the cyclone ensues. Longer term indicators of solar activity show changes over millennia that mirror the state of upwelling in the Pacific. The mechanism proposed is a spinning up of the Pacific trade winds and surface gyres as a result of higher surface pressure at the poles. UV/ozone chemistry modulate polar pressure –
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535 –
which in turn drive cold and stormy winds more or less into low latitudes in the familiar blocking pattern.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/nao_fig_4.jpg
Schematically it drives winds and gyres.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ocean-gyre.png?w=768&h=1047
The figure shows global “wind and gyre circulation changes hypothesized to be associated with multidecadal (a) warm and (b) cool phases of the North and South Hemispheres. White arrows indicate regions of enhanced wind and black arrows indicate areas of enhanced gyre circulation. The blue patches indicate the sinking waters in the North Atlantic. The zonal warm phase occurred from the 1910s to 1940s and 1970s to 1990s and is characteristic of strong westerly winds in the northern and southern hemisphere. North Pacific and North Atlantic subarctic gyre circulations enhance with sinking waters associated with the northern North Atlantic winter. In the Atlantic subtropical gyre circulations also enhance. Some surface waters travel from the Indian Ocean to the south Atlantic and join the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic. The meridional cool phase occurring from the 1940s to 1970s and 1990s to present consists of equatorward winds over the continents and poleward winds over the subarctic and sub-antarctic oceans, resulting as Rossby wave formations. Intensified circulation in subtropical gyre systems enhances upwelling and productivity in the California and Peru systems. Strengthened easterly trade winds increase equatorial current circulation in the Pacific. The background global chlorophyll is from Yoder et al.”
The mechanism involves solar UV/ozones chemistry. “A number of studies have indicated that the decreases in global mean temperature associated with a future decline in solar activity are likely to be relatively small3,4,5,6,7. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8,9,10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11,12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects. The mechanism for these changes is via a stratospheric pathway, a so-called ‘top-down’ mechanism, and involves altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet.”
The 20 to 30 years regimes are chaotic shifts in climate means and variance that add up to variability at millennial scales.
Low solar activity spins up the gyres producing more frequent La Niña and a cooler Pacific (more upwelling) – and vice versa. With a cooling Sun – it suggests that the next climate shift – due in a 2018-2028 window – may be to yet cooler conditions in the Pacific Ocean. This has implications for global heat content, hydrology and biology.
Atomski says that none of the history of climate matters – it is all now global warming. Jimmy says that it is all global warming cloud feedback. They tell me that I don’t read any science – or that that I misrepresent or selectively quote for political. Or both.
It is quite obvious to so much of mainstream science – but these people have not the slightest clue.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” NASA
What I know is that I am mightily tired of the incompetence, smug assumptions, tired old narratives and culturally biased ignorance of these progressive maroons.
Should I go on Atomski? I have barely scratched the surface.
Re: “All global warming in the past 50 years, the period in which the IPCC say most warming occurred because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, happened between 1977 and 1998”
Nope. 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”
Re: “This is exactly the same period as the last warm El Niño dominated Pacific decadal mode.”
ENSO doesn’t account for most of the post-1950s global warming. For example, ENSO-corrected temperature trends still show most of the post-1950s global warming:
“Deducing multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trends using multiple regression analysis”
“Global temperature evolution 1979–2010”
“Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled”
“Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature”
“Clarifying the roles of greenhouse gases and ENSO in recent global warming through their prediction performance”
“Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus”
Foster et al.: “Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric”
Also, in contrast to CO2-induced global warming, ENSO-induced global warming wouldn’t account for most of the cooling higher in the stratosphere:
“Stratospheric temperature trends over 1979–2015 derived from combined SSU, MLS, and SABER satellite observations”
“Stratospheric temperature changes during the satellite era”
“Spectrally dependent CLARREO infrared spectrometer calibration requirement for climate change detection”
“Analysis of the ENSO signal in tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures observed by MSU, 1979–2000”
Re: “strong planetary warming as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space”
If you resort to clouds as your explanation, then you’re still going to have trouble accounting for the upper stratospheric cooling (and mesospheric cooling, and thermospheric), cooling which is explained by the CO2-induced warming hypothesis, in conjunction with ozone depletion for much of the lower stratospheric cooling. See, for instance:
“Towards a physical understanding of stratospheric cooling under global warming through a process-based decomposition method”
“Changes of the tropical tropopause layer under global warming”
Re: “Multiple satellite data sources show that over most of the period of warming there was planetary cooling in the infrared band where greenhouse gases were expected to result in warming”
Oh really? Then explain the results of the following papers, showing increases in radiative forcing from CO2:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”
“The spectral signature of recent climate change”
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” [Updated in the unpublished manuscript: “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006”]
Re: “Should I go on Atomski? I have barely scratched the surface.”
Go ahead. I find your responses humorous, especially when you boldly make false, easily-debunked claims like:
“All global warming in the past 50 years[…] happened between 1977 and 1998”
I’m curious on just how much more such claims you can boldly make.
Nope. there is no notable warming in the 20th century – except in the past few years in the surface record.
“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.
Try to get something right Atomski.
Re: “Nope. there is no notable warming in the 20th century – except in the past few years in the surface record.”
You said:
“All global warming in the past 50 years, the period in which the IPCC say most warming occurred because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, happened between 1977 and 1998”
When you’re given clear evidence showing your claim is false, you just stick to your false claim anyway. That’s a pretty clear case of denialism.
“It is, however, important not to confuse denialism with genuine scepticism, which is essential for scientific progress. Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.full
To defend you position, you cite the following from Roger Pielke Sr. (who regularly misrepresents climate science):
“Assessing “global warming” with surface heat content”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004EO210005/pdf
Your response is silly for several reasons. For instance:
1) Your source clearly says:
“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.”
But if you’d bothered to actually read my post (which you clearly didn’t) I didn’t focus on just surface temperature. For instance, I also discussed changes in Earth’s energy balance (with ocean warming), tropospheric warming, and so on. So the source you cited doesn’t actually rebut what I said.
2) Your sources says that for the warming to be showed, humidity levels need to be examined:
“Even using the limited definition of the term “global warming,” the moisture content of the surface air must be included.”
Well, humidity has been examined, and water vapor levels increased with warming (at both the surface and in the troposphere), as expected. For example, see:
“Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming”
“Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence”
“Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content”
“Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe”
3) For your position to work, you’d still need to provide evidence of global warming from 1977 to 1998 that matches your criteria for “global warming”, but doesn’t entail post-1998 global warming. As far as I can tell, you’ve yet to meet that burden. So your position is self-contradictory.
Re: “Try to get something right Atomski.”
Next time, make sure to fully read your cited sources, and the sources cited to you, before you proudly proclaim you debunked someone. That way you can know if what you’r citing actually addresses what someone else said. You failed to do that here.
Robert I Ellison: there is no notable warming in the 20th century
I think you mean 21st century.
i did indeed mean the 21st century. The metric that Atomski has in bold is the surface temperature data series and why it varies with soil moisture. And no – the calculation of the heat content of humid air as part of the surface heat flux is not considered anywhere. it is in fact an impossible task – and I was being sarcastic. But the surface record is increasingly unreliable in the 21st century from this drought artifact cause. We are not sure how reliable it was in 20th century – but without alternative data we do what you can with what we have. He again has entirely missed the point and cuts, paste and bolds without the slightest clue about what any of it means. And whines about Roger Peilke Sn distorting science and me not reading this distorted science.
And what warming there was in the ocean seems all to have been since 2012.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/argo.jpg
It is pretty clear it was clouds wot done it.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4-0_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojanuary-2017-1.png
But as for the 1998-? climate regime – the fat lady may not have climaxed yet. And she was such a sweet little girl child. No one can demonstrate – especially Atomski – that there was notable anthropogenic warming in the 21st century. It should be about 0.3W/m2/decade.
“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
They have not the slightest interest how or why large natural variability in TOA radiant flux occurs. Atomski is in fact anti-science and pro meme set..
Still waiting for evidence for this claim of your’s:
“All global warming in the past 50 years, the period in which the IPCC say most warming occurred because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, happened between 1977 and 1998”
“But the surface record is increasingly unreliable in the 21st century from this drought artifact cause. We are not sure how reliable it was in 20th century – but without alternative data we do what you can with what we have.”
You’ve gone back to making false assertions without supporting evidence. Oh well.
Interestingly, the proxies records confirm the warming shown in the instrumental record:
“A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era”
“Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures”
“Global warming in an independent record of the past 130 years”
“Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations”
And there are quite a number of papers quantifying uncertainties in the surface record. For instance:
“Further exploring and quantifying uncertainties for Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) Version 4 (v4)”
“A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature”
“The reliability of global and hemispheric surface temperature records”
“How accurately do we know the temperature of the surface of the earth?”
But I don’t expect you to address any of this evidence, as per denialism. So let me know when you can provide evidence for the claim from you I quoted above.
We had a global drought this century.
https://wordpress.com/post/watertechbyrie.com/3836
The Pielke paper on the very simple physics of moist enthalpy at the surface – that he failed to understand – shows that humidity at the surface is a neglected but significant aspect the surface energy budget.
I presented a comparison of land/global records from both satellite and surface instruments. Which he rejected because wood for dimwits is not peer reviewed.
The surface record contains a drought effect in the 20th century – and he certainly failed to demonstrate that there isn’t. Just waved his smarmy arms around. The surface record is unreliable as a climate metric. And they deny the satellite records – except where it shows tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling and water vapor increases. An example of confirmation bias leading to ignorance from cultural bias. So sad – too bad.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/spei.jpg
There was no atmospheric warming in the 21st century – and cooling and warming in the still very short ocean record.
In the late 20th century – anthropogenic warming is possibly this.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/gisstemp-trend-e1511757848173.png
Atomsk’s Sanakan: If you resort to clouds as your explanation, then you’re still going to have trouble accounting for the upper stratospheric cooling (and mesospheric cooling, and thermospheric), cooling which is explained by the CO2-induced warming hypothesis, in conjunction with ozone depletion for much of the lower stratospheric cooling.
That is an interesting line of argument. Surely the many energy transfer processes at or below the cloud condensation level are not strongly constrained by the CO2-induced cooling of the stratosphere. Surely CO2-induced cooling of the stratosphere is compatible with either increased cloud cover or decreased cloud cover. And with just about any guess as to the Earth surface climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. And with hypothetical mechanisms potentially contributing to the apparent ca 1000 year periodicity in the temperature estimates from proxies. Wouldn’t you agree?
Re: “That is an interesting line of argument. Surely the many energy transfer processes at or below the cloud condensation level are not strongly constrained by the CO2-induced cooling of the stratosphere. Surely CO2-induced cooling of the stratosphere is compatible with either increased cloud cover or decreased cloud cover. And with just about any guess as to the Earth surface climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. And with hypothetical mechanisms potentially contributing to the apparent ca 1000 year periodicity in the temperature estimates from proxies. Wouldn’t you agree?”
You didn’t actually address what I said. I said:
If you resort to clouds as your explanation, then you’re still going to have trouble accounting for the upper stratospheric cooling (and mesospheric cooling, and thermospheric), cooling which is explained by the CO2-induced warming hypothesis, in conjunction with ozone depletion for much of the lower stratospheric cooling.
You made no comment on whether clouds (as an explanation of global warming) would account for the observed stratospheric cooling.
Increased CO2 causes tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, which results in the tropopause rising:
“Tropopause height and zonal wind response to global warming in the IPCC scenario integrations
[…]
In response to increased CO2 concentration, the atmospheric temperature increases in the troposphere but decreases in the stratosphere [Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, 1980].
[…]
The warming in the troposphere and the cooling in the stratosphere decreases the static stability in the region of the tropopause, or, in other words, the cooling in the stratosphere and the warming in the troposphere raises the height of the tropopause. A rise in tropopause height in response to CO2 increase has been seen in both observations and climate model simulations […]”
Clouds aren’t in the business of doing that. For example, see:
“Towards a physical understanding of stratospheric cooling under global warming through a process-based decomposition method”
“Changes of the tropical tropopause layer under global warming”
So the observed stratospheric cooling argues for the CO2-induced warming hypothesis over the cloud-induced warming hypothesis.
By the way, you can’t cherry-pick physical mechanisms to suit your politically-preferred conclusion. To give an non-climatic example: it would be special pleading to accept the large influence Earth’s mass has on the orbit of one satellite, but conveniently refuse to accept the large influence Earth’s mass has on another satellite. Similarly, it would be special pleading for you to accept the effect CO2 has on stratospheric cooling (especially upper stratospheric cooling, not to mention cooling in the mesosphere and thermosphere), while conveniently dodging the large effect CO2 has on tropospheric warming and surface warming. If you think otherwise, then feel free to present a physically justified account on which CO2 causes long-term stratospheric cooling, without pronounced long-term tropospheric warming. I’ll wait.
“Granger causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on prediction. According to Granger causality, if a signal X1 “Granger-causes” (or “G-causes”) a signal X2, then past values of X1 should contain information that helps predict X2 above and beyond the information contained in past values of X2 alone. Its mathematical formulation is based on linear regression modeling of stochastic processes (Granger 1969). More complex extensions to nonlinear cases exist, however these extensions are often more difficult to apply in practice.” http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Granger_causality
“Identifying causal networks is important for effective policy and management recommendations on climate, epidemiology, financial regulation, and much else. We introduce a method, based on nonlinear state space reconstruction, that can distinguish causality from correlation. It extends to nonseparable weakly connected dynamic systems (cases not covered by the current Granger causality paradigm). The approach is illustrated both by simple models (where, in contrast to the real world, we know the underlying equations/relations and so can check the validity of our method) and by application to real ecological systems, including the controversial sardine-anchovy-temperature problem.” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/496
Atomski can’t quite comprehend that there is much else happening in the complex and dynamic flow field of the Earth system than CO2. It goes beyond Granger causality to a new math being explored around the world that is the most exciting development in the natural sciences – and not just climate – at this time.
Atomsk’s Sanakan: You made no comment on whether clouds (as an explanation of global warming) would account for the observed stratospheric cooling.
What I wrote was that the observed atmospheric cooling has little relevance to the quantitative estimation of the Climate effects of CO2. For example, the effects of CO2 cooling the stratosphere don’t tell us anything about the cloud cover changes that would likely follow surface warming; which in turn would affect climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Or tell us anything of policy relevance concerning the response of agriculture and natural vegetation to the combined increases in CO2 concen tration, rainflall, and global mean temperature. Or tell us anything about rates of sea level rise. Once one accepts that atmospheric CO2 has the qualitative effects that follow from the absorption and emissing spectra of CO2 and H2O at prevalent Earth surface temperatures, the stratospheric cooling caused by CO2, as I wrote, imposes no constraints on the knowledge of the surface, ocean, and atmospheric changes observed and predicted.
How are you able to post so much? My comments have been repeatedly rejected so I have to wait a few hours and rewrite them and repost them.
Atomsk,
How do you justify your words “a number of reliable proxy records” for 1850-1950, proxies that you propose will support or improve on the instrumental temperature records for that period?
How are these proxies calibrated? Answer, the vast bulk of them against instrumental thermometry, the very method that your proxies are supposed to improve upon?
This small example of circular reasoning is typical of the infestation of climate science by avoidance techniques, so necessary to invoke because of the 30+ years in which climate science has failed to produce a clear figure for the most fundamental of all of its concepts, the sensitivity factor of temperature influenced by CO2.
At Sunday school 70 years ago we sang “Build on the rock, not upon the sand.” Geoff?
The point was that pre-1950 is less certain because the observations were more primitive making larger error bars. Now with better measurements, and with 75% of the forcing being since 1950, it can be a lot more certain, (a) because the CO2 impact is so much larger, and (b) because there are better ways to measure things apart from temperature.
Re: “The Procrustean urge in this one is strong. Cut it all down to CO2 and ignore complexity.
Looks like you have no response to being called out on your deceptive quote-mine of Knutti’s paper. Sad.
here’s another one – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751“
You should learn to read what you cite, so you stop embarrassing yourself. The paper says:
“However, decadal prediction effectively bridges the gap between seasonal prediction and climate-change projections. It therefore has an important role to play in understanding climate sensitivity, as a significant part of the predictability on decadal time scales comes from changing levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.”
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
Let me know when you finally decide to read you cited sources.
Re: “How do you justify your words “a number of reliable proxy records” for 1850-1950, proxies that you propose will support or improve on the instrumental temperature records for that period?”
I’ve dealt with you and other denialists before, so I already know what you’re going to do when I cited evidence to you:
“Pushing Back the Goalpost
Of all the characteristics of deniers, repeatedly nudging back the goalpost—or the threshold of evidence required for acceptance of a theory—is often the most telling. The strategy behind goalpost-moving is simple: always demand more evidence than can currently be provided. If the evidence is then provided at a later date, simply change the demand to require even more evidence, or refuse to accept the kind of evidence that is being offered.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256
But I’ll cite some evidence anyway:
“A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era”
“Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures”
“Global warming in an independent record of the past 130 years”
“Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations”
Re: “so necessary to invoke because of the 30+ years in which climate science has failed to produce a clear figure for the most fundamental of all of its concepts, the sensitivity factor of temperature influenced by CO2.”
I’m already familiar with the talking points you denialists use on this. Get some new ones.
You want to use the sensitivity value range as a talking point to pretend that climate science has not progressed. That’s not an appropriate use of climate sensitivity. The scientific community has told your lot this for years now, yet your lot doesn’t listen when experts explain stuff to you:
“The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes
[…]
Although uncertainties remain large, it would be presumptuous to say that science has made no progress, given the improvements in our ability to understand and simulate past climate variability and change […] as well as in our understanding of key feedbacks […]. Support for the current consensus range on S now comes from many different lines of evidence, the ranges of which are consistent within the uncertainties, relatively robust towards methodological assumptions (except for the assumed prior distributions; see below) and similar for different types and generations of models. The processes contributing to the uncertainty are now better understood.”
“Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity
[…]
The quest to constrain climate sensitivity has revealed important insights into the timescales of the climate system response, natural variability and limitations in observations and climate models, but also concerns about the simple concepts underlying climate sensitivity and radiative forcing, which opens avenues to better understand and constrain the climate response to forcing. Estimates of the transient climate response are better constrained by observed warming and are more relevant for predicting warming over the next decades.”
“Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models
[…]
Thus, the fact that the range for climate sensitivity today is similar as was guessed by Charney over three decades ago based on sketchy evidence should not be interpreted as a lack of progress, and using the range of ECS as a measure of success for climate research fails to characterize the state of research.”
“Implications of potentially lower climate sensitivity on climate projections and policy
[…]
There are several climate policy implications that can be drawn from recent ECS estimates. The most important, however, is that they do not change the big picture if all available evidence is taken into account.
[…]
Drawing upon the combined information of these multiple lines of evidence shows that there is no scientific support to diminish the urgency of emission reductions if warming is to be kept below 1.5 or 2?°C, the two temperature limits currently being discussed within the United Nations (UNFCCC 2010). Even the lowest ECS estimate assumed in this study only results in a delay of less than a decade in the timing of when the 2?°C threshold would be crossed when emission trends from the past 10 years are continued.”
“Recent Developments in Bayesian Estimation of Climate Sensitivity
[…
Early estimates were highly uncertain, but recent research appears to show some convergence with both high and low values excluded with increasing confidence. There is, however, increasing evidence that many of these estimates ignore some significant sources of uncertainty, correctly accounting for which would probably broaden the estimates somewhat. Conversely, different lines of evidence tend to generate consistent results, and it should be possible to synthesise these so as to decrease our uncertainties.”
“Recent Progress in Constraining Climate Sensitivity With Model Ensembles”
“A specific forcing might affect the climate system response on a large range of timescales. In the
usual forward thinking and modelling chain, shown in figure 1a, the use of fossil fuels leads to greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in their atmospheric concentrations, a change in radiative forcing, which causes a climate response. In the more detailed view in figure 1b, the change in the CO2 concentration causes an instantaneous forcing, which—after being adjusted
for very fast responses—becomes an effective radiative forcing, defined as the change in the top of atmosphere radiative balance before the surface temperature responds (see [3] for an overview). By warming, the surface restores the radiative balance by increasing the radiation to space, but this warming causes water vapour, lapse rate, albedo, clouds, vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and/or atmospheric chemistry to change. Those changes—directly or indirectly—affect the Earth’s radiation budget, and amplify or damp the temperature response.” http://iacweb.ethz.ch/staff//mariaru/pdfs/KnuttiRugenstein15.pdf
I just happened to have the Reto Knutti and Maria A. A. Rugenstein study in my e-library. But it is not what Atomski thinks it is. Now that’s a surprise. Climate as they say is nonlinear due to multiple planetary responses. Climate sensitivity is therefore nonlinear as well.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/unstable-ebm-fig-2-jpg1.jpg
This shows a solutions of an energy-balance model (EBM), showing the global-mean temperature (T) vs. the fractional change of insolation (μ) at the top of the atmosphere. (Source: Ghil, 2013)
The model has two stable states with two points of abrupt climate change – the latter at the transitions from the blue lines to the red from above and below. The two axes are normalized solar energy inputs μ (insolation) to the climate system and a global mean temperature. The current day energy input is μ = 1 with a global mean temperature of 287.7 degrees Kelvin. This is a relatively balmy 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The 1-D climate model uses physically based equations to determine changes in the climate system as a result of changes in solar intensity, ice reflectance and greenhouse gas changes. With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions between glacial and interglacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years. These are warm interludes – such as the present time – of relatively short duration and longer duration cold states. The transition between climate states is characterised by a series of step changes between the limits. It caused a bit of consternation in the 1970’s when it was realized that a very small decrease in solar intensity – or an increase in albedo – is sufficient to cause a rapid transition to an icy planet in this model (2).
Quoted myself from here – https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
You could spend all your time looking at these lists of Atomski’s. Invariably presented as evidence of something or other – but without any argument or context. I won’t – I have a far more interesting reading list. But where it overlaps – as with the Reto Knutti and Maria A. A. Rugenstein paper – you will find that he is unaware of the spatio-temporal chaotic context entirely and interprets everything in light of his ‘agnoltology of cultural bias’.
“Agnotology has been defined in a variety of ways including ‘‘the study of ignorance and its cultural production’’ and ‘‘the study of how and why ignorance or misunderstanding exists.’’ More recently, however, it has been posited that agnotology should be used in the teaching of climate change science. But rather than use agnotology to enhance an understanding of the complicated nature of the complex Earth’s climate, the particular aim is to dispel alternative viewpoints to the so-called consensus science. One-sided presentations of controversial topics have little place in the classroom
as they serve only to stifle debate and do not further knowledge and enhance critical thinking. Students must understand not just what is known and why it is known
to be true but also what remains unknown and where the limitations on scientific understanding lie. Fact recitation coupled with demonizing any position or person who disagrees with a singularly-derived conclusion has no place in education. Instead, all
sides must be covered in highly debatable and important topics such as climate change, because authoritarian science never will have all the answers to such complex problems.” Legetes et al 2013 – Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils
of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology
But really no one serious has ever doubted that CO2 in a greenhouse gas. He repeats the troposphere warming and stratosphere cooling meme as a talisman of CO2 warming. The Harries et al 2001 paper is more to my taste of a proof of a global radiative response to greenhouse gases – but there are other things happening in climate. Far more interesting things – especially dynamical complexity.
But the climate is replete with these types. Contradictions to their meme set – despite any evidence provided – is simply not allowable. They respond with insults and calumny – and define these as not insults and calumny but rational and objective analysis of the mindset of deniers.
I task them for solutions to these catastrophic problems they envisage. But rarely get a response. When there is a response it is that a new socialist state with the central planning problem solved by AI will usher in a bucolic utopia. What are your ‘solution’ Atomski?
Re: “I just happened to have the Reto Knutti and Maria A. A. Rugenstein study in my e-library. But it is not what Atomski thinks it is. Now that’s a surprise. Climate as they say is nonlinear due to multiple planetary responses. Climate sensitivity is therefore nonlinear as well.”
You left some stuff out of your quote-mine of the paper:
“Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models”
http://iacweb.ethz.ch/staff//mariaru/pdfs/KnuttiRugenstein15.pdf
For example:
“Global temperature is relatively easy to measure, records extend further back than measurements of most other climate variables, and temperature is more straightforward to reconstruct from palaeodata than other quantities. Together, this provides a way of comparing current and future climate with the climate that would have been without anthropogenic emissions.”
This contradicts your claim that global surface temperature is not a useful metric for global warming. It also contradicts your claim that the anthropogenic impact is not known.
And the paper says what I claimed: that one should not use the range on climate sensitivity as an excuse for saying no progress has been made i climate science.
Re: “Legetes et al 2013 – Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology”
His name is spelled “Legates”. And I’ve read some of his work on this subject; it’s hilariously bad. For example, by Legates’ logic, there’s no evidence-based scientific consensus that smoking caused at least 10 cases of cancer, since most abstracts in oncology (or biology or…) take no position of whether smoking causes cancer nor on how much smoking contributes to the observed number of cancer cases.
Re: “interprets everything in light of his ‘agnoltology of cultural bias’.”
You mean like how Legates interprets climate scienc through his religiously-motivated bias? As a Christian, I’m appalled by the religiously-motivated denialism he spews.
Signer #17: http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Maybe that explains why Legates uses the same debunked “manufacture of doubt” and “teach the controversy” line for climate science, that creationists used for evolutionary biology?
“Many of the strategies used by the opponents of both evolution and global warming are based on sowing misinformation and doubt. This approach is often called the “tobacco strategy”, because tobacco companies used it effectively to delay health warnings and regulation of smoking.”
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/viewFile/71/64
“Studies of AIDS denialism in South Africa, the Intelligent Design controversies in the US, and the global climate change debate have focused on the techniques arguers use to manufacture purported scientific controversies in the public sphere (Ceccarelli 2011; Paroske 2009).”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Goodwin/publication/225813438_Accounting_for_the_Appeal_to_the_Authority_of_Experts/links/55f3846508ae1d980394a125.pdf
“The structural problem of separating individual feedbacks in models—e.g. by keeping parts
of the model fixed, or by regression, radiative kernel, or partial radiative perturbation—and comparing them to observations—in which partial derivatives are impossible—persists [52,60]. Next to the evaluation of the full-blown feedback processes in the models, a key challenge is to study the limits of using the linear framework discussed in this paper. How far can one push a GCM into being very sensitive or very insensitive to explore the range of plausible magnitudes of feedbacks and their rate of change? Do cloud, convection and aerosol parametrizations bias GCMs to be too sensitive, or not sensitive enough? For which purposes can we safely use the effective radiative forcing estimates of the linear regression methods? Over which time frames is the assumption of a constant λ justified? Can GCMs serve as a perfect model test bed for simple frameworks, as shown in figure 4? For which climatic base states, feedbacks and their interaction would it be wise to include nonlinear descriptions? For which temperatures, forcing scenarios, and locations does the rate of change of the feedback term matter? When is using a certain fit to estimate the global or regional temperature response justified? How does the coupling of ocean, atmosphere and sea ice determine the evolution of surface temperature patterns enhancing different feedback processes? How can we understand uncertainty propagation in nonlinear systems, with correlated uncertainties, and using computationally expensive climate models? In the light of all these questions, we argue to further explore various uses of feedback frameworks rather than squeezing them into a one-fits-all-concept, and to carefully explore the applicability
and predictive capacity of each concept for a range of purposes.” op. cit
The Procrustean urge in this one is strong. Cut it all down to CO2 and ignore complexity.
here’s another one – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
This I watched this morning again prompted by my let me Google it for you link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-IHJbzRVVU&ab_channel=PerimeterInstituteforTheoreticalPhysics
He will say it conforms his views – but his views are superficial nonsense. He gives us group think memes that bear no relation to the breadth and depth of real climate science.
Atomski is a waste of everyone’s time and is an object lesson in the subject of this post.
The cartoon almost works – but this is the real video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-IHJbzRVVU&ab_channel=PerimeterInstituteforTheoreticalPhysics
I am clueless as to how the cartoon showed up?
Huh?
You failed to address the circular logic that was noted re proxies.
You mouthed a lot of guff in response to the noted inability to refine sensitivity. The guff did nothing to correct that inability.
You might as well have not written a response as it failed to advance understanding. Geoff.
Re: “You failed to address the circular logic that was noted re proxies.
You mouthed a lot of guff in response to the noted inability to refine sensitivity. The guff did nothing to correct that inability. You might as well have not written a response as it failed to advance understanding”
You did just what I predicted: moved the goal-posts, without addressing any of the evidence I cited to you. That’s how denialism usually works, so I’m not surprised. You presented no evidence of circular logic; just your bare assertions.
Try harder next time. I don’t write for your benefit, since I know denialists are immune to being convinced by evidence. I write for the benefit of those who aren’t denialists, and for my own interest.
Judith—Change to “Darwell’s” in:
“Drawl’s essay”
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Interesting, educational discussion on the credibility of CAGW (alarmist), theory, conclusions and agenda,
OT breaking news — Michael Shellenberger is running for governor of California:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pro-nuke-activist-from-Berkeley-to-run-for-Calif-12396711.php
A pro-nuclear governor can’t be bad. The group – and the manifesto – has some odd ideas on land management. Sure you can make both cities and farming have a smaller footprint. For grazing and cropping we would need more organics in living soils. The landscape still needs management as a whole – almost paradoxically in concentric overlap from local to international. Landscapes – and common pool resources – are best managed at the stakeholder level. Community scale – with scientific and technical assistance.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/catchment.jpg
But Californians could well do much worse for a governor than Michael Shellenberger.
Pingback: QOTD: “settled science” | Aisle C
The DDT moral panic boiled down – if you’ll excuse the pun – to egg shell thinning in raptors. DDT was cleared for indoor surfaces – mostly for mosquito – by the WHO a few years ago now. And – well – what the hell. Long may the eagle fly.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bald+eagle&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU736AU736&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL1fOjxOjXAhXGkpQKHYXiD4AQ_AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=502#imgrc=L5KESZquFuomnM:
Pingback: A veneer of certainty stoking climate alarm | Principia Scientific International
Maybe Robert I. Ellison buys into this nonsense strategy as well? After all, he wrote:
“Or any of the other moral panics of the late 20th century. DDT, ozone depletion, […] acid rain […].” Atomski
A quotation always deserves a context.
There is a bizarre fallacy of false equivalence that he repeats yet again. AIDS, creationism, smoking and vaccinations abused in this way are pissant progressive narratives that have absolutely no relevance to climate science. We might as well add nuclear energy and and genetic engineering – although I see better alternatives to both – as progressive shibboleths. Or any of the other moral panics of the late 20th century. DDT, ozone depletion, vaccination and autism, acid rain or smart phone brain cancers.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/29/a-veneer-of-certainty-stoking-climate-alarm/#comment-862026
He forgets … that I am an environmental scientist, was around at the time and read all the books. It was 99% lies at best and a problem with simple solutions at worst. I think that global warming will be a simple problem with many solutions. There is a problem. We don’t know what we are doing to Earth systems. https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/29/a-veneer-of-certainty-stoking-climate-alarm/#comment-862072
Nor does anyone need the constant war drums that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the papers he listed was Harries et al 2001 – Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf
This is an elegant experiment in the classic empirical sense of science. It is done by comparing sensor readings made through a narrow aperture at two points in time. Changes in the readings are due to changes in photon scattering – the bottom line for greenhouse gases – in the atmosphere.
So we have real evidence for predicted radiative changes – and Atomski’s incredulity at denial that this was ever denied is not really the point. Take it that most of us believe that smoking kills, you can get sick and die from unprotected sex, DDT caused egg shell thinning in Raptors, sulphides, mercury and particulates from power stations are a health hazard, ozone protects from UV – as well as modulating climate – and that human induced chemistry changes have occurred in the atmosphere and even that greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases. Take a deep breath and move on dear boy.
he real second link – https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/29/a-veneer-of-certainty-stoking-climate-alarm/#comment-862042
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.
Pingback: Let's Review 11: Dog Shoots Man Edition - American Digest
Hey, the NOAA whistleblower: stay tuned.
“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.” James McWilliams
This paper showed up courtesy of Ragnaar.
“Historical simulations included anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, ozone, land-use changes, anthropogenic aerosols, volcanic aerosols, and solar output and thus represent our best estimate of the climate response to recent external radiative forcing (Extended Data Table 1)…
Our alternative hypothesis (to natural variability) is that external radiative forcing was a contributing factor in producing the observed cloud trends. If so, we expect a positive spatial correlation between the observed trend pattern and the trend pattern from the ensemble mean of simulations with external radiative forcing (values shown as vertical lines in Extended Data Fig. 3)…
Both the GHG and the NAT simulations experience increasing trop-ospheric temperature and decreasing stratospheric temperature from the 1980s and the 2000s. This is caused by increasing greenhouse gases in the former case and a recovery from the 1982 El Chichón and 1991 Pinatubo volcanic aerosol episodes in the latter case22–24. Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling promote an increase in the height of the highest cloud tops25,26, and together with global warming, pro-mote an expansion of the tropical zone and a poleward shift of storm tracks27,28. Depleted stratospheric ozone is an additional factor pro-moting a poleward shift of the Southern Hemisphere storm track21,29.The expansion of subtropical dry zones results in less reflection of solar radiation back to space. As cloud tops rise, their greenhouse effect becomes stronger. Both of these cloud changes have a warming effect on climate. Our results suggest that radiative forcing by a combination of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and volcanic aerosol has produced observed cloud changes during the past several decades that exert positive feedbacks on the climate system. We expect that increasing green-house gases will cause these cloud trends to continue in the future, unless offset by unpredictable large volcanic eruptions.” https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18273
Here they pursue an impossible goal of Granger causality with a ridiculous methodology. Observed cloud changes – that are an order of magnitude greater than the AR5 cloud warming feedback – are modeled using models where cloud parametizations are tuned to observed cloud changes using external forcing. The problem of internal variability is thus found to be an inconsequential factor. There is obviously a problem here based on the much more accurate and sensitive CERES data of the 21st century.
“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
So how do we square the idea that cloud feedback from warming has been radically underestimated and that large changes in TOA radiant flux are due to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation? It can’t be done.
The methodology used by Norris et al has irredeemable problems involving the Lorenzian chaos of atmospheric and oceanic simulations. Beyond that are still more fundamental problems in a spatio-temporal chaotic climate.
“Identifying causal networks is important for effective policy and management recommendations on climate, epidemiology, financial regulation, and much else. Here, we introduce a method, based on nonlinear state space reconstruction, that can distinguish causality from correlation. It extends to nonseparable weakly connected dynamic systems (cases not covered by the current Granger causality paradigm). The approach is illustrated both by simple models (where, in contrast to the real world, we know the underlying equations/relations and so can check the validity of our method) and by application to real ecological systems, including the controversial sardine-anchovy-temperature problem.”
Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230895543_Detecting_Causality_in_Complex_Ecosystems [accessed Dec 03 2017].
Spatio-temporal chaos is at the core of many complex and dynamic systems. The math – mostly involving networks with quasi standing wave nodes and synchronization – is evolving in the leading edge of complex and dynamic systems analysis.
“The identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.” https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091
This is the second time I have seen the Hale cycle of solar magnetic reversal mentioned as a trigger for 20 to 30 year Pacific regimes. I think they got there first – but here I not only mention it but suggest dynamical physical links.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/
I at least am earnest – if amused by it. At it’s essence the new paradigm brings utter uncertainty on the future evolution of climate. But as Voltaire said – uncertainty is uncomfortable but certainty absurd. Many people have an absurd certainty and they are safe in the ignorance that arises from cultural bias. It is a little annoying that dispassionate discussions of science are swamped by defense of the social justice meme set – but I guess that’s the way of things.
I keep asking them what their solutions are. There is a problem – in the non-linearity of the planetary response to changes in greenhouse gases – including in terrestrial hydrology – ecology, economics and much else. We do not understand what we are doing to Earth systems. I keep saying that I am a catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom. How do they not understand that?
The silence from the usual suspects here is telling. Their objective in large part is the transformation of society and economics in a centrally planned, neo-totalitarian, socialist state. It is as stark as that. It is not only the road to serfdom but the road to utter ruin. Jim accused my of ideation – using the word incorrectly – JCH accuses me of being political, Banton accused me of being a Trump acolyte and Atomski – when I said I was a conservative old white guy – said he already knew that. On the basis of my views of climate I suppose.
Of course it is political – I abhor to my core the dangerous ideas of these neo-facists. But they are a distraction from the real goals of humanity at worst. The real goal of sensible people is to build prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes this century. I am happy to agree with any of these sensible people – whether or not they believe the simple memes of global warming.
https://watertechbyrie.com/
Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #294 | Watts Up With That?
My pick for the Red Team
Atmospheric Group:
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Roy Spencer
Oceanographic Group:
Carl Wunsch
Judith Curry
Roger Pielke Sr.
Environmental Group:
Philip Stott
Sherwood Idso
Patrick Moore
Looks like you have no response to being called out on your deceptive quote-mine of Knutti’s paper. Sad.
The paper was about nonlinear responses in climate, multiple feedbacks and dynamic sensitivity. The source of uncertainties in modelling nonlinear system was clear in the extended quote from the conclusion of the paper.
It is Atomski who indulges in deceptive quote mining.
here’s another one – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751“
You should learn to read what you cite, so you stop embarrassing yourself. The paper says:
“However, decadal prediction effectively bridges the gap between seasonal prediction and climate-change projections. It therefore has an important role to play in understanding climate sensitivity, as a significant part of the predictability on decadal time scales comes from changing levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Here is the paragraph in full.
“Although both the limited nature of the observational base and a changing climate pose some problems for seasonal prediction, for decadal prediction, they are extremely challenging. There is decadal predictability in the climate system through phenomena such as the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation [18,19], but our understanding of these phenomena is still limited largely owing to the paucity of ocean observations. However, decadal prediction effectively bridges the gap between seasonal prediction and climate-change projections. It therefore has an important role to play in understanding climate sensitivity, as a significant part of the predictability on decadal time scales comes from changing levels of greenhouse gas concentrations. So while operational seasonal prediction is now well established, it will be some years before decadal prediction can be used with confidence, but the potential is huge [20].”
Here they are talking initialized perturbed physics ensembles for decadal probabilistic forecasts. But this is not something Atomski has any even the slightest inkling of.
“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.”
At the core of models is the nonlinear Navier-Stokes equation in three dimensions. At the core of climate are chaotic oscillators – ENSO, the PDO, the polar annular modes, the AMO etc. as nodes in a globally coupled spatio-temporal chaotic flow field.
“Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. 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.” op. cit.
Do not confuse the probabilistic forecasts of perturbed physics ensembles – still just a theoretical potential – with the CMIP opportunistic ensembles.
Why don’t you quote mine this one Atomski?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1
Let me know when you finally decide to read you cited sources.</b"
JC SNIP
Re: “Why don’t you quote mine this one Atomski?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1“
A quote-mine is when someone quotes a source in a misleading way, in order to make it look like the source supports something it does not actually support.
I showed you quote-mined, by showing that you left out pertinent quotes from your source; these quotes show that your source admits that much of the predictability of climate is due to changes in greenhouse gases. That agrees with what I’ve been saying. But it conflicts with what you try to use the source to say: that climate change is so chaotic that I cannot make the anthropogenic attribution claims that I do.
By the way, your source affirms what I just said. For instance:
“In addition to the potential sources of predictability from the initial values of the system, predictability may also be derived from past and future changes in radiative forcing […]. Past emissions of greenhouse gases have committed the climate system to future warming as the ocean comes into equilibrium with the altered radiative forcing. ”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1
This is why I find it easy to debunk contrarians like you: you tend not to read what you cite, so patient reading is all that’s required for debunking you.
Re: “Here they are talking initialized perturbed physics ensembles for decadal probabilistic forecasts. But this is not something Atomski has any even the slightest inkling of.”
Let me know when you can address what your source said about the decadal predictability of the climate system based (in part) on changes in greenhouse gas levels. And please don’t tell me you think CMIP5 models don’t include physics…
“However, decadal prediction effectively bridges the gap between seasonal prediction and climate-change projections. It therefore has an important role to play in understanding climate sensitivity, as a significant part of the predictability on decadal time scales comes from changing levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270390/
Thr
A quote-mine is when someone quotes a source in a misleading way, in order to make it look like the source supports something it does not actually support.
I gave the entire paragraph from which Atomski had selectively quoted.
“In addition to the potential sources of predictability from the initial values of the system, predictability may also be derived from past and future changes in radiative forcing […]. Past emissions of greenhouse gases have committed the climate system to future warming as the ocean comes into equilibrium with the altered radiative forcing.”
We can find notions like this in almost every climate paper. There is a much broader significance of the Hurrell et al article.
“The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits awide 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.” op. cit.
Pressed post inadvertently. I was about to say that the thread was getting far too long – not to mention repetitive and bloviating – to be tractable. So I brought it to the bottom of the comments.
Let me know when you can address what your source said about the decadal predictability of the climate system based (in part) on changes in greenhouse gas levels. And please don’t tell me you think CMIP5 models don’t include physics…
The alternative to opportunistic model ensembles is the initialised perturbed physics ensembles. Here’s one from Rowlands et al 2012.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/rowlands-fig-1.png
This is one model with 1000’s of ‘non-unique’ solutions. Non-unique arise as a result of nonlinear divergence from small initial differences – within limits of intrinsic uncertainty – in inputs. It is constrained to solutions that pass close to observed temperatures – and the most that can be said is that the range of solutions is even broader than that of the CMIP inter-comparisons.
Which non-unique solution would you send off to the IPCC for their opportunistic ensemble? The alternative is to analyse the statistics of perturbed physics ensemble probability distribution functions on decadal scales – something that is still just still just a theoretical glint in a climate scientist’s eye.
And he simply repeats the passage from the Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer paper that he finds so compelling. Here’s another one.
“Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.” op cit.
I like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). They do a pretty good job of explaining the relevant scientific evidence, often in a way that non-experts can understand.
“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
Of course, you won’t accept this claim from the NAS, even though you quote-mine the NAS when you think it suits your purposes. You likely have even bothered to read what your source says; you simply quote-mine. Let me know when you have some intellectual consistency.
I don’t know what he thinks my purpose is. Deny that greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases? Don’t think so. But this needs to be placed in the perspective of vigorous climate variability on decadal to millennial scales.
The 20th century saw alternating 20 to 30 year warm and cool regimes. Here is the linear regression for temperature from the peak of early century warming to the peak of late century warming.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/gisstemp-trend-e1511757848173.png
The temperature rise was 0.4 degrees C at 0.1 degrees C/decade. This is baby science that the IPCC perverts.
Nor is the 20th century pattern of alternating warming and cooling likely to persist through the 21st. A cooler Pacific seems very likely over centuries.
Nor can the mid-century cooling be explained away – as Atomski is wont to do – with narratives of sulphate cooling. Anthropogenic forcing estimates monotonically increase in the 20th century.
https://wordpress.com/post/watertechbyrie.com
There is an obvious disjuncture between estimated forcing and real world climate behavior that is routinely ignored. But there is a chaotic bottom line that the NAS committee of climate science luminaries explicitly reveal in the quote above.
People like Atomski have a delusion of great certitude in their simplistic climate memes. Their explicit goal is the transformation of economies and societies via the manufacture of crisis of one sort or another. The urban doofus hipster vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to ‘less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems’. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.
It is utter nonsense of course. The future is cyberpunk. The singularity occurs on January 26th 2065 when an automated IKEA factory becomes self-aware and commences converting all global resources to flat pack furniture. Until then – endless innovation on information technology and cybernetics will accelerate and continue to push the limits of what it is to be human and to challenge the adaptability of social structures. New movements, fads, music, designer drugs, cat videos and dance moves will sweep the planet like Mexican waves in the zeitgeist. Materials will be stronger and lighter. Life will be cluttered with holographic TV’s, waterless washing machines, ultrasonic blenders, quantum computers, hover cars and artificially intelligent phones. Annoying phones that cry when you don’t charge them – taking on that role from cars that beep when you don’t put a seat belt on. Space capable flying cars will have seat belts that lock and tension without any intervention of your part. All this will use vastly more energy and materials this century as populations grow and wealth increases.
We will just have to accommodate this in the building of prosperous and resilient communities in ecologically rich and vibrant landscapes this century.
My bad – I will be more vigilant with my links.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/gisstemp-trend-e1511757848173.png
Uh – why is this so hard?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/nasa-forcing.jpg
“And please don’t follow Judith Curry’s example, where folks act like they don’t know what English words like “most” mean.” Atomski
We are not sure about half – and even if we assume all net warming over the cool regime from 1944 and the warm regime from 1977 to 1998 was anthropogenic – it is still only 0.4 degrees C. Starting at 1950 at a very cold point is just scientifically nuts.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/gisstemp-trend-e1511757848173.png
And if they imagine that the surface temp record is free from warm Pacific and drought artifacts it’s just nuts. But I am not explaining the simple physics of latent and sensible heat flux at the surface yet again.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/spei-e1512451969285.jpg
What really bothers me is the hectoring and berating of respected scientists – many of them – by people who have such a token grasp of the natural or physical sciences. Just what they see in a blogospheric echo chamber almost always. It is an anti-science culture that needs to be stomped on bigtime. Science not being allowed to disagree on such a complex, multi-faceted and chaotic system is just nuts.
I like skeptics much better. They may be wrong but most don’t just assume they are right with such absolute, fervid and unswerving certainty.
We have nearly 20 more years of data since your graph ended, but I think you would have fooled some people here, so, well done I suppose. Mission accomplished. A more up to date one that goes past 2000 shows nearly a degree of warming at a rate equivalent to 2 C per doubling of CO2, and a very clear signal that is highly inconvenient for skeptics, so they don’t usually present it when trying to make their case. This is a period during which 75% of the emitted CO2 has been added, so you may notice that the temperature is rising along with that forcing. Or you may want to deny that it is even possibly the cause.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
1998 was when the climate shifted – but yes indeed we do have better and more recent data – that isn’t drought affected.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6.jpg
And might I suggest that instead of repeating the same nonsense over and over again – you try one of the many other aspects of climate science. You would find it liberating.
It turns out that the pausist skeptics were taken completely by surprise by the continued rise after the pause went paws-up. Anyone looking at AGW and CO2 was not at all surprised, and actually expected that to look like that as it has for the last 60 years, and it probably will track CO2 for the next 60+ years too.
Re: “Starting at 1950 at a very cold point is just scientifically nuts.”
Please stop pretending this hasn’t been explained to you. Once again:
For warming from 1850 to 1950 (recognizing that there were periods with long-term global warming, such as ~1910s to the 1940s), the evidence for anthropogenic impact is not as strong. This is due to a number of factors, including:
– earlier instrumental, surface temperature records are not as reliable (though there are a number of reliable proxy records that cover this period)
– satellite data isn’t available pre-1970 and radiosonde records are less reliable pre-1950, hampering investigation of some of the vertical fingerprints of CO2-induced warming.
However, one can still fairly good case for anthropogenic impact pre-1950. See, for instance:
“Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”
“Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause”
“Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations”
“Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years”
“How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006”
“Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis”
“Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records”
Re: “We are not sure about half”
False. Since you’ve decided to make a claim about what people are sure about, then I’m more than justified in citing what people have actually said.
The IPCC notes:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3)”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
“extremely likely” means “>=95% chance”, as explained on page 3 of:
“Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
There’s also an evidence-based scientific consensus that:
A2) Humans [largely via anthropogenic greenhouse gases] caused most of this recent warming.
A3) Most of the recent [or near future] climate change is [or will be] caused by humans.
The following sources document the consensus on A2:
Table 1: “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”
For the consensus on A3:
Among AAAS (American Academy for the Advancement of Science) scientists with relevant expertise (PhD earth scientists current working), there’s a *93%* consensus that recent warming is mostly caused by humans:
“Earth Scientists Views on Climate Change”
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/elaborating-on-the-views-of-aaas-scientists-issue-by-issue/
And in another survey, ~87% of climate researchers thought that humans caused (or will cause) most of the recent (or near future) climate change:
Figures 88 (v043) and 2 (v007) of: “The Bray and von Storch 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016”
https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf
Re: “1998 was when the climate shifted – but yes indeed we do have better and more recent data – that isn’t drought affected.”
If you think UAH v6.0 is credible, then you know much less that I thought. Here’s just a few of the papers pointing out how flawed UAH’s analysis is:
“A comparative analysis of data derived from orbiting MSU/AMSU instruments”
“Reply to “Comments on ‘A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit'”
“Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”
“A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”
“Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment”
“Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
And here’s a favorite of mine, a classic from the mid-2000s:
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/924624763703607296
By the way, let me know what you think about UAH conveniently slashing their global warming trend in the transition from v5.6 to v6.0.
Writing on the wall:
from 1905 – slope = 0.00949305 per year
from 1940 – slope = 0.0112417 per year
last 720 samples – slope = 0.0154212 per year
last 480 samples – slope = 0.0174848 per year
last 360 samples – slope = 0.0181544 per year
last 240 samples – slope = 0.0181222 per year
enter the warming PAWS!
last 120 samples – slope = 0.0435218 per year
last 60 samples – slope = 0.0773381 per year
On to .2 ℃ per decade, and, maybe beyond? 2nd toothless La Niña in a row will add to the trend.
—————
https://i.imgur.com/s9amCLi.png
Sorry stopped reading at – well – the name.
“Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino – Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.” http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
It is only the beginning of the problems with the surface record are. Get back to me when you account for all of the energy flux at the surface.
“In our blog of July 11, we introduced the concept of moist enthalpy (see also Pielke, R.A. Sr., C. Davey, and J. Morgan, 2004: Assessing “global warming” with surface heat content. Eos, 85, No. 21, 210-211. ). This is an important climate change metric, since it illustrates why surface air temperature alone is inadequate to monitor trends of surface heating and cooling.
Surface air moist enthalpy does capture the proper measure of heat. It is defined as CpT + Lq where Cp is the heat capacity of air at constant pressure, T is air temperature, L is the latent heat of phase change of water vapor, and q is the specific humidity of air. T is what we measure with a thermometer, while q is derived by measuring the wet bulb temperature (or, alternatively, dewpoint temperature).” Roger Pielke Sn
21st century technology now that we have it is a better way forward.
Something new from you might be interesting Atomski – and I don’t mean non-peer reviewed tweets.
The upper air temperature trend differences between the observations and the models are larger than any of the differences among the observations.
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HOT_SPOT_2016.png
UAH is politicized junk. End run to congress every time. It cannot get more transparent. Not science; never has been; never will be; and the same for the people who love it as the gold standard. The gold standard being whatever says what they want hear: scientific garbage.
Has AA Tsonis ever used it?
Atomsk’s Sanakan: extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.
True: all of the “extremely likely” attributions of “more than half” include the “other anthropogenic forcings”. The GHG effects are uncertain, both as to amount and to threats to nature and human civilization.
But the $2T of new investment urgently required to achieve the 2C goal is for fossil fuel elimination only. Possibly you disagree with my $2T figure or the claim that it is needed “urgently”. What figure do you find supported in the literature; and over what time frame?
UAH is politicized junk.
None of us can escape bias, but we can point it out in one another.
Above is an example of yours.
As demonstrated, RAOB, UAH, RSS, ( and though its only MidTrop, even Fu UAH & Fu RSS ) are more similar to one another than they are to model runs.
The question is why, at least for the satellite era, the hot spot has failed to appear.
It could be that the hot spot will appear over the longer term, though even for short periods of CO2 induced warming, the GCM runs appear adamant that a hot spot should appear.
It could also be that the dynamics of the GCMs include a fundamental systemic error.
It has a bearing both on the negative lapse rate feedback, but also on the positive water vapor feedback. The lack of a hot spot apparently reduces both.
“The question is why, at least for the satellite era, the hot spot has failed to appear.”
Well it has – but for one it’s v hard to discern as radiosondes were not/are not designed for such precision needed for climatology. They are meteorological tools and as such do the job.
Satellite measurements are contaminated by stratospheric cooling.
Also a tropic hotspot would be an indicator of any sort of warming not just GHG warming, of which stratospheric cooling is a clear marker.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
“As demonstrated, RAOB, UAH, RSS, ( and though its only MidTrop, even Fu UAH & Fu RSS ) are more similar to one another than they are to model runs.”
Really?
Way far away from radiosondes tho since ’98.
http://postmyimage.com/img2/995_Tropospheretrends.png
I would suggest that this is why ….
http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
Well it has – but for one it’s v hard to discern as radiosondes were not/are not designed for such precision needed for climatology.
They are meteorological tools and as such do the job.
Satellite measurements are contaminated by stratospheric cooling.
There are problems with surface measurements also. Choosing to accept them but dismiss upper air probably indicates bias.
Also a tropic hotspot would be an indicator of any sort of warming not just GHG warming
The hotspot appears in models of warming from various sources.
The absence ( so far ) of the hot spot doesn’t contradict global warming from radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, but it is consistent with problems in the fluid dynamics of the models and may indicate lower sensitivity because of smaller than modeled feedbacks.
of which stratospheric cooling is a clear marker.
Yes. The fact that the observations ( RAOB & MSU ) indicate stratospheric cooling probably dispenses with your precision argument above.
“There are problems with surface measurements also. Choosing to accept them but dismiss upper air probably indicates bias.”
Personally I’d suggest that only accepting UAH’s version of trop sat radiances indicates a bias, especially given the disconnect with the current AMSU v the previous MSU sensor.
“The absence ( so far ) of the hot spot”
Bu it’s not absent.
But yes it is less pronouced than models want.
“There are problems with surface measurements also. Choosing to accept them but dismiss upper air probably indicates bias.”
Surface obs come in their 10’s thousands. We have but one NOAA-15.
Is it correct (UAH’s take) or don’t know, could be 14 or 15 (RSS’s take).
Don’t get an either or with surface obs.
The vastness of the data from individual instruments precludes that.
And no, “adjustments” (making it apples v apples IOW) only makes the warming trend less, and (according to Mosher) it makes no diff if you remove the “poorer” data anyway.
Oh, and climate scientists are neither incompetent nor perpetrating a fraud for cash. (not saying that’s what you think BTW)
Nor does the “greatest brain” on the planet know better either (answers on a postcard).
“Yes. The fact that the observations ( RAOB & MSU ) indicate stratospheric cooling probably dispenses with your precision argument above.”
I don’t think it does, as we have no way of checking against radiosonde data (that I know of) and we can only gauge the direction of the trend and not the magnitude.
Remember, the hot spot is part of the negative lapse rate feedback, so if it is missing, that is an important negative feedback process not materializing (yet). It should become stronger as the tropical ocean warms, but so far that is lagging the global average.
“I don’t think it does, as we have no way of checking against radiosonde data (that I know of) and we can only gauge the direction of the trend and not the magnitude.”
The co-located sonde/MSU comparisons you posted above are pretty good.
Remember, the hot spot is part of the negative lapse rate feedback, so if it is missing, that is an important negative feedback process not materializing (yet).
Yes.
But along with this is reduced positive water vapor feedback.
I don’t have a bias. Every time I meet a goose, I highly recommend RSS.
TE, yes, the ocean lag is the reason that the transient sensitivity is less than the equilibrium sensitivity and why there is a positive imbalance that represents the catching up still needed in the warming even if the emissions stopped now. More skeptics need to understand these lags in the system.
“I don’t have a bias.”
Usually this is indicative of blind spot bias.
TE, yes, the ocean lag is the reason
The evidence ( double ITCZ problem and too much precipitation in the models ) is atmospheric.
But it is possible that the problem begins with ocean transfers.
If so, this raises other questions, including that of lower sensitivity.
Usually this is indicative of blind spot bias.
I would say you have blind spot with respect to RSS.
I would say you have blind spot with respect to RSS.
Part of your service here is to motivate others to evidence which is unassailable as biased ( though even the choice of data contains bias ).
RSS data is fine, or at least worth consideration in context.
Though there are some subtle differences ( and RSS/UAH/RATPAC all have different sampling domains ), in the latitude-pressure plot of trends above, RSS is pretty much the same as UAH and RAOB data in contraindicating the hot spot.
One way RSS is somewhat questionable doesn’t have to do with the lack of hotspot or general tropospheric warming, but rather is the lower stratospheric warming over the tropics and Northern mid-latitudes.
Why is this?
Certainly, the levels from which microwaves are being received by the lower stratosphere radiometers are smeared across levels:
http://images.remss.com/figures/measurements/upper-air-temperature/wt_func_plot_for_web_2012.all_channels2.png
And the UAH, while indicating stratospheric cooling at all latitudes, doesn’t indicate as much lower stratospheric cooling as do the sondes.
But that’s one difference I’d like to see an explanation for.
TE, this is about observations. Here’s some observations including a measure of solar activity in blue. Note how it may account for some warming before 1950, but after mid-century it goes the wrong way and only CO2 tracks the temperature rise for the last 60 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:132/scale:0.01/offset:-1
Re: “The hotspot appears in models of warming from various sources.
The absence ( so far ) of the hot spot”
Try a different fabrication, Turbulent Eddie. Your falsehoods on this are getting older.
Upper tropospheric warming is greater than near-surface warming in the tropics; i.e. there’s a hot spot. That’s been shown repeatedly; you really have no excuse for claiming otherwis,e since the relevant evidence has been cited to you multiple times. Let me know when you decide to stop ignoring the evidence.
In satellite data:
#1 : “Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends”
#2 : “Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere”
#3 : “Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”, table 4
#4 : “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”, figure 9B
In radiosonde (weather balloon) data:
#5 : “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends”, figures 2c and 4c
#6 : “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)”, figures 1 and 2
#7 : “New estimates of tropical mean temperature trend profiles from zonal mean historical radiosonde and pilot balloon wind shear observations”, figure 9
#8 : “Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations”, figure 3 and table 1
In re-analyses:
#9 : “Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert”, figure 7
#10 : “Westward shift of western North Pacific tropical cyclogenesis”, figure 4b
#11 : “Influence of tropical tropopause layer cooling on Atlantic hurricane activity”, figure 4
#12 : “Estimating low-frequency variability and trends in atmospheric temperature using ERA-Interim”, figure 23 and page 351
Re: ““Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality.””
Oh, your post is just precious; you’ve gone back to quote-mining again. You quote-mined the RSS blog, without mentioning that RSS’ Carl Mears thinks that tropospheric temperature estimates are less reliable than surface ones:
“Satellite Scientist: Surface Temp Measures are More Accurate”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0
If you want a hint as to why (if Mears didn’t dumb this down enough for you), then reflect on the following points:
1) Satellite data needs to be homogenized in homogenization for diurnal drift, the warm target factor, orbital decay, inter-satellite calibration, etc.. For instance:
“A comparative analysis of data derived from orbiting MSU/AMSU instruments”
“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature”
“Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends”
“Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”
“A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit”
“Reply to “Comments on ‘A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit'”
2) The RSS analysis from the UAH analysis for the lower troposphere:
“A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”
3) The UAH analysis diverges from RSS, UW, NOAA/STAR, and UMD analyses for the mid-to-upper troposphere:
“Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
“Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere”
4) The UAH analysis diverges from RSS and NOAA/STAR for the stratosphere:
“Stratospheric temperature changes during the satellite era”
5) The surface temperature records largely agree with each other and with the proxy records:
“Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period”
“A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets”
“Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures”
“A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era”
“Global warming in an independent record of the past 130 years”
Re: “Something new from you might be interesting Atomski – and I don’t mean non-peer reviewed tweets.”
Why? It’s not like you have any clue what the scientific literature shows, beyond what you choose to quote-mine from Pielke Sr. and other contrarians.
It is very simple physics of latent and sensible heat – and how drought affects the balance at the surface. In the last few years notably.
“Multidecadal variations in the rate of global warming over the course of twentieth century may reflect a combination of nonlinear changes in external forcing [Nagashima et al., 2006; Meehl et al., 2007; Booth et al., 2012; Evan, 2012] with a global expression of intrinsic climate variability superimposed on forced warming trends [Folland et al., 1984; Ghil and Vautard, 1991; Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994; Delworth and Mann, 2000]. Relative contributions from the forced and intrinsic components are still being debated. In particular, evidence from climate models implies a limited role for intrinsic variability [Knight et al., 2005; Delworth et al., 2007; Booth et al., 2012; Evan, 2012]. On the other hand, observational studies indicate a more ubiquitous hemispheric signature of multidecadal climate variations, implying a more complex climate evolution [Minobe, 1997, 1999; Enfield et al., 2001; Wyatt et al., 2012].” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061416/full
Models do in fact have Hurst effects – e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09068 – and so can resemble decadal climate variability. But there are also 1000’s of feasible solutions for any model – each of them diverging exponentially. Each of the solutions being different to the others as a result of evolution of the core nonlinear equations. And not as a result of coding for natural variability – which indeed remains impossible.
Above I have assumed that all net warming over two successive climate regimes – 1944 to 1998 – was anthropogenic. It is still 0.4 degrees C at 0.09 degrees C/decade – using GISSTEMP.
Science question.
Pondering the radiant heat coming through the glass door of my wood burner, I recalled it doesn’t heat the air, just a body in front of it. I know this is a generalization. I assume it’s long wave as it’s not the Sun. So, as on Earth it moves and collides with CO2 or water vapor. I am guessing with most of this. Or it hits my wall.
This was the take away, a more humid air in Winter heats my house more efficiently as the water vapor in the rooms slows the joules journey to the outdoors. More water vapor adds more insulation to the air making the heating more efficient.
More efficient is complicated by the electricity needed to run a humidifier to increase the water vapor present.
Now we have a prove the Sky Dragons wrong experiment. Two identical one room houses. Add CO2 to one and not the other. Compare the energy needed to heat one versus the other. If photons move at the speed of light as claimed, they’ll hit the wall almost instantly. Both houses will use the same amount of energy to get the same interior temperature. Their argument is CO2 will bounce energy, but at the speed of light, meaning it doesn’t matter as you’ve delayed the TOA exit by about a millionth of a second. If it’s not already clear, I don’t buy that.
That’s nothing. I don’t buy the sky is blue and clouds are white.
“If it’s not already clear, I don’t buy that.”
You know what they say about argument from incredulity?
While your LWIR photon is “delayed” in it’s exit to space by “about a millionth of a second” SW has still been incoming.
Thank you. I was wondering if I got the bottom line wrong, or an important description of what was going on wrong?
The tropical hotspot might develop from tropospheric warming for any reason. Stratospheric cooling might be CO2 related – or it might be ozone destruction or aerosols. Somehow I think it might all be a bit more complex than that. But overall – they seem relatively trivial issues. Then there are people who take trivial to a whole new level.
Ocean thermal inertia is related to estimates of sensitivity. Low sensitivity with short response times and vice versa. The math is simple but the methodology of sensitivity estimation far more problematic. Response times have been estimated variously from some 5 months to 40 years.
Whether it is estimated using zero or three dimensional models – a slab ocean is assumed with heating to a defined level by a process of eddy diffusion from the photic zone.
Broad estimates of eddy diffusion are a vast oversimplification. Mixing is variable depending on the state of the Earth flow field. Critically for climate studies at the scale of decades. Incremental forcing of the ocean response is as well not correct. The ocean response is to large changes in incident radiative flux from north/south ocean and land asymmetry on a seasonal basis – but also from large secular changes in radiative flux due to the vagaries of ocean and atmospheric flows. This is set against a very small (by many orders of magnitude) rate of incremental increase of greenhouse gas forcing.
Rates of change in radiative flux and ocean heat suggest that the delay is more like 5 months than 40 years. But at any rate – to make a pun – the system is orders of magnitude more complex and dynamic than the math.
The Effects of Ocean Heat Uptake on Transient Climate Sensitivity
You do know that your link is to my comment? What you don’t know is reliance on a single scientific paper is the first sign of intellectual dishonesty.
It’s not just one paper; it’s a whole series of coordinated work directed at clouds and climate sensitivity.
As usual, you are a worthless pos.
All your Ringbergs are belong to us.
I find much of what JCH says indeciperable – and the rest is feral science.
“Climate change is driven first and foremost by sustained differences between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Accordingly, scientific study of climate change is anchored in the planetary energy budget. All climate models, from the simplest toy model to the most sophisticated coupled Earth System Model, solve a thermodynamic problem of the form
dE/dt = R (1)
where E represents the energy content of the system (atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice), R is the net downward radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere, and the overbars denote a global average.”
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0048-4.pdf
As I keep saying. I will actually read this – although I seem to recall seeing something similar.
“A causal physical mechanism is proposed, linking subpolar heat uptake to a global-scale increase in lower-tropospheric stability. It is shown that the rate of increase in estimated inversion strength systematically slows as heat uptake decays. Variations in heat uptake should therefore manifest themselves as differences in low cloud feedbacks.” op. cit.
Let’s see what they mean by this. But there may be different mechanisms at play in greenhouse gas warming than with Pacific Ocean regimes changes – e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD008174/full
The latter have observed cloud feedbacks.
e.g. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL031830/full
It is instructive that JCH is so certain and yet so facile. But it is hilarious that they keep confirming the post.
The complete first order differential global energy equation.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/energy-equation-e1512589812541.jpg
And while a comment is clearing moderation for too many links.
“An important implication is that temporal variations in
both magnitude and spatial pattern of OHU (and thus also in its global efficacy) may be expressed radiatively through SW cloud responses. The same may be said about intermodel differences in OHU. This is a tantalizing proposition, as cloud feedbacks continue to be the largest source of spread in estimates of climate sensitivity [10, 21, 59]. If part of that spread is driven in systematic ways by patterns of sea surface heat fluxes, it may be more reducible and falsifiable than typically acknowledged.” from the study…
A time varying sensitivity has long been accepted but is obscured by
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/unstable-ebm-fig-2-jpg1.jpg
Solutions of an energy-balance model (EBM), showing the global-mean temperature (T) vs. the fractional change of insolation (μ) at the top of the atmosphere. (Source: Ghil, 2013)
The model has two stable states with two points of abrupt climate change – the latter at the transitions from the blue lines to the red from above and below. The two axes are normalized solar energy inputs μ (insolation) to the climate system and a global mean temperature. The current day energy input is μ = 1 with a global mean temperature of 287.7 degrees Kelvin. This is a relatively balmy 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The 1-D climate model uses physically based equations to determine changes in the climate system as a result of changes in solar intensity, ice reflectance and greenhouse gas changes. With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions between glacial and interglacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years. These are warm interludes – such as the present time – of relatively short duration and longer duration cold states. The transition between climate states is characterised by a series of step changes between the limits.
Ghil’s model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society. The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance.
… is obscured by a linear Taylor series expansion of the γ term…
Same old regurgitations. The vast majority of the authors of the studies you repeatedly shoot out as you drive by do not agree with you.
“As usual, you are a worthless pos.” JCH
The pattern here is very familiar. There is first of all a quote from the paper that he imagines says that all cloud changes are the result of greenhouse gases. So we go a little deeper into the paper and the response is abusive.
Then we have an assertion that everything I say is misrepresentation, the paper is too old or that the paper has been repudiated for which I am expected to take their opinions on. Atomski did it yesterday. I quoted the full he paragraph he had selectively quoted from to support his certain viewpoint – then he accused me of selectively quoting. I was recently told that there were more recent studies that refuted the 2002 NAS report on abrupt climate change. There are not and they don’t.
They could of course show exactly how I have misrepresented these hundreds of authors I have discussed – but they are of course utterly incapable of anything of the sort.
Then I get accused of being an old, white, conservative guy practicing doubt merchandising. I am of course thus the source of all worldly evil.
“Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.”
I am far from conservative – although I believe in God, decency, honor and the Scottish Enlightenment. I am also a trained environmental scientist, hydrologist, hydrodynamic modeler and engineer. JCH is apparently a guitar strumming cowboy living off his families oil money. I have my doubts that any of the others have any science training either.
I’m with Legates and not Proctor – agnogenesis from a cultural bias is the job of pissant progressives.
Will you owe your state money when you file your 2017 state income tax return?
Will you itemize deductions when you file your 2017 1040?
If the above are both true, then assume payments made to your state will not be deductible if made in 2018 because of new tax laws.
Consider making a state estimated tax payment before the end of this year. It will be deductible on your 2017 1040, IF you itemize deductions. However if you will be subject to the alternative minimum tax for 2017, the situation is more complicated because at times, the AMT nullifies additional state income tax payments for bottom line Federal purposes.
What if the tax laws do not change? Assuming you are not subject to the AMT and equal amounts of taxable income in both 2017 and 2018, there seems to be little downside risk. However each person’s situation is different so a generalization may not apply to them. However again, potential tax law changes often create uncertainties. One can bet on no change or change as best we can figure or hedge and bet on in effect, half of each.
Judith ==> “We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.”
I have read the entirety of the transcript and the same quote struck me as the key statement. (Interesting coincidence?)
You are exactly right — this is the major issue of the field of Climatology (and, may I add, theoretical physics and scientific cosmology).
There are no real arguments about basic physics — what we (climatology) does not understand as yet is what it all means when it is applied to the real world — two non-linear dynamical physical systems (oceans and atmosphere) interacting in ways that are still quite a bit beyond our level of knowledge — as you have often pointed out, we don’t yet understand the known unknowns and have no clue whatever about the unknowns unknowns — but, like “dark energy and dark matter” we see their effects.
I was fascinated by the candor expressed at the APS Workshop. Every word as relevant today as the day it was spoken.
One of the nicest things about Trump getting elected is that I have at least a 4 year break from having to constantly remind the static world radiative forcing centric know-it-alls that they still don’t understand how different light wavelengths affect ocean currents and that ocean currents drive the climate.
Thanks to Brandon R. Gates for pointing out Darwall’s misleading quote-mine of Collins:
https://twitter.com/brandonrgates/status/940369183430160385
One can wonder why Curry didn’t call out this sort of misrepresentation from Darwall (I have a pretty good guess as to why).
Being a denier is the rational course. Everything is much more nonlinear than these ‘climate warrior’ twits imagine. Especially models. There is lots of great science out there but the AR5 is not it.
“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.”
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/slingo-and-palmer-e1506928933615.png
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22042896
But he would first have to be able to understand the understand the math.
hmmm… to understand the math…