by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
How well do stratospheric reanalyses reproduce high-resolution satellite temperature measurements? https://buff.ly/2OnYyIS
Warming ocean waters intensified devastating 2017 Atlantic hurricane season: [link]
On the statistical significance of climatic trends estimated from GPS tropospheric time series https://buff.ly/2OcB4Xn
A global climatology of surface anticyclones, their variability, drivers and long-term trend [link]
Response of tropical terrestrial gross primary production to the super El Niño event in 2015 [link]
“North American weather regimes are becoming more persistent: Is Arctic amplification a factor?” [link] press release [link]
What’s Causing Antarctica’s Ocean to Heat Up? New Study Points to 2 Human Sources [link]
The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4 [link]
Insights on sudden stratospheric warming using an idealized general circulation model & 3 types of tropospheric forcing [link] …
Gulf Stream variability in the context of quasi‐decadal and multi‐decadal Atlantic climate variability [link]
A Recent Reversal in the Poleward Shift of Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclones [link]
North American weather regimes are becoming more persistent: Is Arctic amplification a factor? (open access) [link]
California winter precipitation linked to the Arctic Oscillation [link]…
Cold tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures during the late sixteenth‐century North American megadrought [link]
Investigating the role that large modes of climate variability play in affecting air-sea CO2 fluxes in coastal upwelling zones: [link]
Evidence for a volcanic underpinning of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation [link]
Why Are Siberian Temperatures Plummeting While the Arctic Warms? [link] …
Changing the retention properties of catchments and their influence on runoff under climate change [link]
The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season [link]
Modeled and Observed Multidecadal Variability in the North Atlantic Jet Stream and Its Connection to Sea Surface Temperatures [link] …
Social Science & Policy
This is a great piece on flood and water control in the Netherlands. [link]
Nature: “Based on present knowledge, climate geoengineering techniques cannot be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals.” [link]
Climate change as a motivating factor for farm-adjustments: rethinking the link [link]
Climate driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe [link]
Solutions for nuclear waste that are robust to politics: [link] …
The UK can reach net-zero #greenhousegas emissions by 2050, a key step in meeting our #ParisAgreement targets. Read the new report from the Society and @RAEngNews [link]…
About Science & Scientists
Science classes must start teaching an inconvenient truth: Some scientists fudge facts [link] …
The parallel universes of a woman in science [link]
The problem with all those liberal professors: “The real problems arise in subjects like history, political science, philosophy and psychology, where the professor’s political perspective might well make a difference. (The same is true of law.)” AND climate science. [link]
Why do women bully each other at work? asks Olga Khazan [link]
I would be very interested to see critiques of this new Nature Climate Change paper: Richie 1t al. 2018. Country-level social cost of carbon
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y
Temporary free access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y.epdf?author_access_token=XLBRLEGdT_Kv0n8_OnvpedRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ms70oz073vBeHQkQJXsJbey6vjdAHHSPxkHEN8nflPeQI6U86-MxWO1T1uUiSvN2A-srp5G9s7YwGWt6-cuKn2e83mvZEpXG3r-J0nv0gYuA%3D%3D
I would particularly like to understand the damage functions, especially the energy impact function component of the damage functions, and the empirical data that is used to support it.
Data base, source code, data base explorer, interactive figures are here: https://country-level-scc.github.io/
The abstract says “Central specifications show high global SCC values (median US$417 per tonne of CO2)”. This is roughly an order of magnitude higher than other estimates. On this basis it warrants thorough analysis and critique.
I could write a pseudo paper imitating this work, and underscore the summersaults and leaps they make. Or I can dive into it for a month, but then I would have to charge. There are endless possibilities for mistakes and shenanigans in work like this. And its not reviewable under normal peer review conditions because it has so many undocumented gaps a professional who is gainfully employed can’t possibly spend the time taking it apart. I would say, hwever, that this work isnt reproducible.
It appears to me that they are making the same mistakes most of these studies have made.
First of all they assume that the temperature will rise much more quickly than the actual record demonstrates.
Next they appear to be taking an change of temperature as being damaging rather than the first derivative of a change in temperature. Changing temperature two degrees over a year is much more damaging than two degrees over ten years, because over ten years there is more time to adapt.
The article about liberals in academia is spot on. Except that it is not a recent problem. This was the case at least 55 years ago when I attended college and the issue has been a constant topic of studies, conversation and articles ever since. The further one gets from graduation the more obvious it is.
Not the case at the London School of Economics in 1961-64, indeed two of my contemporaries are well-known right-wing commentators here in Australia. But I can recall some elements of it later in the 1960s, far from predominant in the UK then. Probably on the rise in Australia before I arrived in 1979.
Lord Beveridge was at the LSE in the 1930’s, leaving for Oxford in 1937.
During WWII, Beveridge wrote a report that became the basis of the postwar British welfare state. So there was at least one very left-wing
person on the LSE early on.
I noticed the liberals in academia article speaks of Democrats and Republicans, and makes passing mention of professors with no party affiliation, but nowhere does it mention professors affiliated with Libertarian, Green, Constitution, or any other party, though it emphasizes importance of exposure to a wide range of differing viewpoints.
Arctic plants grow taller amid warming climate (increased soil moisture, key)
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2018/arctic-plants-grow-taller-amid-warming-climate
Some reason article raises concern of increased release of carbon when increased uptake is far more plausible.
Regarding stratospheric re-analyses:
“Finally, we use cluster analyses to show that full-input reanalyses (those which assimilate the full suite of observations, i.e. excluding JRA-55C) are more tightly correlated with each other than with observations, even observations which they assimilate. This may suggest that these reanalyses are over-tuned to match their comparators. If so, this could have significant implications for future reanalysis development.”
That may be as far as stratospheric temperature trends go, but I was struck by the vast divergence of the reanalyses wrt the “hot spot”. Below is are the band averaged OLS trends for the period 1979 through 2017. I suspect the difference is the inclusion of transient raob stations and that the more transient stations are more prone to errors and biases.
https://turbulenteddies.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/hot_spot_1979_2017.png
I wonder what reanalyses using only reliable stations would reveal.
Also, “over-tuned to match their comparators” is a disturbing idea.
Reanlaysis = Rebias?
Re: “but I was struck by the vast divergence of the reanalyses wrt the “hot spot”. Below is are the band averaged OLS trends for the period 1979 through 2017.”
You’re simply repeating your usual falsehood on the hot spot, while ignoring any evidence that shows you’re wrong. You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence showing that the hot spot exists, in both radiosonde-based analyes (such as RAOB) and satellite-based MSU analyses. For instance:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877599
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877182
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877429
In response, you simply brushed off the evidence (from the peer-reviewed papers I cited to you), by claiming that citing peer-reviewed evidence is just “motivated parrotry”:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877614
By your logic, a flat Earther can brush off all the peer-reviewed studies that present evidence that Earth is round, by claiming that citing those studies is just “motivated parrotry”. In fact, by your logic, Judith Curry and [every other scientist who cites references in their peer-reviewed papers that provide evidence supporting a point they made] is engaged in “motivated parrotry”. It’s as if you have no clue how evidence is cited in science.
And it’s already been explained why your citation of your non-peer-reviewed analyses is not credible:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#comment-881100
Atom, your bias is showing.
The point I made above is not even whether or not the hot spot verifies, but rather that the CFS,MERRA, and ERA-I reanalyses differ so much.
Since you can’t or won’t examine the data, I don’t believe we have much to discuss.
Re: “Atom, your bias is showing. The point I made above is not even whether or not the hot spot verifies, but rather that the CFS,MERRA, and ERA-I reanalyses differ so much. Since you can’t or won’t examine the data, I don’t believe we have much to discuss.”
You didn’t actually show that they diverged. No, the non-peer-reviewed, unsourced, non-expert analysis you posted doesn’t count, for the reasons explained in the response I linked to before.
And no, I’ve repeatedly examined the data. The difference is I access credible, peer-reviewed sources, while you rely on your misuse/abuse of images you don’t seem to understand. That leads to you getting results that differ from the peer-reviewed analyses of informed experts who actually know what they are doing. So let’s compare your analysis to data analyses from the competent experts I cite.
You use your analysis to claim that CFSR, MERRA-2, and ERA-I greatly differ in their upper tropospheric warming rates in the tropics from 1979 – 2017. You show pronounced differences within your circled region at 400mb (equivalent to 400hPa) in the upper tropical troposphere. Your claim can be investigated using the following peer-reviewed source, instead of the non-expert, non-peer-reviewed, unsourced analyses you do:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/testdap/timeseries.pl
“Web-Based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tools (WRIT) for analysis and comparison of reanalyses and other datasets”
Based on that source, at an atmospheric pressure of 400mb from 1979 – 2018 and between the tropical latitudes of 25°S to 25°N, the tropical tropospheric warming rates for re-analyses are:
CFSR : 0.41 K/decade
MERRA-2 : 0.20 K/decade
ERA-I : 0.20 K/decade
JRA-55 : 0.15 K/decade
NCEP-2 (DOE) : 0.16 K/decade
So with the exception of CFSR, the re-analyses aren’t too far off from one another. MERRA-2 and ERA-I cluster together, while JRA-55 and NCEP-2 cluster together. Your image does not make this clear, since you exclude re-analyses like JRA-55 and NCEP-2, without you giving a good reason for doing this. You also make the warming rates in MERRA-2 and ERA-I look very divergent at 400mb.
(Note: I excluded NCEP-1 [NCAR R1] and 20CR re-analyses. I did this because NCEP-2 is an improved update on NCEP-1, so I simply cited NCEP-2. And 20CR approximates upper air temperature data, without actually being based on upper air temperature data. If you want the trends for those re-analyses, they are:
NCEP-1 (NCAR R1) : 0.14 K/decade
20CR : 0.25 K/decade).
In your analysis, you also make the 400hPa warming rate from MERRA-2 and ERA-I look very different from the RSS analysis. To see what more competent experts say on that, we can look at RSS team’s own TTT analysis. TTT is RSS’ upper tropospheric analysis that removes stratospheric cooling that contaminates their TMT analysis. Their TTT analysis is here:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
And the following papers cover that analysis:
“Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
“Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment”
“Troposphere-stratosphere temperature trends derived from satellite data compared with ensemble simulations from WACCM”
As you should know, satellite-based MSU analyses like RSS, UAH, NOAA/STAR, UW, and UMD don’t just measure trends at a particular atmospheric pressure level. Instead, they measure a smeared region of atmospheric levels, as shown in the RSS link I gave you above (that’s why, for instance, cooling from the stratosphere contaminates the TMT analysis). So even though TTT measures the upper troposphere, it won’t just include data from a particular upper tropospheric atmospheric level, like 400mb. It will also include data from 300mb, 200mb, 500mb, etc., with different layers having a different relative effect on the TTT analysis.
Keeping that point in mind, based on the RSS link I gave you above, here is RSS’ upper tropical tropospheric warming rate (TTT) from 1979 – 2018 and between the tropical latitudes of 25°S to 25°N:
RSS : 0.18 K/decade
That’s between the ~0.16 K/decade for the JRA-55 and NCEP-2 re-analyses at 400mb, and the ~0.20 K/decade the ERA-I and MERRA-2 re-analyses at 400mb. Of course, the RSS TTT warming trend isn’t directly comparable to these re-analyses since, as I explained above, RSS TTT trend will included regions of the tropical atmosphere that show less warming than the 400mb level. So the RSS TTT analysis will actually under-estimate warming relative to the re-analyses 400mb data.
But even if you don’t factor that in, RSS’ warming trend for the upper tropical troposphere is not remarkably different from the upper tropospheric warming trend seen in MERRA-2 and ERA-I. This contradicts your non-peer-reviewed, non-expert, unsourced image.
Moreover, the trends for MERRA-2 and ERA-I cluster together with RSS in a way that CFSR does not. Thus, you were incorrect when you used an analogy to the stratospheric cooling paper, to argue that the tropospheric warming trends from CFSR, MERRA-2, and ERA-I were being skewed to agree more with each other, than with satellite-based analyses such as RSS. And there’s a serious issue with your unsourced image, since your image makes it look like the rate of tropical upper tropospheric warming is much greater in ERA-I and MERRA-2 than in RSS.
When you make erroneous claims like that, it should become clear why I opt for the peer-reviewed analyses of credible experts, over your non-expert, unsourced, non-peer-reviewed images. It’s the same reason I take medical advice from informed experts or the peer-reviewed medical literature, not just an unsourced image a random blogger posted online.
CFSR : 0.41 K/decade
MERRA-2 : 0.20 K/decade
ERA-I : 0.20 K/decade
Yes, very consistent with the complete at a glance lat bands versus height plots that I produced, and a marked difference between the reanalyses.
Re: “Yes, very consistent with the complete at a glance lat bands versus height plots that I produced, and a marked difference between the reanalyses.”
Actually, no. Quote-mining a comment to avoid the parts that show you’re wrong (and to make it look like it agrees with you), doesn’t change the fact that you were shown to be wrong.
Once again:
1) Your plot makes it look like the tropical upper tropospheric warming rate for RSS is much lower than for ERA-I and MERRA-2, when the warming rates for those 3 are actually roughly on par.
2) You used an analogy to the stratospheric cooling paper to claim that the re-analyses were being skewed more to agree with each other with respect to tropical upper tropospheric warming, than to agree with satellite-based analyses like RSS. That’s false, since the RSS tropical upper tropospheric warming rate was comparable to that of MERRA-2 and ERA-I.
3) You willfully ignored other re-analyses like JRA-55 and NCEP-2. You gave no reason for ignoring them, even though they undermined your claim that the re-analyses were being skewed more to agree with one another with respect to tropical upper tropospheric warming, than to agree with satellite-based analyses like RSS.
4) Your plot makes it look like ERA-I and MERRA-2 have very different warming rates at 400mb between 25°S to 25°N, when the warming rates are actually roughly on par.
5) You gave no source for your non-peer-reviewed, non-expert images.
These points aren’t going to go change, Turbulent Eddie, no matter how much selective quoting you might use to try and avoid them.
Skeptical science advanced page needs updating Adam
Perhaps you could rewrite it?
‘’So, does the “hot spot” actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere actually warming as expected? Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.
There is a good theoretical basis for this expectation of amplification in the upper troposphere relative to the surface. We expect that an increase in radiative forcing would result in a moist adiabatic amplification of warming with altitude, i.e. that the troposphere would warm faster with height. This also appears as an emergent property in climate models, which show a similar vertical profile of warming to that expected under the moist adiabatic lapse rate.
Unfortunately, actually determining what is happening in the real tropical troposphere has proven to be quite difficult. Perhaps the largest reason for this is the quality of data from the main source of our information from this region for long time periods- radiosonde networks.
Although on seasonal and annual scales, some radiosonde records are in relatively good agreement with theoretical and modeling expectations, on decadal timescales, they show less warming or even cooling of the upper troposphere. ‘’
Re: “Skeptical science advanced page needs updating Adam
Perhaps you could rewrite it?”
This is the SkepticalScience page you’re citing:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
That page is outdated and doesn’t cite any research from after 2010. And that’s not even SkepticalScience’s newest page on the subject, since they had a newer page from 2015 entitled:
“New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/new-study-finds-hot-spot.html
I already commented on that 2015 page last year under my alternative name, NoctambulantJoycean:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/new-study-finds-hot-spot.html#122691
SkepticalScience is a fairly good source (much better than this blog, for example), below RealClimate or potholer54’s vlog. But I strongly suggest people read the peer-reviewed literature, instead of just relying on SkepticalScience. After all, SkepticalScience’s pages can become outdated in light of subsequent research, much like IPCC reports. For instance, the IPCC’s AR5 was published years after the SkepticalScience page you linked to. Yet the scientific community still managed to learn a lot since AR5:
“Climate updates: What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?”
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
Re: “Atom, your bias is showing. The point I made above is not even whether or not the hot spot verifies, but rather that the CFS,MERRA, and ERA-I reanalyses differ so much. Since you can’t or won’t examine the data, I don’t believe we have much to discuss.”
The paper you’re citing is making claims based on stratospheric temperature trends from 2002 – 2013. The paper includes satellite-based GPS radio occultation (GPS-RO) data from COSMIC:
“Here, we resample stratospheric temperature data from six modern reanalyses (CFSR, ERA-5, ERA-Interim, JRA-55, JRA-55C and MERRA-2) to produce synthetic satellite observations, which we directly compare to retrieved satellite temperatures from COSMIC, HIRDLS and SABER and to brightness temperatures from AIRS for the 10-year period of 2003–2012.
[…]
[…] one (COSMIC) is a multi-satellite constellation which uses GPS radio occultation to infer atmospheric parameters.”
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/13703/2018/acp-18-13703-2018.pdf
You use this paper to make an analogy to re-analyses’ tropical upper tropospheric warming trends. So it would be worthwhile to see how COSMIC-based, GPS-RO tropical upper tropospheric warming trends compare to re-analysis trends.
For the period from Sept 2001 – Dec 2016 and between the tropical latitudes of 25°S to 25°N at an altitude around 10km (equivalent to an atmospheric pressure of around 200hPa or 200mb), the tropical tropospheric warming rate for GPS-RO is:
GPS-RO : >0.30 K/decade
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dozx5EmXoAAXP6a.jpg
[from figure 4 of: “Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations”]
For the re-analyses trends, one can again use:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/testdap/timeseries.pl
“Web-Based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tools (WRIT) for analysis and comparison of reanalyses and other datasets”
Based on that source, at an atmospheric pressure of 200mb from Sept 2001 – Dec 2016 and between the tropical latitudes of 25°S to 25°N, the tropical tropospheric warming rates for the re-analyses are:
CFSR : 0.57 K/decade
MERRA-2 : 0.18 K/decade
ERA-I : 0.11 K/decade
JRA-55 : 0.16 K/decade
NCEP-2 (DOE) : 0.33 K/decade
NCEP-1 (NCAR R1) : 0.18 K/decade
20CR : 0.04 K/decade [data truncates at 2013]
When these results are compared to the satellite-based, GPS-RO results, your analysis runs into some problems similar to those I discussed before:
1) You used an analogy to the stratospheric cooling paper to claim that the re-analyses were being skewed more to agree with each other with respect to tropical upper tropospheric warming, than to agree with satellite-based analyses. So you claimed that satellite-based analyses would show less upper tropospheric warming than the re-analyses. However, your claim is undermined by the fact that the satellite-based GPS-RO analysis shows more tropical upper tropospheric warming than the MERRA-2 and ERA-I re-analyses you cited.
2) You willfully ignored other re-analyses like JRA-55 and NCEP-2. You gave no reason for ignoring them, even though they undermined your claim that the re-analyses were being skewed more to agree with one another with respect to tropical upper tropospheric warming, than to agree with satellite-based analyses. NCEP-2 actually diverges from ERA-I and MERRA-2, as does CFSR. And NCEP-2 better matches the warming rate seen in the GPS-RO analysis, than do CFSR (which is greater than the GPS-RO trend), ERA-I, and MERRA-2 (which are less than the GPS-RO trend).
Re: “Regarding stratospheric re-analyses:”
You also ran a comparison with a climate model. Well, model-based predictions and observed stratospheric cooling trends (from satellite-based analyses in this case, not re-analyses) agree fairly well. That’s to be expected, given the predicted response of the stratosphere to anthropogenic decreases in ozone levels and anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels. See, for instance (though you’ve previous claimed that cited the peer-reviewed literature is just “motivated parrotry”):
“Revisiting the mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends”
“Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations”
Atomski’s interminable, unreadable and repetitive guff is not science at all but a mishmash of very narrow, narrative themes distinguished only by confirmation bias, irrelevant pop psychology, bizarre inferences about skeptics and smoking, AIDS, vaccines, etc. and an inability to engage in good faith discourse.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
“We emphasize that the NE Pacific cloud changes described above are tied to cloud changes that span the Pacific basin. Despite much less surface sampling in the Southeast (SE) Pacific, cloud and meteorological changes in that region generally occur in parallel with those in the NE Pacific (Figs. 2 and 3). Also, we find that the leading mode in an empirical orthogonal function analysis (15% of the variance) of global cloud
cover (fig. S3) has a spatial pattern similar to that
in Fig. 3 and the time series shows the same decadal shifts as in Fig. 1, indicating that the changes in the NE Pacific are part of a dominant mode of global cloud variability.” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.full
That this other thing is happening makes attribution impossible. It is quite odd to imagine this stops because of AGW and it is all now CO2 volcanoes and the AMO. He is not merely of the literature around low frequency climate variability but is cognitively unable to process dissonant information.
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.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/8703/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific
Atomski is an agnotologist par excellence. A total waste of our time self admittedly in it to laugh at us.
Re: “Atomski’s interminable, unreadable and repetitive guff is not science at all but a mishmash of very narrow, narrative themes distinguished only by confirmation bias, irrelevant pop psychology, bizarre inferences about skeptics and smoking, AIDS, vaccines, etc. and an inability to engage in good faith discourse.”
Please write coherent English. And if you don’t understand scientific research on stratospheric temperature trends and model-based projections of those trends, then that’s not problem. It’s your’s. Let me know when you finally have something sensible to say.
Does Atomski imagine that he writes coherent English? Now that”s amusing.
But you notice that he has no substantive response – never does. He has his well rehearsed memes.
Stratospheric cooling – in this case – has nothing to do with what I wrote and has so little relevance to big picture climate outlooks. What does it mean? That we are increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? We knew that already – but definitively quantifying the stratospheric effect is beyond science at the moment. What Atomski fails to understand is the limits of science and I always find that with the scientifically untutored and ignorant. The tool that he has is English – bad English – it is all he knows and with it he looks for confirmation of AGW fanaticism without an ability to compare, contrast and question science.
Atomski is the triumph of triviality over substance. The problem is way his not mine.
I’m once again reminded of how selective the moderation on this forum is, as long as one is a contrarian on mainstream climate science.
Atomski’s acres of simplistic and repeated ideology drips with denigration and condescension. Nothing I said approaches this level of disparagement. His whine about deniers and moderation is a lie.
Is he complaining about being scientifically untutored and ignorant of the limits of science? If he has anything but his twitter account – he only has to say.
“Science classes must start teaching an inconvenient truth”:
Who thought scientists would rediscover concepts like “virtues” which are related to concepts of human nature dating back to antiquity which according to current understanding are equal to “whiteness” and evil.
Indication of massive Type B (“systematic”) errors?
Wright, C. J. and Hindley, N. P.: How well do stratospheric reanalyses reproduce high-resolution satellite temperature measurements? Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13703-13731, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13703-2018, 2018.
”Thus, external forcing from volcanic aerosols appears to underpin multi-decade SST variability observed in the historical record.”
No doubt few would allege humans cause volcanos. Perhaps some day soon fewer will allege humans — especially Americans who live too well –do not cause hurricanes either.
How evidence cited in science? Really! Peer reviewed papers are not evidence, nor are climate models. Both are more accurately conjecture.
Most of climate science boils down to conjecture with dam little evidence (one-way-or-the-other).
Model evaluation paper in Geoscientific Model Development (An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union)
Axel Wagner, Gerrit Lohmann and Matthias Prange (2018). Impact of model resolution on Holocene climate simulations of the Northern Hemisphere. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-172.
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Abstract. This study demonstrates the dependence of simulated surface air temperatures on variations in grid resolution and resolution-dependent orography in simulations of the Mid-Holocene. A set of Mid-Holocene sensitivity experiments is carried out with the atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM5 forced with sea surface temperature and sea ice fields from coupled simulations. Each experiment was performed in two resolution modes: low (~3.75°, 19 vertical levels) and high (~1.1°, 31 vertical levels). Results are compared to respective preindustrial runs. It is found that the large-scale temperature anomalies for the Mid-Holocene (compared to the preindustrial) are significantly different in the low- and high-resolution versions. For boreal winter, differences are related to circulation changes caused by the response to thermal forcing in conjunction with orographic resolution. For summer, shortwave cloud radiative forcing emerges as the predominant factor. In summary, the simulated Mid-Holocene temperature differences (low versus high resolution) reveal a response that regionally exceeds the Mid-Holocene to preindustrial modelled temperature anomalies, and show partly reversed signs across the same geographical regions. Our results imply that climate change simulations sensitively depend on the chosen grid resolutions.
How to cite: Wagner, A., Lohmann, G., and Prange, M.: Impact of model resolution on Holocene climate simulations of the Northern Hemisphere, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-172, in review, 2018.
climate trends and GPS: The results show a percentage change of precipitable water vapor of 3–8% per a degree Celsius rise in temperature.
That’s compatible with the O’Gorman review showing increase in precipitation with increased surface temp, and with the ca. 6% increase in water vapor pressure at the range of temperatures found on the Earth surface. What increase in the total mass of water is that, or in mass per square meter of subtending surface?
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
A new article, called “It is worse than we thought – by Latitude”.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/it-is-worse-than-we-thought-by-latitude
A detailed bar chart, shows information about 8 latitude bands.
• 90N to 66N – [the Arctic] – approximately 4% of the Earth
• 66N to 38N – approximately 15% of the Earth
• 38N to 18N – approximately 15% of the Earth
• 18N to Equ – approximately 15% of the Earth
• Equ to 18S – approximately 15% of the Earth
• 18S to 38S – approximately 15% of the Earth
• 38S to 66S – approximately 15% of the Earth
• 66S to 90S – [the Antarctic] – approximately 4% of the Earth
There are 5 temperature categories. Each temperature category shows how much the “theoretical” temperature has increased, since 1880. These are:
• red – the temperature has increased by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius
• orange – the temperature has increased by between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius
• yellow – the temperature has increased by between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees Celsius
• green – the temperature has increased by between 0.0 and 1.0 degrees Celsius
• blue – the temperature has increased by less than 0.0 degrees Celsius (i.e. the temperature has cooled)
Red and orange can be used to see how much of each latitude band is above the IPCC’s temperature targets, of 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius.
Yellow, green, and blue are all below the temperature target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, yellow can be used to see how much of each latitude band is near the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperate target.
A big La Niña is overwhelmingly more likely than any significant El Niño – will Pacific wide feedbacks in wind, cloud and current kick in? Sometime or other – yes of course. How intense and for how long is the question.
https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/posts/1880945795355007?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARB0c_ensJnLwviMhhqfaoKwnKh-GY16Mg_wbBj5JxktXfIHH_6TDEnviAjZxr_51UZ2MXlg34zq5npzkBotGMjnqmjaR36uSRIHwLtCWQXA6BsiT07nAzvHRS3ApjWh0pHUFcLp5y5w1o47OjrNKkISDCZIiRJCMbH2jKpuDj9sUMxvJCYt4A&__tn__=-R
Prediction is the gold standard of science. You’re praying for a La Niña. Noted.
https://i.imgur.com/rKAFIv3.png
If you can keep your head when all about you are betting tails. A La Nina is inevitable sooner or later in the stohastically forced delay recharge/discharge cycle that is ENSO. There is not enough recharge in the western Pacific for a sizable El Nino.
Yes, and only you, a nobody from Australia, knows these things.
What group is forecasting a “big” El Niño?
Can cite a paper that substantiates what “enough recharge” is required for a big El Niño?
“Wyrtki (1975, 1985) first suggested a buildup in the western Pacific of warm water as a necessary precondition to the development of El Niño. Prior to El Niño upper ocean heat content or warm water volume over the entire tropical Pacific tends to build up (or charge) gradually, and during El Niño warm water is flushed toward (or discharged to) higher latitudes. After the discharge, the tropical Pacific becomes cold (La Niña) and then warm water slowly builds up again (recharge) before the occurrence of the next El Niño. The concept of the recharge and discharge processes is further emphasized by Jin (1997a, b). Based on the coupled model of Zebiak and Cane (1987), Jin (1997a, b) formulated and derived the recharge oscillator model.” http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/wang.enso_review.springer_sci_pub16.pdf
You’re looking for elevated water levels in the western Pacific.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/images/latestdata/ssh/2018/SSHA_20180930_010000.png
Lol.
An idea decades old that only I know about? Before the 15/16 El Nino.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/images/latestdata/ssh/2014/SSHA_20141002_001501.png
“”In GHCNv4, the aggregate impact of
adjustments on global mean land surface air temperature trends is an increase of about 0.2°C during the
period from 1880-2016 whereas in v3, the impact of adjustments on global trends is closer to 0.4°C during
the same period. “
“Gulf Stream variability in the context of quasi‐decadal and multi‐decadal Atlantic climate variability”
The AMO was at its coldest when the solar wind was stronger during the early to mid 1970’s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s. Those three cold anomalies were constrained by solar cycles, just as the previous three cold AMO anomalies in 1904, 1913 and 1923 were.
https://snag.gy/d2v3aJ.jpg
Graph source: https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2J4GxZ6iM
Around 1:40, Weinstein gives examples of destroyed academic freedom I think that most will find interesting. A lot of the video deals with the middle ground, the why and how. Rubin and Peterson and Weinstein are doing a great job. I’d go through Rubin’s interviews. And I think our host may consider reaching out to Rubin.
It is really quite astonishing how Americans have age old mantras that are rubbish.
1) Publication quantity is a measure of productivity.
It is a measure of finding ways to publish as many papers as possible using the same data. It is also a politics is done. Classic example is making some monoclonal antibdies, then being an author on every paper for ten years using the antibodies. This is not groundbreaking technology, it is routine stuff capable of being done by senior technicians. But it can get you forty papers in ten years.
Fred Sanger won two Nobel prizes, developing ground breaking technology for protein and DNA sequencing. He published one paper every five years. American idiots would have sacked for being unproductive.
2) IQ measures intelligence.
IQ tests are paper-based tests of verbal, logical, numerical and spatial ability.
They are solely individualised, measure nothing of emotional, social, transactional, kinaesthetic nor sexual aptitudes.
They are solely relevant to isolated individuals working alone at a desk.
They do not apply in team situations, in confrontational ones. in familial environments, in social hierarchies etc.
It never ceases to amaze me how backward Americans are in understanding the narrow historical contexts in which such metrics were developed.
We agree on your point 1).
Peterson has another take on your point 2). Whether the correct word is correlates or something else, IQ and success often go together. He claims that here:
Jordan Peterson – How High IQ affects success in life
Your point about the metrics being worth less than thought. We can keep going, they are hardly worth a thing. So what do we have then?
Please use 1:46 for the time above.
Ignore this bit, I forgot to delete it
“READ NEXT
Turnbull unleashes in secret tape
RACHEL BAXENDALE”
“The parallel universes of a woman in science [link]”
If I grew up to be what I wanted to be as a child, my life would have been a disappointment. My vision of myself then, and my life would have been…childish. Same is true for adolescence; young adulthood; middle aged; and moving on into my senior perspectives.
My view of life ahead keeps changing. Successes, disappointments, adjustments, adaptations, compromises are all part of the process of life. Much like science is a process, lives/science are not some outcome envisioned at an earlier time, rather a journey. Could I have been an artist? a chemist? historian? writer? or a person, working with my hands, coaching my kids in some team sport, volunteering in my community?
The energy push, coming almost as a pulse at one time or another sets one off on a trajectory at some velocity for a time period, that, looking back, the retrospectoscope, such inspiration/motivation was a unique occurrence and I am the outcome of that journey, at least, for now.
Career and gender factors appear as a function of the times. Envisioning one’s self in some future is predicated upon where one resides at that specific time. Times and circumstances change and so do the trajectories of people’s lives.
Haven’t read the linked article, but I agree with your comments, which perhaps imply a lack of such understanding in the article; which I’ll perhaps read anon.
A new visualization tool called PolarGlobe has been released.
https://asunow.asu.edu/20181001-creativity-illustrating-dance-earth
“PolarGlobe is a large-scale, web-based four-dimensional visualization tool allowing climate data access to anyone with an internet connection. It’s capable of illustrating changes in the atmosphere vividly in real time.
The technology is called m-cubed: “Multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, multi-variate.”
Historical data in the tool goes back to 2010. Current data is updated every six hours. The tool uses artificial intelligence and machine learning so it continues to learn on its own as new data is generated.
It’s a huge amount of data: 350 terabytes”
http://cici.lab.asu.edu/polarglobe/
Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) | September 30, 2018 at 12:54 am |Re: “Skeptical science advanced page needs updating Adam
Perhaps you could rewrite it?”
This is the SkepticalScience page you’re citing:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
That page is outdated and doesn’t cite any research from after 2010. And that’s not even SkepticalScience’s newest page on the subject, since they had a newer page from 2015 entitled:
“New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/new-study-finds-hot-spot.html
I already commented on that 2015 page last year.”
–
So one of the leading CAGW sites updates is 8 years out of date and they pretend to have one study finding a hot spot.
One study!
One study!
Wow.
Can yo seriously pretend there is a hot spot when the 2010 did not show it and only one study in 8 years is all they can put up??
Abit like a Yeti sighting and just as believable.
Re: “So one of the leading CAGW sites”
I’m not familiar with that figment of your imagination. So let me know when you’re done attacking that straw man. I have no more patience for what you’re doing, than I have for young Earth creationists attacking their “molecules-to-man evolution” straw man:
“Additionally, we find that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming 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.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-20161-0_3
Re: “So one of the leading CAGW sites updates is 8 years out of date and they pretend to have one study finding a hot spot.
One study!
One study!
Wow.
Can yo seriously pretend there is a hot spot when the 2010 did not show it and only one study in 8 years is all they can put up??”
First, no, they listed multiple studies showing the hot spot. Try actually reading your cited source this time, instead of ranting about “CAGW”. For instance, they mentioned these papers:
“Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds”
“Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection”
“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)
Second, I already told you to read the peer-reviewed scientific literature instead of just relying on non-peer-reviewed blogs:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881577
Your response is as ridiculous as saying you won’t address the multiple peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking causes cancer, unless those papers are mentioned on a old blog article you cherry-picked from years ago. Seriously, do better. That is not how a scientifically-literate person learns about science. I’ve already cited multiple scientific papers going over the hot spot. Try actually reading them:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#comment-881057
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877599
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877182
https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877429
“So one of the leading CAGW sites”I’m not familiar with that figment of your imagination.”
Let me help you out
Posted on 29 September 2018 2018 SkS Weekly Climate
“A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.””
Posted on 23 September 2018
“Must-Read Analysis…
Three papers have been recently published that lead to the conclusion that human-induced climate change poses a much more urgent and serious threat to life on Earth than many have thought who have been relying primarily on the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This paper first reviews these papers and then examine the ethical questions by the issues discussed in these papers.
New Evidence That Climate Change Poses a Much Greater Threat to Humanity Than Recently Understood Because the IPCC has been Systematically Underestimating Climate Change Risks: An Ethical Analysis by Donald Brown, Ethics & Climate, Widener University, Sep 21, 2018″
and this was good
” Glaciers Falling on Tourists: Yet Another Danger of Climate Change by Elizabeth Earl, Science, The Atlantic, Sep 11, 2018″
Not sure if it was a slow news day or a slow tourist day!
JCH, not looking good early this month record cold in Canada, Cold in Holland, England and Southern Australia. Some ocean warming somewhere 3.4?
Still maybe the world temperature went your way?
Or not?
Come on Spencer, do the right thing.
What on earth is the “right thing”?
Anyway, UAH is irrelevant except for the devoutly religious, so pray away.
BEST and GISS rock.
Thanks for the heads up, JCH, I probably wouldn’t have checked in with Roy,s page for awhile. Just keeps dropping, doesn’t it.
I’m anxious to see how updates on SLR look in the next few months, too.
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_SerieReference.png
Of course it drops. It always drop. The question is, why has it dropped such a tiny tiny amount.
You’ve been waiting for a SLR drop for of a couple of years now. Lol:
~15-year rate, data through early August:
https://i.imgur.com/RkU361T.png
10-year – ~ 4.33 mm/yr
5-year – ~4.67 mm/yr
Longest length of time in the record where the rate has not dropped below the longterm trend. Otherwise known as, a kick in the nutz telling you it’s accelerating.
Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August:
All thanks to Roy Spencer on high.
Must be nearly time for a bounce JCH, all that warm ocean and all. Wish there was more to come but do need some ocean cooling.
Also, it’s looking great. Double La Niña events in a row and you’re celebrating a monthly anomaly that will be around .74 to .78 ℃ on GISS, which is hot, as being cool. With all physics-reality-nonpolitical-nonreligious-based forecasts still indicating an El Niño is likely late 18/early 19.
Your analysis is bonkers.
I find it really surprising that we are in one of the top 5 cooling events of the past 70 years and there is really no mention of it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Figure.png
Data is 13-month averaged HadCrut 4.
This was two months ago. Since then the cooling has already surpassed the 1998 cooling event also in temperature drop. It will soon be a top 3 cooling event.
And the most curious thing that should attract scientists attention, is that this is the only top 10 cooling event that is not associated to a volcanic eruption or to a La Niña strong event (MEI ≤ -1). Why is the world cooling so much in the absence of an obvious reason? Well, an obvious reason to me is the centennial solar minimum that started in 2006 and since then has seen very low average solar activity.
If the La Niña event expected for 2020-21 turns out to be a strong one, this might be the strongest cooling event in a century. Stay tuned. Sooner or later this phenomenon will be noticed. Obviously, if it is due to low solar activity, then climate scientists and their models don’t have an explanation for it.
Whoops, your analysis is bonkers.
Javier, a prolonged cooling spell would really be the only way to win the argument at the moment.
Not quite happening in the Pacific last month.
This would need some extra tropical ocean heat lowering for a year or so, a shame we need weather to disprove specious CAGW claims.
Angech,
In late 2016, after studying the climate bibliography and data for years, and when I was already writing my articles to organize the information, I decided that a test was needed to evaluate what in my view are the two main competing theories to explain the Modern Global Warming.
1. If the consensus CO₂-hypothesis is correct, and CO₂ is really the control knob, then by 2025 the 13-month average HadCRUT4 GSAT should be 1.05 ± 0.15°C above 1961-90 baseline, as CMIP5 indicates. That’s just shy of the fabled +1.5°C over pre-industrial that is supposed to do us in.
2. If, as the evidence shows, the role of solar variability on climate has been underestimated, and the role of CO₂ has been overestimated, then due to the solar centennial low, by 2025 the 13-month average HadCRUT4 GSAT should be 0.55 ± 0.11°C above 1961-90 baseline, according to my calculations.
Both ranges are separated by 0.25°C, giving me confidence that if 2025 GSAT is within one range (or further) the other hypothesis is falsified. If it is between them it would be inconclusive.
https://i.imgur.com/vnLmL0y.png
The curious thing is that in late 2016 the 13-month average HadCRUT4 GSAT was above 0.70°C with everybody in the consensus side convinced the pause was over and only further warming could be expected. Two years later it is below 0.60°C, with a top 5 record temperature drop showing no signs of ending, as if the El Niño that killed the pause had not happened, since current temperature is already lower than when it started in 2015.
The CO₂-hypothesis is looking worse as time passes.
Figure it out, or not, doesn’t make a bit difference:
https://i.imgur.com/K1vItMJ.png
JCH,
Global Warming is already 42 years old, and it appears that a major work for climatologists is to come up with excuses for the planet not warming as much as expected. That is a fact that can be explained in multiple ways, and the ability to explain has never been a criterion for hypothesis confirmation.
What CERES says is interesting, but if the planet doesn’t warm much it might not be too relevant, or could even be wrong. After 42 years those promises that things are going to get really bad any moment now are not really credible anymore.
The current trend is equivalent to 2.3 C per doubling and extrapolated to 2025 would be 0.8-0.85 C above that baseline where it is 0.69 C at present. Your 1.05 C would require a doubling of the trend which is a doubling of the transient sensitivity, and nobody claims 4 C per doubling.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:12/offset:0.014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/trend:1990/offset:0.014
You can claim whatever you want Jim.
# ./bin/plotdat anomal 1961 1990 ./data/icmip5_tas_Amon_modmean_rcp45_0-360E_90–90N_n_+++.dat
# using minimal fraction of valid points 30.00
# tas [K] from Multi-model mean of historical+rcp45 experiments of ACCESS1-0 ACCESS1-3 bcc-csm1-1 bcc-csm1-1-m
# cutting out region lon= 0.000 360.000, lat= -90.000 90.000
2024.5000 1.02423
2024.5834 1.03403
2024.6666 1.06155
2024.7500 1.12268
2024.8334 1.15674
2024.9166 1.15143
2025.0000 1.13223
2025.0834 1.07672
2025.1666 1.05441
2025.2500 1.04446
2025.3334 1.03394
2025.4166 1.03082
2025.5000 1.03632
The 13-month average for 2025 is 1.0738
You have any problem with that take it to CMIP5. That’s the predicted warming according to IPCC sanctified models. My 1.05 is slightly below predicted warming, not above.
We all know models run too hot, but that is because they follow the CO₂-hypothesis, not reality. And that is the hypothesis to falsify.
You can’t (but do) mix observations up to 2017 with models up to 2025. It is discontinuous and makes no sense. I just use observations which themselves are consistent enough with AGW at 2.3 C per doubling.
That’s ridiculous. I am not mixing anything. I am comparing observations with model predictions. A hypothesis lives or dies by its predictions.
The current value is around 0.69. Your required value is 1.05. That implies you need a trend of 0.36 in 8 years or 0.045 per year. The trend has been 0.017 per year so far, consistent with over 2 C per doubling, and continuation of that supports over 2 C per doubling. If you want to use the model, use its trend between now and 2025 and add it to the temperature now. What you’re doing is assuming a discontinuity in the temperature trend. Or, use your red line which tracks both the observations and low-end models and is not discontinuous with the past.
Excuse me. I want my promised warming, not more excuses. If the warming trend is consistent with 2°C/doubling why does the IPCC use a range centered at 3, and why do models average 3? To scare children and gullible environmentalists?
In 1990 we were told +1°C by 2025. As far as I know the IPCC has not come out and said “sorry, the warming is not as bad as we originally thought.”
The transient rate in the middle of the IPCC range is nearer 2 C per doubling (they say 1-2.5). They don’t only use the CMIP5 models for this. Observations over the past 60 years support that, and I would expect that to continue even as the sun is dimming and they did not account for it.
Give me a break, Jim. All the scare and alarm is coming from models. 40 years of observations only support that the planet’s surface is warming essentially as it was warming before we added GHGs in earnest.
https://i.imgur.com/6J3xOIX.png
The observations support ~2 C per doubling which is a strong positive feedback. The observations are not going the skeptics’ way so they pick on the models instead. This transient rate is consistent with ~3 C per doubling as an equilibrium rate, and the IPCC projections use that in evaluating impacts. Models only support what the observations are telling us already.
Tsk. Back to your old assumptions. Observations only support the warming and give no indication of its cause. You assume it is all (and more) due to CO₂, but in fact we don’t know how much, if any, of the warming was caused by CO₂, and how much by other causes.
Models get a lot of things wrong, many of which are known but not usually discussed until a way is found to “correct” them. A lot of other things the models get wrong are not even known.
We have very solid evidence that we have greatly increased atmospheric GHGs. CO₂ by a third.
We have convincing evidence that the world has been warming during several periods of the past 170 years.
What is sorely lacking is the evidence showing that one is the cause of the other. And no, models do not constitute evidence.
Observations are evidence.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
What physics (just energy conservation) predicts is that warming is a result of forcing. Arrhenius and Callendar could even do this physics calculation without a GCM. The forcing change is dominated by CO2, and it is no surprise therefore that the CO2 has a 93% correlation with the warming. This high correlation also gives a sharp effective sensitivity near 2.3 C per doubling. Skeptics say a 93% correlation is just a lucky coincidence for AGW and dismiss the century-old physics that explains it.
And both were wrong in thinking that the increase in CO₂ at their time was responsible for the climate change at their time. Callendar was convinced the 1910-1940 warming was down to CO₂. Now we are convinced it was mostly natural. Their calculations couldn’t have been that good and they ignored other natural contributions. Same as now only we get the help of GCM to get it wrong.
The strong correlation between CO₂ and temp comes after a strong temp adjustment to correlate with CO₂. Originally they didn’t agree that much.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-5.19.35-AM.gif
It is a global correlation but USHCN is just the US. The US is 2 % of the global area. Try harder to develop your conspiracy theory. This one doesn’t cut it. The correlation is almost the same whether you use HADCRUT4, BEST or GISTEMP. Both CO2 and temperature are highly correlated with net forcing, and this is a consequence of basic energy conservation used in all energy budget models. Dismissing the forcing change is like dismissing global warming itself.
Ridiculous. CO₂ has been going up since the bottom of the LIA. Temperatures went up 1910-1945, down 1945-1975, up 1975-2005, and almost flat since 2005 except for the Niño blip now gone.
Temperature clearly doesn’t have a good correlation with CO₂. One is growing all the time the other is increasing in 30-year bouts. The problem is so clear that a different explanation is proposed for every period temperatures don’t increase, to Occam’s desperation.
75% of the CO2 forcing change has been since 1950. In 1950, the CO2 forcing was 0.5 W/m2, and today it is 2 W/m2. The trend in forcing has also tripled since then. The trend in warming followed this upswing. Before 1950 solar and GHG trends would have been similar in magnitude at ~0.1 W/m2/decade, so that period would have had a lower correlation to CO2 alone, but since then the solar forcing trends have been much weaker than CO2’s.
Those numbers are calculations, not measurements. You don’t appear to know the difference. The uncertainty in calculations is huge due to the assumptions taken.
Same problem. Given the uncertainty those numbers mean nothing.
You are not well informed. Solar activity was well above average until early 21st c., so it must have promoted warming. It only went below average coinciding with the pause.
https://i.imgur.com/9mwzJmV.png
Yes, I agree. It might be responsible at least in part for the +0.25°C difference between observed and expected since 1975.
https://i.imgur.com/MZZ7XtC.png
So you believe it when you plot it, but it is not OK for me to mention that the CO2 forcing has quadrupled since 1950 and its rate of change has tripled. Not sure where to go from here. Do you want to argue with your own CO2 forcing plots now?
On the solar side, given that the sunspots are similar to 1910 and we just had a 13-year slow cycle, how much do you think the sun has declined since 1950?
The problem is not that the forcing (whatever its real value) has increased greatly. This is obvious from the increase in CO₂. The problem is the quantum leap taken when it is assumed that we know the actual value of the forcing (it has never been measured), that we know its relative value to other factors, and that we can therefore conclude all or nearly all the warming is human CO₂ caused.
What other forcing factors do you consider even close to 2 W/m2, or the net 2-2.5 W/m2 from anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols. Bottom line is the that forcing is nearly all anthropogenic, and 70-100% is CO2 alone.
1910-1940 was a time when the sun went from a lull to a mid-century max, and that was a factor. The sun has causde fluctuations of +/-0.1 C in the temperature record which is quite a lot until you compare it with CO2. 75% of the CO2 forcing and its consequent warming have occurred since 1950, a period when the sun has returned to its lower activity conditions like a century ago. Up to 1950, the CO2 forcing had decadal trends similar to the sun, but its forcing trend has tripled since 1950 and it shows in the temperature record.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/from:1987/trend/plot/best/mean:12
Javier “Both ranges are separated by 0.25°C, giving me confidence that if 2025 GSAT is within one range (or further) the other hypothesis is falsified. If it is between them it would be inconclusive.”
–
Not good enough for me. I think you are undervaluing the true range of natural variability which over such a relatively short period has shown it can move values by much more than this.
–
Consequently if it happens warmists like Jim D will use the same arguments back on us, and rightly so.
Provable trends need bigger time intervals [at least 60 years] and slower changes. Otherwise if it cools down for a few years and warms up again it be wash, rinse repeat.
The value of a pause and then a fall over recent values cannot be overestimated in the damage it does to CAGW.
Look at the effect of another 0.05C fall on JCH.
Goes into immediate …what is that D word?
Angech,
I estimate at 150 years the time needed for everybody to realize that Modern Global Warming, a three centuries period, is clearly behind.
I don’t have those 60 years when we will know for sure that global warming has an important natural component and will not become dangerous.
6 years is sufficient time to convince myself that I am correct. The prediction is clear. No net warming during the centennial solar minimum. And it is the opposite prediction to the CO₂-hypothesis that calls for accelerating warming.
Feynman recognized that the easiest person to fool is oneself. That is why it is so important that a scientists is skeptical of his own hypotheses and searches for ways to prove himself wrong. If by 2025 GSAT is 0.9°C above 1961-1990 baseline I’ll know I was wrong.
Feynman recognized that the easiest person to fool is oneself.
He was talking directly to you.
I am professionally trained to fight that and many other biases. I always keep in mind the possibility of being wrong about anything and everything and the need to be solidly grounded on evidence and to not spouse any hypothesis. The thought of being completely wrong has never entered the mind of most consensus supporters, as they are just parroting what others say.
JCH, he was talking to (profesional) scientists.
“But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”
Therefore he was actually talking to me, even if in climate I am out of my field. More of a reason to be careful. However it has been often the case that outsiders to a field or even to science have had a less prejudiced more correct view.
This is the account by Jean de Charpentier of his encounter with a peasant on his way to try to challenge the consensus of the day, as told in the Imbries book “Ice Ages. Solving the mystery.”
– While the well-known scientists of the day clung steadfastly to the established ice-raft theory developed by Lyell and supported by the very words of the Bible, many Swiss people had long ago accepted the glacial theory. The irony of this situation struck de Charpentier forcefully when, on his way to present a paper on the glacial theory before the 1834 meeting of the society in Lucerne, he found some unexpected support.
Traveling through the valley of Hasli and Lungern, I met on the Brunig road a woodcutter from Meiringen. We talked and walked together for a while. As I was examining a large boulder of Grimsel granite, lying next to the path, he said: “There are many stones of that kind around here, but they come from far away, from the Grimsel, because they consist of Geisberger [granite] and the mountains of this vicinity are not made of it.”
When I asked him how he thought that these stones had reached their location, he answered without hesitation: “The Grimsel glacier transported and deposited them on both sides of the valley, because that glacier extended in the past as far as the town of Bern, indeed water could not have deposited them at such an elevation above the valley bottom, with- out filling the lakes.”
This good old man would never have dreamed that I was carrying in my pocket a manuscript in favor of his hypothesis. He was greatly astonished when he saw how pleased I was by his geological explanation, and when I gave him some money to drink to the memory of the ancient Grimsel glacier and to the preservation of the Brunig boulders.
In spite of the woodcutter’s toast, the theory was once again rejected by the society at Lucerne. –
Sometimes consensus scientists are the clueless ones despite, or because, of their knowledge.
Your claim that we are in a significant cooling event is preposterous. The energy content of the system continues to increase. I suspect Feynman, as a scientists, would be incapable of dismissing that as he did not like to fool himself.
I am sorry you don’t like the facts. The El Niño warming was significant enough to end the pause, yet we are now cooler than when the 2015-16 El Niño started.
Javier, I think Feynman was talking to professional scientists in their own field – them fooling themselves has the most negative effects on the progress of science.
Re: “40 years of observations only support that the planet’s surface is warming essentially as it was warming before we added GHGs in earnest.”
The relationship between increased CO2 and increased temperature is linear, not logarithmic. So you should know better that to act as if the rate for atmospheric CO2 is the same as the rate of increase CO2-induced. Yet here you are, acting otherwise. Amazing.
The rate of CO2-induced warming is near-linear, given the near-exponential rise in CO2 levels and the logarithmic relationship between increased CO2 and increased temperature. That near-linear warming rate other warming and cooling effects from other factors, such as sulfate aerosols and the AMO.
The near-exponential CO2 increase and near-exponential anthropogenic emissions increase is shown in sources such as:
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-1.html
“Atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years: A high-resolution record from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide ice core”
“Cenozoic mean greenhouse gases and temperature changes with reference to the Anthropocene”
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2011.html
“A revised 1000 year atmospheric d13C-CO2 record from Law Dome and South Pole, Antarctica”
The near-linear rate of anthropogenic warming (predominantly from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as:
“Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis”
“The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation”
“The origin and limits of the near proportionality between climate warming and cumulative CO2 emissions”
“Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake”
“Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause”
“Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records”
“The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions”
“The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing”
I think you have that wrong, because it doesn’t make any sense to me.
On theoretical grounds the increase in temperature should be linear to the increase in the logarithm of CO₂. But that is not what it is observed:
https://i.imgur.com/GGL0CoL.png
When we plot both with a common trendline to avoid visual manipulation what we can see is that temperature increase since 1900 has a ~60-year periodicity and shows very little acceleration. The log of CO₂ increase, however, shows a huge acceleration since the 1960’s and keeps accelerating to the present.
That alone is sufficient to reject the foolish idea that CO₂ is the temperature control knob, basis of the CO₂ hypothesis.
The addition of 100 ppm CO₂ to the atmosphere can only be responsible at most for the difference in warming between the 1910-45 and 1975-2000 periods. That is ~ 0.2°C which is one third of the observed warming for the whole period and works out to a sensitivity of ~ 0.6°C/CO₂ doubling. Perhaps it is a little bit bigger if we consider also the effect on the cooling periods, but we only have one complete cooling period since 1900 (1945-75). So at most we could be looking at a sensitivity of ~ 1.2°C/CO₂ doubling, and that is an upper limit assuming all additional warming as due to CO₂.
https://i.imgur.com/MZZ7XtC.png
0.5°C/century is the likely contribution by the CO₂ increase, which would become worrisome in a couple of centuries if it weren’t because we haven’t got enough fossil fuels to keep the party going that long.
I am sorry you don’t like the facts. The El Niño warming was significant enough to end the pause, yet we are now cooler than when the 2015-16 El Niño started.
That is not a cooling event. That is called “situation normal”.
Yes, I know any warming is abnormal and any cooling is normal but, as a scientist, the only difference to me is in the mathematical sign of the change. Any period of temperature decrease is a cooling period as any period of temperature increase is a warming period. I know, it sounds exotic.
Cargo cult. You are one: Girma II. And you’re a scientists too? Sober up, dude.
When arguments turn ad hominem one knows the other side is being defeated.
Spend 10 minutes in the arena of “nothun’ but the truth” and find out far the silly ad hominem argument gets you. Good grief. “You honor, I object. That mean guy at the other table just used an ad hominem.”
https://i.imgur.com/9o4Wrui.png
This is a scientific debate or it is not. If it is, ad hominem arguments have no place. If it isn’t, I have no interest in participating.
And the argument that the world is warming won’t get you far. The only interesting question is why is it warming.
The increase in the energy content of the earth system is continuing unabated. Right now. It’s only fall backs are major volcanic eruptions and the 1998 – 2001 La Niña. Because of the progressively increasing GHE.
There was a surge in the energy content of the system peaking at 2006, which is why is it exceptionally deceiving to be telling people there was no warming 2002 to 2014. There was a major warming of the earth system during that period.
The Earth system is extraordinarily cold. The average temperature of the ocean is 3.5°C, which is the normal temperature for the current icehouse Earth. 10% land surface is glaciated.
The increase in energy content is consistent with the modest warming observed, and well within Holocene variability, but the “because of the progressively increasing GHE” part is the one not sustained on evidence.
Both ERBS and CERES show Outgoing Longwave Radiation increasing since the late 1980s, indicating that OLR is responding to the warming, not causing it. If GHGs were responsible, the increase in energy would be due to a decrease in OLR, as theory and models say, but evidence doesn’t show.
In any case, if the energy increases but temperature does not, then either energy measurements are incorrect, or we don’t understand how climate responds to changes in energy. And there is a good chance we don’t understand climate very well, since surface warming started in 1976, yet OHC and energy imbalance didn’t start until ~ 1988.
Re: “I think you have that wrong, because it doesn’t make any sense to me.”
I already cited sources explaining it to you. If it doesn’t make sense to you, that isn’t a reflection of me being wrong; it’s more likely a reflection of you not being familiar with the relevant literature. What
Re: “That alone is sufficient to reject the foolish idea that CO₂ is the temperature control knob, basis of the CO₂ hypothesis.”
Nope, and it’s just you attacking a straw man. No one’s claiming that increased CO2 is the only factor affecting temperature trends. For example, you were already cited evidence on how sulphate aerosol and the AMO can affect temperature trends. Really, your logic is as ludicrous as saying that diurnal and weekly fluctuations in Canadian weather and temperature, show that Earth’s axial tilt relative to the Sun isn’t driving a multi-month warming trend from mid-winter to mid-summer in Canada.
Re: “The strong correlation between CO₂ and temp comes after a strong temp adjustment to correlate with CO₂. Originally they didn’t agree that much.”
You should know better than to repeat non-peer-reviewed, debunked nonsense from Tony Heller.
It doesn’t make sense because the relationship between CO₂ and temperature is supposed to be logarithmic, not linear as you say in the quoted text.
I didn’t say it is the only factor. I just repeated what Lacis et al., said:
Lacis, A. A., Schmidt, G. A., Rind, D., & Ruedy, R. A. (2010). Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), 356-359.
Ridiculous.
Tony Heller doesn’t have to teach me anything. I downloaded these two graphs at different times from the GISS page personally. One is from 2000 and the other from 2015.
https://i.imgur.com/8TQRmcB.png
The data in the second one is outside the errors bars from the first one. This means the data is rubbish and can’t be trusted. What do error bars mean if after adjustments the new values fall outside the range?
Re: “It doesn’t make sense because the relationship between CO₂ and temperature is supposed to be logarithmic, not linear as you say in the quoted text.”
And as I already explained to you, the rate of CO2-induced, anthropogenic global near-surface warming is expected to be near-linear. I already cited you sources explaining this to you. If it doesn’t make sense to you, then I suggest you go with the literature.
Re: “I didn’t say it is the only factor. I just repeated what Lacis et al., said:”
I’ve already read that paper. That’s how I know you weren’t simply repeating what was said in that paper. For example, nowhere in that papers did they claim that CO2 can be the “principle control knob” only if there is not a residual with a ~60 year periodicity, after removing the CO2-induced warming. Nor did they claim that CO2 is a principle control knob, only if the rate of CO2-induced warming accelerates. Those were claims you introduced.
Re: “Tony Heller doesn’t have to teach me anything. I downloaded these two graphs at different times from the GISS page personally. One is from 2000 and the other from 2015.”
A few points.
First, the graph you initially copied from Heller is for USHCN:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881695
You’ve now shifted to GISS. The two are not the same. If you want to learn about homogenization for USHCN and GHCN, then I suggest you not parrot Heller’s non-peer-reviewed nonsense, and instead read papers like:
“Evaluating the impact of US Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the US Climate Reference Network”
“An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network monthly mean temperature data set, version 3”
Second, if you want to learn about the homogenization of US temperature records in general, then feel free to read sources such as:
“Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215
“Benchmarking the performance of pairwise homogenization of surface temperatures in the United States”
Third, GISS gets the about the same results as other research groups for the global trend. So if you think is up to no good shenanigans for global trends, then there’s quite a number of folks you’re also going to need to think are in on the plot/conspiracy:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-W51Sj1_-2wg/Ww7uI8kK6cI/AAAAAAAABms/GuST0gGkZpg4uGPzxbuFkZrqzhMMzAADgCPcBGAYYCw/s640/global%2Btemperature%2Bcomparisons.JPG
[from: “Recent United Kingdom and global temperature variations”]
You explained nothing, as usual, because I doubt you even understand what you say. You should get some classes from Jim D that at least appears to understand the basics. Since the First Assessment Report in 1990, the IPCC has been calculating CO₂ radiative forcing as a logarithm of the increase in concentration. In 2001 IPCC TAR the forcing was stablished as 3.7 Wm⁻² per doubling, coming from this formula:
ΔF = 5.35 ln(c/co)
given in table 6.2
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/myhre1.gif
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.PDF
If you have doubts about how the formula is derived, here you have not one, but two ways:
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/eqn%20derivation.pdf
This relationship or a similar one goes into every GCM, so if you think the relationship is lineal (and you believe a couple of papers that appear to say so), then you reject every model’s results. Welcome to the club.
Lacis says already in the title that atmospheric CO₂ is the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. He says that Earth is unique among terrestrial planets in having a greenhouse effect in which water vapor provides strong amplification of the heat-trapping action of the CO2 greenhouse. This is an interesting proposition that has not been demonstrated. John Tyndall proposed in 1861 that water vapor controlled climate and nobody has been able to prove him wrong.
All the rest is equally non sensical and not worth discussing it. You appear to be a debater interested in having the last word, regardless of the science behind, as if winning an internet debate by tiring the opponent meant anything.
It turns out that the correlation with both log CO2 and linear CO2 is 93% in the period of the Keeling curve. This is because even through the log is slightly nonlinear the emissions are even more nonlinear, and both the log and linear CO2 gradients have about tripled since the 1950’s.
Re: “You explained nothing, as usual, because I doubt you even understand what you say.”
Nope. I explained it and gave you sources backing up what I said. You just seem to have neither nor understood them. Oh well. Once again:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881694
The rate of CO2-induced warming is near-linear, given the near-exponential rise in CO2 levels and the logarithmic relationship between increased CO2 and increased temperature. That near-linear warming rate other warming and cooling effects from other factors, such as sulfate aerosols and the AMO.
[…]
The near-linear rate of anthropogenic warming (predominantly from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as:
“Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis”
“The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation”
“The origin and limits of the near proportionality between climate warming and cumulative CO2 emissions”
“Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake”
“Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause”
“Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records”
“The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions”
“The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing”
Re: “Since the First Assessment Report in 1990, the IPCC has been calculating CO₂ radiative forcing as a logarithm of the increase in concentration. […] This relationship or a similar one goes into every GCM, so if you think the relationship is lineal (and you believe a couple of papers that appear to say so), then you reject every model’s results. Welcome to the club.”
Please actually try to pay attention this time. As I showed you again above, I did not claim there was a linear relationship between increases in CO2 concentration and CO2’s radiative forcing. So you can drop that straw man of your’s. I instead that:
1) there’s a logarithmic relationship between the rate of CO2 increase and the rate of CO2-induced warming.
2) the rate of anthropogenic, CO2-induced warming is expected to be (and actually is) near-linear.
And no, I did not just cite you “a couple of papers” on this. I cited several, as I showed above. Try actually reading them.
Re: “Lacis says already in the title that atmospheric CO₂ is the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. He says that Earth is unique among terrestrial planets in having a greenhouse effect in which water vapor provides strong amplification of the heat-trapping action of the CO2 greenhouse. This is an interesting proposition that has not been demonstrated.”
First, I’m glad you’re now actually addressing what the Lacis et al. paper said, instead of the straw man you were initially attacking. So it looks like some progress was finally made there.
Second, unfortunately, you once again show you aren’t very familiar with the relevant literature on this topic. Water vapor amplification of warming is well-established, including water vapor’s positive feedback on CO2-induced warming. I suggest you go do some reading on this. The following sources should get you started:
“Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming”
“Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe”
“Desert amplification in a warming climate”
“Mechanisms for stronger warming over drier ecoregions observed since 1979”
“An assessment of tropospheric water vapor feedback using radiative kernels”
“Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements”
“An analysis of tropospheric humidity trends from radiosondes”
Re: “You appear to be a debater interested in having the last word, regardless of the science behind, as if winning an internet debate by tiring the opponent meant anything.”
Weren’t you the person who was just ranting about how bad ad hominems are? Oh well; not everyone lives up to their own standards, I guess:
“When arguments turn ad hominem one knows the other side is being defeated.”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881702
This is absolutely bonkers.
First: Nobody has been able to measure anthropogenic warming, as a heat increase does not contain information about its cause. Assuming the observed warming is anthropogenic is not a good start for a science-based exchange.
Second: Warming rate is not linear nor near-linear. It has a 60-year periodicity that has nothing to do with CO₂.
https://i.imgur.com/ZTHlJ7X.png
I haven’t changed my view. Glacis et al. defend that atmospheric CO₂ is the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature and I say it is a ridiculous proposition.
Sorry but no. We are again in a case where assumptions are being made that have not been demonstrated. The most relevant water vapor response is the change in cloud cover, and the consequent change in atmospheric albedo. As you are aware, a 1% decrease in cloud albedo is equivalent to almost a doubling of CO₂. Since we are not capable of measuring changes in albedo with sufficient resolution we have no idea not only of the value of the water vapor feedback, but of its sign. From then on everything else is just fantasy trying to pass as science.
Not intended as an ad hominem. I am just wondering how worth is for me to answer you and I am coming to the realization that it is probably zero.
Re: “Nobody has been able to measure anthropogenic warming, as a heat increase does not contain information about its cause. Assuming the observed warming is anthropogenic is not a good start for a science-based exchange.”
Those are just evidence-free claims from you. You were already cited evidence on the rate of CO2-induced anthropogenic warming; you denying that is your problem, not mine.
And no, the warming is not simple “assum[ed]” to be be anthropogenic, since there are multiple lines of evidence for it being anthropogenic and CO2-induced. You really should look up how causal attribution is done in science, especially climate science. Start with stratospheric cooling (especially cooling higher in the stratosphere, and cooling in the mesosphere and thermosphere) and climate sensitivity estimates from the geologic record; proceed from there. If you need this simplified for you further, then I can give you a basic introduction to causal attribution using an adapted version of Bradford Hill considerations.
Re: “Warming rate is not linear nor near-linear. It has a 60-year periodicity that has nothing to do with CO₂.”
Once again, please actually pay attention when people explain stuff to you. I did not say the total rate of warming is linear or near-linear, so you’re attacking a straw man. I said:
“The rate of CO2-induced warming is near-linear, given the near-exponential rise in CO2 levels and the logarithmic relationship between increased CO2 and increased temperature. That near-linear warming rate other warming and cooling effects from other factors, such as sulfate aerosols and the AMO.”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881694
So I said that the rate of CO2-induced warming was near-linear, not that the total rate of warming was near-linear. I told you this multiple times. Please read closely next time. And yes, I’m well aware that removing the near-linear CO2-induced warming trend from the total warming trend, leaves one with a residual with a ~60-year periodicity. That’s why I mentioned “the AMO” in the above. Again, you would have noticed that if you’d bothered to read closely, or bothered to read even the first paper I listed for you:
“Deducing multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trends using multiple regression analysis”
Re: “The most relevant water vapor response is the change in cloud cover, and the consequent change in atmospheric albedo. As you are aware, a 1% decrease in cloud albedo is equivalent to almost a doubling of CO₂. Since we are not capable of measuring changes in albedo with sufficient resolution we have no idea not only of the value of the water vapor feedback, but of its sign. From then on everything else is just fantasy trying to pass as science.”
Scientific research doesn’t become “fantasy” just because non-experts like you are not familiar with it due to you neither reading it nor understanding it.
Anyway, the water vapor feedback is not the same as the cloud feedback. The mechanisms for the two aren’t even the same. To briefly explain this:
Water vapor as a positive feedback: Warming evaporates liquid water to form water vapor. This increases water vapor levels in the air, because warmer air can hold more water vapor. More water vapor causes further warming, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Clouds as a positive feedback: Clouds reflect solar radiation into space and thus can act as a negative feedback; clouds also reflect/absorb radiation emitted by the Earth and thus can act as a positive feedback. Lower level clouds tend to act as a negative feedback, while higher level clouds tend to act as a positive feedback. Climate models predict a net positive feedback from clouds due to increases in higher level clouds and reductions in lower level clouds in response to warming.
If you want some background on the topic of clouds, actually read the scientific literature, instead of making evidence-free claims on how scientific research is “fantasy”. If you did that, then you’d know that there’s evidence for the model-predicted, CO2-induced positive feedback from clouds. You should also familiarize yourself with albedo measurements. Some introductory material on this for you below:
“The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.
[…]
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 increasing greenhouse gases will cause these cloud trends to continue in the future unless offset by unpredictable large volcanic eruptions.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18273
“A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011)”
Re: “I am just wondering how worth is for me to answer you and I am coming to the realization that it is probably zero.”
Then don’t answer. It’s up to you. I’m not under the illusion that the evidence I’m citing will convince you, anymore than I’m under the illusion that I can convince a flat Earther by citing scientific research showing that Earth is round. They’d probably just brush off the evidence as being “[f]antasy”, like you did above.
So I’m not answering you because I think you can be convinced by evidence. I’m answering you for other reasons, such as informing future readers who are genuinely interested in the scientific evidence, seeing if you actually say anything I can learn from (hasn’t happened yet), for the lulz, etc.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning – may cause nightmares.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like
Re Khazan and the Quern Bee and gender discrimination at work.
Men in the office work hard, struggle and deserve the promotion but don’t get it, too. We understand: the schmuck jerk got it because he is just like the schmuck jerk above him! It ain’t fair but leaders reproduce themselves. That is why corporations have long-term cultures.
Less competency? More golf, cigars, scotch and similar politics expressed. Immediately women who are not masculine are at a disadvantage – but we are, too!
When 3 out of 10 are women, and a job goes to the golden “boy”, 3 women are passed over … but so are 6 men!
Men get it. The bosses pick those most like them after successfully manipulating the rest of us to work our asses off because that goog job “could” be ours! No it couldn’t. It is a con. After 10 years or so, most of us get it.
I think some of the unfairness is perceived by women as a generic man vs an individual woman. “Any” man gets picked first. I will tell you, within the men, it is NOT any man. And competency or even “team player” isn’t enough. The oily ones do better.
In order to see if discrimination is a big factor, you would have to compare oily vs oily and like vs like.
Some of what I see from women complaints is a confusion about ANY man has more competency than THIS women. For us males, it is THAT guy’s other qualities count more than the competencies of ANY of us, women OR men. Sure, have seen strong male preferences in my career. And I have seen successful ladder climbers of both genders. But the successful ladder climbers were the same regardless of gender. Not terribly nice people. Just like the bosses.
If, as some say “niceness” is less developed in males, then the male GROUP will be overrepresented at the top. But nice doesn’t compete or produce or – most importantly – doesn’t look/act like the ones above.
Businesses, politics, military aren’t collegial: they are competitive, winner-loser environments with Alphas stepping on and manipulating Betas to get ahead. Playing or living nice and you show up in the Darwin awards.
(P.S. Chamberlain gave us a sense of what would happen if you insist on living nice: we’d all be writing in German.)
Earth to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUl7-SvntQ4
At about: 52:50 he talks about smuggling one contradiction into science. I think it applies to climate science. The point will me made in less than 3 minutes. Once you allow in nonsense, one time, then the whole thing falls apart. He talks about some scientists knowing this, and it should probably be all of them. It makes sense. The one thing is not CO2 warms. What the one thing that was smuggled into climate science, I’ll leave that up to you all to say. Also in the video, they talk about de-platforming by institutions. MeToo is de-platforming people, you get it. Youtube is at times doing that. You can’t go against these loons or you’ll get de-platformed. MSM tries to de-platform but we still have Fox. Unless, you stand up like the IDW. Rubin’s trying to do that. Who knows though? Off the subject (X 2), the IDW will talk about MSM dying. It is. They don’t know what to do against the internet. As they die, they do more and more extreme things like being Democrats 95% of the time on air. (Comediens are dying too, you get it.) We see we are polarized. We used to have an objective media. And Trump’s right. The NY Times is dying. Because of this, we are facing a transistion that may be not so much fun.
There’s enough start in the load of lunacy to put a straw man on every corner in America for halloween.
Can we narrow it down to one specific straw man?
Once you allow in nonsense, one time, then the whole thing (science) falls apart. I’ve been thinking about, what the one thing was in regards to climate science? The consensus. So, from here on, we are all in this together. Then there are the naturalists and the cycle or quasi-cycle people. There isn’t much of that. Sure there’s a little of that and we had to call them back in for the pause that wasn’t a pause, but the consensus broke and researched it anyways. We better keep an eye on those people. Related perhaps is the IPCC. It existing and given authority. The simple framing of the issue, the human caused component. The emphasis of that. So maybe it’s more than one thing. At what point have you let enough other things so that the whole climate field is not longer science?
Meanwhile elsewhere Saskatoon weather outlook: 100-year-old cold record broken, snowy start to October – very interesting Jim D.
Were you under the impression that cold records would no longer be broken?
It’s just ridiculous. The amount of cold it would take to derail the current heatwave? He would be frequently listing 100’s of cities with cold records. One. Lol.
Current heatwave has been broken in September. UAH anomaly +0.14C, same as 1983.
To alarmists, most data is laughable – unless adjusted.
UAH is heavily adjusted.
And here’s why angech …..
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
It’s just weather but what’s interesting is that again the Arctic is anomalously warm in autumn, this pushing cold air south into Canada.
Indeed it’s been a feature of winters too since 2011…
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
TE,
So the arctic is running at 10*C in Oct, 2.7*C above 30 year average for this day?
Or is it plus 10*C above 79-2000 base average of -10*C?
Scott
“Ahh, Tony,
“Ragnaar | October 3, 2018 ” has my perfect answer for you and your nonsense.
“Once you allow in nonsense, one time, then the whole thing (science) falls apart.”
Bless.
Observations are “nonsense” now are they.
(That’s all I linked to).
Well my friend, since you have taken away the bedrock of science…
It seems you, made the enterprise a nonsense.
Good luck with that
There is UAH and there is RSS. Which of the respective scientific groups has forced the other respective group to fix their satellite series the most times?
Both UAH and RSS have a higher trend as of September 2018 than they had when the 14-16 El Niño ended.
During this “huge” post El Niño cooling the satellite era trend has gone up: both UAH and RSS. This is not true of the immediate years after the 05 El Niño and 2010 El Niño. At least in those “situation normal” coolings, there was enough cooling to actually reduce the satellite-era trend for UAH and RSS.
A scientist has discovered the GMST goes down after an El Niño. Stop the presses. Holy cow.
You’re the one who is sad, angech.
And here’s why angech …..
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
It’s just weather but what’s interesting is that again the Arctic is anomalously warm in autumn, this pushing cold air south into Canada.
Indeed it’s been a feature of winters too since 2011.
BTW: you do notice how much red is on that map?
Lot’s of anomalous heat:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png
because it’s freezing, releasing latent heat:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2min_1-day.png
which is consistent with AGW, but it’s hot because it’s cold.
Ahh, Tony,
“Ragnaar | October 3, 2018 ” has my perfect answer for you and your nonsense.
“Once you allow in nonsense, one time, then the whole thing (science) falls apart.”
Harsh words but for an educated man you consistently push biased and misleading nonsense viewpoints.
Not alone of course
“UAH is heavily adjusted. -[not true]
With all physics-reality-nonpolitical-nonreligious-based forecasts still indicating an El Niño is likely late 18/early 19. [absolutely non true and worse JCH knows this]
Anyway, UAH is irrelevant except for the devoutly religious, so pray away.”
[known as the sour grape argument for 2 millenium]
–
We have a system of satellites and a rigorous team endeavoring to get the best out of them. This provides an almost world wide and rapidly updated advanced intelligent and comprehensive picture of temperature patterns over the whole globe day and night.
It beggars, it beats into puny insignificance Mosher’s tiny band of continually cruelly altered, earth based, poorly sited, poorly checked, malfunctioning and mismatched [in some places] temperature monitors.
One days satellite recordings give more weather information than 100 years of earth based sites plus it is on the spot accurate at the time not needing months to all put together and analyze.
Now I like any information and the land based has a lot of pluses as well but pretending that satellites are in second place because they do not confirm the hope that world temperatures are going up rapidly is sad, and not scientific.
“UAH is heavily adjusted. -[not true] BS.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/01/uahadj30.png
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2018/01/satellite-temperatures-are-adjusted.html
Re: ““UAH is heavily adjusted. -[not true]”
No, very true. It’s adjusted to reduce warming, especially post-1998 warming:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DosfvV1UcAAPC2b.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j1KHCgHI6x0/WWxsKdLiCHI/AAAAAAAAAe0/amInMXsA3U0GsGIJtM0ZA3NBHa3WI71HQCKgBGAs/s400/RSS%2Band%2BUAH%2BTLT%252C%2B4.PNG
[from: “A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”]
Let me know when you decide to retract your blatantly false claim.
Tony Banton | October 4, 2018 at 1:06 pm |
“Ahh, Tony, “Ragnaar | October 3, 2018 ” has my perfect answer for you and your nonsense.“Once you allow in nonsense, one time, then the whole thing (science) falls apart.”
–
“Observations are “nonsense” now are they. (That’s all I linked to)”.
–
Nice try at deflection. Your comments are what I was referring to. Your graphs are fine, as they should be coming from someone with your experience.
JCH | October 3, 2018 at 5:38 pm |
“UAH is heavily adjusted.”
JCH | October 4, 2018 at 10:55 am |
“UAH is heavily adjusted. -[not true] BS.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) | October 4, 2018 at 11:35 pm |
“It’s adjusted to reduce warming, especially post-1998 warming:”
–
Just amazing, good to see a warmist finally admit the existence of the pause, even if only in claiming data adjustment as a cause. Thanks Atom.
–
But seriously, Satellites are a data set. There is a computer program set up for a particular orbit. The orbit changes over time, the input parameters have to be changed. Note it is the satellite orbit that changes, the computer program merely reflects the fact that a changed orbit is used.
–
Atom shows the true warmist conspiracy thrust that is embedded in JCH’s
“UAH is heavily adjusted.”
When the data disagrees with the warming they want and need
or for Tony,
When the observations disagree with the warming they want and need.
They call the data, the observations fake and adjusted.
So sad. The data is there. the observations are there and they do not agree with the little pet theory so it has to be heavily adjusted or what was the other comment
“Anyway, UAH is irrelevant except for the devoutly religious, so pray away.”
Cargo cult, yes. That is the right term.
Re: “Just amazing, good to see a warmist finally admit the existence of the pause, even if only in claiming data adjustment as a cause. Thanks Atom.”
I did no such thing, so stop misrepresenting what I said. If you want people to take you seriously, then you need to learn to stop pretending they said things they didn’t say. If you can’t even do that, then informed+honest science discussion is not for you, and you will expose yourself as someone who misrepresents people for ideological reasons.
Your assigned reading on your so-called “pause” is below:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dozx5EmXoAAXP6a.jpg
[Figure 4 of: “Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations”]
“Satellite temperature measurements do not support the recent claim of a “leveling off of warming” over the past two decades.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443760/
“We find that the public discussion of time intervals within the range 1998–2014 as somehow unusual or unexpected, as indicated by terms like ‘hiatus’, ‘pause’ and ‘slowdown’, has no support in rigorous study of the temperature data.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6825/meta
“Given the results of this nuanced analysis, we conclude that claims that the global mean temperature has not changed in recent decades are not supported by evidence. In addition, our nuanced analysis gives much needed rigor to the claim that using 1998 as a reference year amounts to *“cherry picking”* [Leber, 2014, Stover, 2014], see also Supplemental Section for detailed discussions).”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y?dom=icopyright&src=syn
“The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s, which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997–1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/full
Re: ““UAH is heavily adjusted.”
When the data disagrees with the warming they want and need
or for Tony,
When the observations disagree with the warming they want and need.
They call the data, the observations fake and adjusted.
So sad. The data is there. the observations are there and they do not agree with the little pet theory so it has to be heavily adjusted or what was the other comment”
UAH is heavily adjusted, as Spencer and Christy themselves admit. It’s not our fault that you don’t know this; you should do your homework next time, instead of inventing false claims. The adjustments include diurnal drift correction, inter-satellite calibration, correction for the warm target factor, etc.
And unlike the near-surface temperature record, we don’t have access to the raw satellite data. So if critics like you actually believed what you said about wanting raw data to compare to the homogenized analyses, then you would opt for a near-surface analysis like GISTEMP, not a satellite-based analysis like UAH. But really, anyone sensible person knows that you critics don’t actually believe the criticisms you offer; you’re just being opportunistic and engaging in motivated reasoning.
Anyway, more on the incompetence of UAH’s adjustments (incompetence that was admitted to by Spencer and Christy, by the way):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnqoAGNW4AA-o-R.jpg
[from: “Correcting temperature data sets”]
Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) | October 6, 2018 at 11:28 am |
Re: “Just amazing, good to see a warmist finally admit the existence of the pause, even if only in claiming data adjustment as a cause. Thanks Atom.”I did no such thing, so stop misrepresenting what I said”
Such as
“Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) | October 4, 2018 at 11:35 pm |
Re: ““UAH is heavily adjusted. -[not true]” No, very true. It’s adjusted to reduce warming, especially post-1998 warming:”
Certainly sounds like an admission of the Pause to me and everyone else here.
You know, when warming reduced after 1998.
Could try to wriggle out, terms like reduction not meaning reduction, etc.
Go for it but not too long.
Re: “Certainly sounds like an admission of the Pause to me and everyone else here. You know, when warming reduced after 1998.”
No, it isn’t. Actually read for comprehension this time. You’re acting like I said 1, when I actually said 2:
1) the actual rate of warming in the world decreased post-1998
2) UAH changed their lower tropospheric analysis between UAH version 5.6 and UAH version 6, such that version 6 shows less post-1998 warming than does version 5.6
I even included a graph that made this point obvious. So stop misrepresenting what I said, and read for comprehension.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881733
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j1KHCgHI6x0/WWxsKdLiCHI/AAAAAAAAAe0/amInMXsA3U0GsGIJtM0ZA3NBHa3WI71HQCKgBGAs/s400/RSS%2Band%2BUAH%2BTLT%252C%2B4.PNG
[from: “A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”]
“2) UAH changed their lower tropospheric analysis between UAH version 5.6 and UAH version 6, such that version 6 shows less post-1998 warming than does version 5.6”
Also, post ’98 the AMSU sensor onboard NOAA15 shows a cooling trend relative to predecessor MSU on NOAA14.
The RSS group partially corrected for it (split the difference). But the UAH team believed the newer one to be of “Cadillac quality” and so have presumed it correct.
https://i1.wp.com/postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/diff.jpeg?w=500&h=231
Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) | October 7, 2018 at 9:33 pm |
Re: “Certainly sounds like an admission of the Pause to me and everyone else here. You know, when warming reduced after 1998.”
“No, it isn’t.”
Let’s see, you state,
1) the actual rate of warming in the world decreased post-1998
So, no pause? actually a decline is what your claiming?
Even better.
–
“I even included a graph that made this point obvious.”
Yes, I can see the pause in it. Not the decline you are claiming though. It just looks sort of flat for a long time [pause] after 1998.
Tony Banton | October 8, 2018 at 11:47 am |
Thank you for highlighting real huge adjustments to original data
“post ’98 the AMSU sensor onboard NOAA15 shows a cooling trend relative to predecessor MSU on NOAA14.”
So
“The RSS group partially corrected for it “(made a huge adjustment to data that did not agree with what they were looking for). “But the UAH team” treated it as normal data.
Alberta had the snowiest September on record. October started with worst snowstorm in over 100 years . . . better them than us. Bring the heat.
You’ve obviously not noticed but Alberta is not the world.
Look at above map to see where your warmth is. Much more of it than there should be.
The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy
Robert S. Pindyck
Discusses the made up damage function that is used for calculating the social cost of carbon. I am skeptical of any damage function D(T) that has Temperature or the Change of Temperature as its primary independent variable. In order to calculate damage, the change of the change of temperature is logical choice of a variable.
There is a rule in science that the simplest function that adequately describes a phenomenon is the function that should be used.
Using temperature to determine damages has problems. One reason is that damages are minimized when temperatures are minimized which is not physically true. For instance, when temperature is zero damages are minimized which is obvious nonsense.
Using the change of temperature with respect to time to determine damages is also problematic. This leads to the non-physical result that the same damage is seen with a two degree change in temperature over a year as a two degree change in temperature over ten years. Adaptation is much easier over the longer time frame so the damages would be much less, and the potential for benefits would also increase. For example if a farmer knows it is going to be warmer then he could plant crops that would optimize his profits based on the warmer temperatures. Another example is a species could more easily migrate to a more agreeable temperature given a longer time to do so.
Therefore the simplest function for damages is the change in the change of temperature with respect to time (acceleration) which makes it the logical choice for the damage function.
Note that damages happen at the regional or local level so damages can only be really calculated at this level. However, most of the damages from temperatures come from freezing not from elevated temperatures. Drought is also a problem, but the connection between drought and temperature increases is complex as temperature increases cause water to evaporate and therefore more ocean water becomes rain resulting in wetter conditions on land.
Just spotted this paper today, hugely importantant, I’m using this in the next paper I am writing.
This might be good or bad, but Pindyck expresses well many of the the main points I have been trying to convey for the last 20 years. But he has the advantage that I am not very bright. Geoff.
‘In a recent article (Pindyck 2013a), I argued that integrated
assessment models (IAMs) “have crucial flaws that make them
close to useless as tools for policy analysis” (page 860). In fact,
I would argue that the problem goes beyond their “crucial flaws”:
IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of
knowledge and precision that is illusory and can fool policy
makers into thinking that the forecasts the models generate
have some kind of scientific legitimacy.’ Robert Pindyck.
Opinion is not fact,
opinion is not tested
observation. Opinion is jest
that – opinion.
“….perception of knowledge and precision that is illusory….”
That pretty well sums up all of climate science. Any deep dive into the actual peer reviewed scientific studies makes that self evident. Except to those who have deluded themselves into thinking it’s a slam dunk.
Re Twitter link…
So, we should take these GCM’s with the seriousness we’d invest in the prognostications of a Magic 8-Ball or the science of ancient astrology when it comes to allowing a Eurocommunist takeover of the economy to avoid the destruction of all living species on Earth. Got it!
Leaked US critique of climate report sets stage for political showdown in Korea
The US also questioned whether limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C was the best way to slash poverty and improve well being, noting the benefits associated with higher energy consumption.
“The SPM fails to note that recent decades have seen the fastest declines in global poverty in both numbers and proportion of population even as fossil fuel use has exploded,” the US stated. “The fastest and greatest declines in poverty have occurred in China and India even as they have ramped up their use of fossil fuels.”
The global temperature is already 1C above pre-industrial levels, yet, the US said, “humanity has never been more prosperous, less poverty-stricken, less hungry, longer-lived and healthier than today”.
But that argument is “nonsensical”, countered Robert Kopp, director of the Institute of Earth, Ocean & Atmospheric Sciences at Rutgers University and a lead author on the US government 2017 climate assessment.
“It’s like saying that, because average life expectancies in the US are growing, overuse of opiates isn’t a problem,” Kopp said.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/02/leaked-us-critique-climate-report-sets-stage-political-showdown-korea/
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/02/leaked-us-critique-climate-report-sets-stage-political-showdown-korea/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=75720ab4fb-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_03_11_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-75720ab4fb-20169925
Cooling effect of preindustrial fires on climate underestimated
“…finds that emissions from fire activity were significantly greater in the preindustrial era, which began around 1750, than previously thought. As a result, scientists have underestimated the cooling effect the aerosol particles produced by these fires had on the past climate.”
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-cooling-effect-preindustrial-climate-underestimated.html#jCp
“What we’re showing here in this new advanced model is that, as fires increase in the future, the additional warming that was predicted in more basic models could be an actual cooling relative to present day, because we resolve the size and composition of black carbon in more detail, combined with what is going on with other aerosol and gases that are also co-emitted with the fires,” Hamilton said.
One way to look at it is, it warmed because we have less fire activity.
Politicians are applying the appropriate discount factor to the inflated ECS in models and ridiculous RCP 8.5 claims. Just not buying the BS.
I don’t think politicians are even applying that much thought to AGW policy anymore. It was relatively easy to talk about limiting CO2 during the years of the global recession- much less so now.
Plus, by now the world has learned that no developed nation is going 100% renewable (or anything close to it) and it is unsustainable to demand more and more tax pain in the west when every ton of emissions cut is offset by two tons of emissions increase in China. When even the warm can’t come up with an actual policy proposal to cut global emissions, nobody else will.
Consider Merkel in Germany- the industrial regions want to ramp up manufacturing as the economy improves, the greens want to shut down nuclear power, wind/solar are maxed out in terms of both engineering and how much she can raise the cost of energy to citizens, no competent observer thinks the country will hit its emissions cut goals and global warming activists say the country hasn’t even started imposing the pain that’s necessary on it’s people and economy yet. What do you do? Talk a good game, blame Trump, declare victory and approve some coal power plants.
Some interesting letters in The Australian today
China is the fly in the climate-change ointment
Graham Lloyd provides an interesting article outlining the upcoming recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on what the world must do to meet the Paris targets (“IPCC’s degrees of division”, 4/10). He quoted IPCC chief scientist Jian Liu who says “the world’s environmental problems, including climate change, were interlinked”, and “resolving these issues needs source solutions and engaging everyone”.
Well, Jian Liu happens to be a citizen of China, born and educated in China and has held, and still holds, important government positions in China. It happens that under the Paris accord, China is exempt from any emissions reduction targets until 2030. China may continue to ramp up an economy that generates 30 per cent of global emissions.
With most other developed countries under the Paris accord forced to reduce emissions and curtail economic growth, it is likely that by 2030 China will be generating close to 50 per cent of global emissions.
Furthermore, under the Paris accord, developed nations must contribute $100 billion to a fund to alleviate the effects of climate change in undeveloped countries.
There are reports this fund needs even more money. But China is, under the Paris accord, exempt from contributing a brass razoo. While it need not contribute to this fund despite being the main reason for it, China may use its financial resources to engage in the “debt-trap diplomacy” outlined by Paul Maley (4/10) where developing nations including several in our immediate region are being targeted by China to provide strategic assets and infrastructure in return for unaffordable loans. We are sleep walking into a trap much bigger than Paris.
Geoff Ellis, Smithfield, Qld
“Of course the December meeting of the IPCC in Poland will be one of the most important in its history. IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee has to say that to drum up interest in the political fantasy now being drafted.
Real political interest in global warming is evaporating as many countries — including Australia — experience weather extremes similar to those of the last little ice age.
Even sea levels haven’t risen as were meant to. The inundation of all of the Maldives within 30 years, as forecast in some quarters, is a perfect example of the alarmist nonsense written by gullible media, enviro-profiteers and climate scientists who wallow in government funding.
Australia should boycott this meeting and refuse further funding of the Paris accord.”
Brent Walker, Killcare, NSW
“It’s time to call the IPCC to account. It is 30 years since the UN alarm bells rang and the IPCC produced its first report with a “prediction” (not even a qualified forecast) that average global temperatures would increase by 0.3 C per decade — 0.9 C by today.
Satellite readings show we have had 0.1 C rise over that period. There is no evidence of dangerous global warming despite greenhouse gas concentrations increasing as forecast.
The climate alarmism movement has been built on that report. It has been proven wrong and it is time for the world to recognise that the emperor has no clothes.
It would be even more ridiculous for large amounts of money to be spent on attempting to contain emissions to keep the rise since industrial times to 2 C or 1.5 C, when this is likely to be the outcome anyway.”
Geoff Dunsford, Lindfield, NSW
Practical energy, economics, environment and human rights emerge from wealth, democracy and the rule of law. Wealth comes from markets – that have rules. There is the innovation windfall or the trade windfall. After a flurry of first of a kind prototype in the next decades, fueled by government guarantees for FOAK, the dust settles on safe and efficient factory produced modular nuclear reactors.
Let’s face it – everywhere not on a continent spanning electricity grid is an island. New analysis of SMR’s – first link – https://www.google.com.au/search?q=modular+nuclear&rlz=1C1DIMA_enAU806AU806&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRn6-oye3dAhVFEbwKHQ3sAMEQpwUIIw&biw=445&bih=438
Note also that the NRC accepted – some weeks ago – the TVA methodology on safety zones for modular nuclear.
I was trying to link economic freedom with sulfide and black carbon particulates in air. The warming potential of black carbon measured in plumes over China increased by double with mixed sulfides in the source. But with enough of the former the latter can be fixed.
And if you need some shade for your highly productive and nutritious, CO2 sequestering, intensively grazed cows. Shade is needed in warmer climates.
http://shadehaven.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mobile-Shade-Structure-6-1024×731.png
http://shadehaven.net/serious-about-rotational-grazing-get-serious-about-shade/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIg9W8lPLt3QIVCB4rCh3Wfgh_EAAYASAAEgKZ0vD_BwE
JCH @ October 3, 2018 at 3:19 pm https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881665
Earth’s climate has been cooling for 500 Ma, 50 Ma, 5 Ma, 2Ma, 800 ka, 5 ka, 2ka (see Scotese, 2018, chart p.3 here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years .
• 250 Ma ago, GMST was 36.3 C; that was about 22 C warmer than now.
• GMST declined from about 28 C at 500 Ma ago to around 15 C now – a decrease of 13 C
• GMST averaged about 22–23 C over the last 500 Ma – i.e. about 13 C warmer than now
• Life thrived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous ‘greenhouse’ and ‘hothouse’ temperatures (20–28 C) – i.e. 5–13 C warmer than now.
• Tropical sea temperatures have cooled by around 20C over the last 444 Ma (see p.6 in above link).
• Deep see temperatures have decreased by around 15 C over the last 50 Ma.
Reality checks:
1. Given that deep sea temperatures have cooled by around 15 C over the last 50 Ma, and given that the heat content of the atmosphere is the same as in the to 2 m of ocean, it strains credulity to believe that the climate can warm dangerously in less than millions of years. And high human CO2 emissions cannot and will not continue for more than perhaps a century.
2. Given that GMST has been up to 22 C warmer than now and life survived (although this was a catastrophic extinction event), it suggest that GMST increase of a few degrees is not dangerous.
3. Given that GMST was around 5–13 C warmer than now during the Jurassic and Cretaceous and life thrived during these periods, it strains credulity to suggest that GMST increase of a few degrees is dangerous.
Re: “see Scotese, 2018”
And you’re still abusing Scotese’s work, even though you’ve been corrected on this a number of times.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-881556
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/15/week-in-review-science-edition-86/#comment-880831
Once again:
I’m familiar with much of Scotese’s work. This is the article from Scotese that you’ve cited on previous occasions to make your politically-motivated points:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions/links/5564088408ae8c0cab36f612.pdf
If you’re citing it, then you should have read it, and thus know that it says things like:
“But Nature may not have its way. Things have changed. We have changed things. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last 200 years of human industry has amplified this natural warming trend and the average global temperature has risen rapidly. […] Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
“Extreme global warming was responsible for the greatest mass extinction of all time. 99.99% of all animal life was wiped out. We are fortunate that the mammal-like reptiles, our evolutionary ancestors made it through that climatic catastrophe!”
“These extremely warm polar temperatures were approached only a few times in Earth history, during the great Permo-Triassic extinction and during the warmest hothouse worlds (Cambro-Ordovician, Middle Devonian, Triassic, late Cretaceous, PETM, and middle Eocene)”
“The absorption of CO2 by the oceans resulted in the acidification of ocean waters and caused the widespread extinction of certain marine plankton […]. The amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere during the PETM (~4.5 trillion tons) is thought to be about equal to the amount of carbon (CO2 & CH4) that humans will release into the atmosphere during the next several centuries, as all fossil fuel reserves are inexorably consumed […].”
So your own source admits to anthropogenic global warming, and admits to warming-induced mass extinction. Your source also admits to ocean-acidification-induced extinctions, and compares that to ocean acidification in response to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2.
You conveniently left these points out, making it easier for you to claim that warming would not be dangerous, and that warmer greenhouse temperatures would be optimal for life on Earth. Why did you do that?
Consistent with what Scotese said, increased atmospheric CO2 results in both warming and ocean acidification (due to ocean uptake of some of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere). Both of these factors likely contributed to the Permian extinction. See:
“Initial pulse of Siberian Traps sills as the trigger of the end-Permian mass extinction”
“Climatic and biotic upheavals following the end-Permian mass extinction”
“Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction”
“End-Permian mass extinction in the oceans: An ancient analog for the twenty-first century?”
“High-precision geochronology confirms voluminous magmatism before, during, and after Earth’s most severe extinction”
“Mass extinction events and the plant fossil record”, table 2 on page 549
CO2-induced warming and ocean acidification are also occurring now. Further discussion on the ocean acidification in the sources below:
Doney et al., 2009: “Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem”
“A time-series view of changing ocean chemistry due to ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and ocean acidification”
“History of seawater carbonate chemistry, atmospheric CO2, and ocean acidification”
“The geological record of ocean acidification”
“Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean”
Given the aforementioned points of mass extinctions from CO2-induced warming and ocean acidification in the distant past, this has interesting implications for how CO2-induced, anthropogenic climate change contributed to the current man-made mass extinction. For further context, see:
“Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction”
“Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines”
“Could a potential Anthropocene mass extinction define a new geological period?”
“Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions”
“Biodiversity risks from fossil fuel extraction”
I’ve already refuted your comments when you repeated them numerous times previously.
You tried to divert from the point I made – i.e. that global warming from 15C to 18C or 20 C is likely to be beneficial, not dangerous – to a discussion of CO2. See #4 in ’10 signs of intellectu@l dis-honesty’ https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
True. But irrelevant. It was when GMST was 30 to 36 C GMST, not 15 C GMST.
I told you before it is invalid to compare over different lengths of time. You’ve compared rate of temperature change over 135 years with that over 21,000 years. Totally misleading, disingenuous.
You are repeatedly dis-honest and have zero credibility. I won’t waste time on you.
The irony of writing this when your whole argument is based on comparing current changes to those which occurred over hundreds of millions of years is obviously lost on you.
You continue to claim Scotese provides evidence that higher temperatures are “optimal”. It does no such thing.
See 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9 and 10 in in ’10 signs of intellectu@l dis-honesty’
Number 7 is covered in your final two sentences.
VTG, read my first comment again. It is about the impact of global warming from GMST 15C to around 18 C. It is not about rates of change of GMST. Do you understand the difference? AS tried to divert focus from this important point by raising several other issues to avoid having to deal with what is clearly the Achilles Heel of the climate alarmists beliefs – i.e. that global warming is probably beneficial, not harmful. You also frequently use diversionary tactics to avoid dealing with the issue – that is, you also demonstrate Sign 4 of the 10 signs of intellectua! dis-honesty, and many others.
Further, you misrepresented what I said with this too:
Please quote my exact words. I referred to Scotese’s temperature versus time charts. Previously I’ve referred to fossil evidence showing that life thrived in warmer times and struggles in colder times (compared with present GMST). I did not say that Scotese said life thrived in warmer times.
Please stop lying, VTG.
Peter,
give up with the insults Peter, it merely shows how weak your arguments are.
It *is* about rates of change. The impact depends on the rate.
In the same way that the impact of falling off a cliff is different to the impact of walking down a gentle slope. This is really not difficult to understand, and the fact that your own references show how quick changes cause mass extinction events readily proves the point.
Hence the irony.
Re: “I’ve already refuted your comments when you repeated them numerous times previously. You tried to divert from the point I made”
You clearly made the following points when you cited Scotese:
“4. The fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder
5. The optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures, which are around 3-7 C warmer than now (see Scotese (2016) Figure 15”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#comment-880112
Yet as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, you’ve yet to square those points of your’s with the fact that your source Scotese:
1) admits to anthropogenic global warming,
2) admits to warming-induced mass extinction,
3) admits to ocean-acidification-induced extinctions,
4) compares point 3 to ocean acidification in response to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/15/week-in-review-science-edition-86/#comment-881557
Seriously, how can you use your source to claim that “[t]he optimum temperature for life on Earth is during the so called ‘Greenhouse’ temperatures”, when your own source points out mass extinctions during those greenhouse conditions?
How can you claim that “[t]he fossil record shows life thrived when the planet was warmer than now and struggled when colder”, when your source says that there were mass extinctions during warmer greenhouse conditions?
How can you misuse Scotese’s article to claim that anthropogenic climate change will be harmless (or just beneficial) when Scotese, and numerous other sources, compare anthropogenic climate change to ocean acidification and greenhouse-gas-induced warming that contributed to previous mass extinctions?
Do you even read the sources you cite and misuse?
Re: “[Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years]
I told you before it is invalid to compare over different lengths of time. You’ve compared rate of temperature change over 135 years with that over 21,000 years. Totally misleading, disingenuous. You are repeatedly dis-honest and have zero credibility. I won’t waste time on you.”
I forgot to mention this:
You just called your source (the source you’ve been habitually citing and misusing) “invalid”, “[t]otally misleading, disingenuous,” “dishonest”, and has “zero credibility”. After all, you’re responding to a direct quote from your own source:
Page 2:
“Since 1880, [the average global temperature] has increased another .6° degrees to 14.4°C (as of 2015). This rate of warming is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions/links/5564088408ae8c0cab36f612.pdf
So why do you cite a source that is, by your own logic, “invalid”, “[t]otally misleading, disingenuous,” “dishonest”, and has “zero credibility”?
Oh, it’s because you don’t read and understand the scientific sources you cite when you abuse them to make your politically-motivated points. How unsurprising.
Javier says “Both ERBS and CERES show Outgoing Longwave Radiation increasing since the late 1980s, indicating that OLR is responding to the warming, not causing it. If GHGs were responsible, the increase in energy would be due to a decrease in OLR, as theory and models say, but evidence doesn’t show.”
Conceptually wrong. The GHG forcing has been increasing by 0.3 W/m2/decade. The fact that the OLR is showing a net loss is because not only is the surface warming countering the increased GHG forcing, but also it counters the increased shortwave warming that has come from the reduced albedo as a result of the positive albedo feedback. The OLR has to balance the albedo change in addition to the GHG forcing which requires more surface warming than just the GHG forcing would require alone. Without the albedo feedback, the OLR response only has to balance the GHG forcing and would leave a net zero OLR change despite the surface warming.
It is not conceptually wrong. For a climate system warming Qin > Qout. There is no indication of climate system warming prior to ~ 1988 when OHC started increasing. And the data is only good since Argo.
Climate system warming can result from an increase in Qin or a decrease in Qout.
The increase in Qin is the increase in Absorbed Shortwave Radiation (ASR) which already includes changes in solar radiation and changes in albedo.
The decrease in Qout is the decrease in Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR)
The increase in GHGs produces a rise in the effective layer of outgoing radiation. Since effective outgoing radiation takes place higher in the atmosphere, the temperature of radiation is lower, decreasing OLR. This is what causes the greenhouse effect warming at the surface, a decrease in Qout due to a decrease in OLR.
If the planet is warming due to an increase in GHGs it should show a decrease in OLR. If it is warming due to a decrease in albedo it should show an increase in ASR.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hvd6tR0sKA8/UumRAX7aujI/AAAAAAAAOu4/jtdNiK6RepA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-30+at+10.37.56+am.png
The planet shows an increase in OLR (due to a warmer surface) and it is warming due to an even bigger increase in ASR. This is inconsistent with the warming being caused by the increase in CO₂.
Now you are trying to build a narrative to explain an inconsistent result. Literature is based on narrative. Science is not.
If there is a warming on the solar side due to albedo changes there has to be a matching extra outward flux on the IR side. That’s what is seen. In fact there is a remaining energy imbalance that indicates the outward IR flux change does not yet match all of the forcing change due to CO2 and albedo, so more warming will be needed to generate that extra outward IR to reach equilibrium. However, in that equilibrium because there has been an albedo change, the IR flux is necessary going to be more outward to balance it in the final state. That’s just energy conservation. Think of it this way. When the albedo reduces what does the IR flux have to do?
There you are accepting that the main change in OLR is due to a response to changes in Absorbed Shortwave Radiation, and not to changes in GHGs that go the opposite way. Thank you for agreeing.
No, you misunderstand about as completely as it is possible to. OLR has responded to the primary forcing which is a 2 W/m2 change in CO2 forcing (1.5 W/m2 since 1950). However, it is the albedo feedback that affects the net OLR change as you approach equilibrium. All the CO2 has done is created most of the warming via producing most of the forcing change. The imbalance means that even more warming and consequent OLR is due.
Nope. The change in CO₂ forcing should cause a decrease in OLR which is the supposed cause for the warming in the greenhouse theory. Then the increase in temperature restores OLR to its previous value restoring equilibrium at a warmer state. The increase in temperature increases water vapor, further reducing OLR and further causing warming (it is a powerful GHG). The increased water vapor increases cloud cover decreasing ASR facilitating the restoration of the equilibrium at a warmer state.
What is being observed is just the opposite. The increase in ASR suggests a reduction in cloud cover as the main cause for the warming and OHC increase. The warmer surface is increasing OLR, just the opposite of what would be seen if GHGs were in control of the warming. The OLR-reducing effect from the CO₂ increase is lost amid bigger factors.
What you describe is what happens if the albedo has no positive feedback. When the albedo changes, the OLR has to counter that in addition to the CO2, and it can only counter that by a positive perturbation to restore the balance. And the imbalance is still positive meaning more warming is required. This is what is expected if the warming due to any net forcing change has a positive albedo feedback. It is a situation where the OLR has to increase to restore equilibrium.
Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2
“…..reduction of snow……”
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/namgnld_season1.png
This is the most insanely motivated narrative #jiminy has ever invented.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4-0_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000tomarch-20181-e1538849257828.png
Net flux is -SW-IR – warming is up by convention – and is the source of most change in the system. It provides a picture of cloud change from shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. A decrease in reflected SW and an increase in IR emitted.
The model calculated AGW cloud feedback is some 0.18 to 1.18 W/m2/K. But how much atmospheric warming has there been this century? There are very obviously other large changes happening in the Earth’s energy budget. Intrinsic change is an order of magnitude greater than AGW cloud feedback. .
Earth warms and cools relatively slowly as the residual of energy in less energy out. A small difference as the planet overshoots energy equilibrium in a relentless balancing of energies due to the large negative Planck response.
Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout
#jiminy calls these intrinsic changes in the energy budget wiggles and dismisses out of hand any relevance to climate. But they are obviously there.
Is this what you skeptics would call a spontaneous declouding?
#jiminy may call it what he likes. It is just cloud variability associated with ocean and atmospheric circulation. Both data and geophysics attest to the underlying reality of perpetual climate change.
Amazing stuff.
There is a scientific reality that #jiminy is incapable of seeing.
“Figure 1a is an update to earlier versions by Wielicki et al. (2002) and Wong et al. (2006). It shows rather marked jumps of up to 3 Wm−2 among the different satellites owing to absolute calibration differences, which are within measurement uncertainty. Because there is an overlap, the entire record can be placed on a common radiometric scale (Fig. 1b). Anomalies of up to 5 Wm−2 are observed during major El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO; Philander 1990) events such as the 1997/98 El Niño.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10712-012-9175-1/MediaObjects/10712_2012_9175_Fig1_HTML.gif
“Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, offer grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed to the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H. E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.” http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1351/
That climate doesn’t change except in response to the IPCC forcing list is utter lunacy. There’s a word for it.
See for yourself.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/from:1987/trend/plot/best/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
The preindustrial CO2 is -0.45 on this scale if you want to extrapolate back.
-.45 what?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/co2-temp-correl.png
#jiminy’s correlation is way less than 93% (sic) – even without accounting for intrinsic variability. He made it up – and of course refuses to confess.
This is what is correlated at 93%. These are 12-month averages every 12 months.
280 ppm was at -0.45 on the right-hand scale, but I am still not sure you will understand that at all. Which part are you having trouble with?
Smarmy sh!t not worth responding to. I understand a great deal more than #jiminy.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:12/from:1950/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/mean:12/every:12
The monthly correlation is far from 93% (sic).
Why do you want to use a monthly value? Do you expect CO2 variations to be significant relative to perturbations on that time scale? I don’t. Correlations of annual means against log CO2.
.934 BEST
.945 GISTEMP
.918 HADCRUT4
average .932
Internal variability is relevant at the monthly scale. Why don’t you understand that? And 93% is not a correlation but a coefficient of determination when properly used. The mix of terms used interchangeably suggests a complete ignorance of basic statistics. Nor does it address the fundamental problem of the known unknowns that confound such a simple procedure.
As with most of #jiminy’s claims it is complete nonsense.
This is wiggles. El Ninos are wiggles. They are not climate. Climate change is about trends, not wiggles.
And, it is not my problem if you can’t understand a correlation when it is written as a percentage and stated to be a correlation. You need to get used to it.
They are wiggles at millennial scales and the inability of #jiminy to distinguish – or admit to error in usage – the difference between the coefficients of correlation and determination is not my problem but his.
Why do you need monthly data to see millennial scale wiggles?
We have the data.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.jpg
What we don’t have is millennial scale satellite data. The monthly wiggles in CERES – and in the surface temperature record – show what happens but you need to make informed connections.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17898765
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12520298
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hbenway/2006/10/Benway_Paleoceanography_2006_14406.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1564
To take a leaf from Atomski’s silly little book.
For millennial scale you need to look at paleo data. A cooling trend in the past few millennia only interrupted by warming since about 1850. Skeptics still scratching their heads about this turnaround.
#jiminy likes to smooth data obviously – note the means on his wood for dimwits graph. Data smoothing is not an optimal methodology but does facilitate eyeballing a confirmation bias.
Removes insignificant wiggles. Leaves trends alone. This is done to show climate change signals. If you like monthly, why not daily or hourly? What’s so good about the monthly wiggles?
“We emphasize that the NE Pacific cloud changes described above are tied to cloud changes that span the Pacific basin. Despite much less surface sampling in the Southeast (SE) Pacific, cloud and meteorological changes in that region generally occur in parallel with those in the NE Pacific (Figs. 2 and 3). Also, we find that the leading mode in an empirical orthogonal function analysis (15% of the variance) of global cloud
cover (fig. S3) has a spatial pattern similar to that
in Fig. 3 and the time series shows the same decadal shifts as in Fig. 1, indicating that the changes in the NE Pacific are part of a dominant mode of global cloud variability.” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.full
That this other thing is happening makes attribution impossible. It is quite odd to imagine this stops because of AGW and it is all now CO2 volcanoes and the AMO. He is not merely of the literature around low frequency climate variability but is cognitively unable to process dissonant information.
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.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/8703/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific
These ‘wiggles’ are millennial in scale. We have the data.
blob:https://wordpress.com/bdbe49a9-e5d0-4884-96e5-9e90959d5c30
#jiminy has agnotology that results in a never ending and quite pointless rehash of memes that deny intrinsic variability. This is pretty much the AGW fanatic pov we are all used to.
Not impressed. This is what I call impressive. Note that -0.45 is 280 ppm on the left scale. I also added a line on solar activity to see if it explains much.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/scale:0.005/offset:-0.5/mean:240
Science as opposed to wood for dimwits?
Data.
wood for dimwits nonsense without any wider context. And #jiminy has certainly not had time to review the paleo studies I linked.
A combined global paleo study is what is more interesting than individual proxies.
https://thinkprogress.org/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick-e7ce8c3a2384/
The diverse studies linked were on the western Pacific warm pool – not temperature as such. They are related through ENSO. And the hockey stick remains incredible, meaningless nonsense.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pages.png
Both the north Atlantic and Pacific are terrestrial amplifiers of solar variability through polar annular modes and the gyre hypothesis.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/gyre-impact-e1532565836300.png
“The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.” http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
What is certain is that #jiminy ignores and denies too much for a rational climate concept.
Again you are missing the wood for the trees. I imagine skeptics looking at pictures like this below and wondering what it could be that changed so much since the 1800’s. They remain clueless. If they had any idea, there would be a debate about it, but their only idea so far is that it must be (a) a conspiracy or (b) something unknown that is anything but CO2.
https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/0MTcswpfT-iScl1Tw.png?w=590&h=435&crop=1
If #jiminy deleted everything after .png them the inconclusive temperature graph with immense uncertainties would show.
The cloud changes both don’t exist – according to #jiminy – and are irrelevant wiggles. Facile nonsense in other words. And the obligatory whine about skeptics.
Most of the early century warming was ‘spontaneous’ cloud and much of the late century warming. Losing that warming this century is likely to be a surprise as meridional blocking patterns both north and south intensify with a slightly cooling sun modulating polar annular modes. Giving radical ‘regional’ cooling in the global north and more cloud over the eastern Pacific related to cooling SST.
I find the idea of cloud not changing with ocean and atmospheric circulation absurd in the extreme – but #jiminy doesn’t understand even the language I use to describe it let alone the science I discuss endlessly.
It is all in all bizarre nonsense from an AGW fanatic who insists that everything is CO2.
You can also view it by just clicking on it.
Did I say that clouds don’t change with ocean and atmosphere changes? No. That’s your straw man. They have major responses to both, especially as they warm or aerosols are added. This is known as a cloud feedback process. Do they change spontaneously when neither of those other things change? No.
So of course climate doesn’t change unless acted on by an anthropogenic ‘forcing’. But it just isn’t so – and that is an idea mightily resisted.
“Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL.” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
It is Rayleigh–Bénard convection in a fluid – the atmosphere – heated from below by the oceans. Say it isn’t so.
I have cited this for #jiminy before. It all seems obvious with a little broader reading – yet he persists in ignorance because it is cognitively dissonant. Just like he wasn’t ‘impressed’ with the science on the Pacific being the dominant source of global cloud variability. It is all such #jiminy nonsense sans anything he doesn’t repeat from blogospheric echo chambers or that he freely and unethically invents to bolster whatever misguided points he thinks he is making. 93% (sic) correlation for instance. Inordinately tedious narrative blather in other words sans any science training, references or math.
There is an energy imbalance causing the oceans to warm on decadal scales, so given that you seem to believe the above, what makes you think that isn’t why the clouds are changing? Just another feedback to global warming.
Circles again. The cloud feedback this century is too small at the highest estimate (0.18 to 1.18 W/m2/K) to be the dominant source of cloud change. That is the Pacific according to Clement et al. The CERES record (net radiative flux) shows about 1 W/m2 increase over the period of record. Cooling in IR and warming in SW. Feedbacks don’t begin to explain most of this cloud change. So unless #jiminy actually wants to look at the numbers – or he can provide several references – I am done with this unenlightened and repetitive narrative nonsense yet again.
You mean this Clement et al. that talks about a positive cloud feedback?
“This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales. ”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460
The clouds in this study are in the north east Pacific in response to decadal ocean regimes. The one that warmed the planet between 1976 and 1998?
By analogy they suggest that there might be a positive feedback to atmospheric temperature changes.
“Feedbacks involving low-level clouds remain a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections. This issue was addressed by examining changes in low-level clouds over the Northeast Pacific in observations and climate models. Decadal fluctuations were identified in multiple, independent cloud data sets, and changes in cloud cover appeared to be linked to changes in both local temperature structure and large-scale circulation.”
Although the structure of AGW and ocean feedbacks seem very different.
“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.’
Note the failure of models. In Clement et al all of the models but 1 failed to model observed cloud reduction as well. While AGW cloud feedbacks are hugely uncertain – ocean feedbacks are much more obvious.
#jiminy fails at anything but facile narrative. It is not one or the other – as #jiminy bizarrely seems to be suggesting. He does finally have a reference – a reference I have discussed often – but it seems he hasn’t read past the headline.
You were trying to say the clouds did not have a positive feedback to warming and listed a paper which said it does right in the title. Models nowadays that have a positive feedback to tropical clouds have a higher sensitivity and also fit the observations better (see Lewis article about emergent constraints on this blog). Let’s show you this again to remind you about the warming we are talking about.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/scale:0.005/offset:-0.5/mean:240
That seems to be a blatant lie. I quoted the IPCC range (0.18 to 1.18 W/m2/K) and said that was too small – at the highest estimate – to account for observed changes. Any model tuned to observed TOA flux is wrong on so many counts it is irrelevant. And CMIP ffs?
The cloud in the study I have quoted often is about the response to the PDO. As I said #jiminy seems to have read the headline.
It’s hard to tell, but you seem to be attributing the warming to PDO clouds doing something spontaneous and crazy in the last 60 years or so. Why did this PDO go crazy and send the global warming to a degree when previous ones didn’t? Does your theory have some gaps in it that you still have to make up more stuff about? Does your PDO also melt Greenland and Arctic sea ice? What else can your PDO do?
From above.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/28/week-in-review-science-edition-87/#comment-881779
Can #jiminy get less relevant? I suppose so.
Having read just today that a ‘consensus’ AGW cloud feedback is 0.25 W/m2/K – it becomes mostly irrelevant and most certainly doesn’t explain observed cloud variability. Compare it to the Planck response of -3,2 W/m2/K.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10712-017-9433-3.pdf
“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
And I am very bored with repeating myself for the benefit of a recalcitrant fanatic like #jiminy. How much science can he deny in a single day?
It is not difficult to tell at all – I have said it often enough.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong-et-al-2006-e1510341656183.png
The Pacific is very obviously a dominant source of global climate variability involving cloud changes across a large part of the global tropics. Extrapolating from observed effects – it caused most of the early 20th century warming and much of the later warming. That will be lost this century with a cooling sun modulating polar annular modes in both hemispheres creating radical cooling in the global north and a more La Nina like state in the Pacific and a cooler world.
That will be lost this century with a cooling sun modulating polar annular modes in both hemispheres creating radical cooling in the global north and a more La Nina like state in the Pacific and a cooler world. – RIE
A ridiculous fantasy. You are selling snake oil.
https://i.imgur.com/ZCZqJqo.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong-et-al-2006-e1510341656183.png
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta
https://www.ocean-sci.net/10/29/2014/os-10-29-2014.html
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/gsofacpubs/140/
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1
etc. etc.
I don’t say anything without a justifiable basis. Unlike JCH.
This and not Wong et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
RIE, your progress is that now you realize that the cloud changes are a positive feedback and not a forcing nor a negative feedback which are the usual skeptical talking points. That is, unless you are dismissing what the Klein et al. paper says despite quoting it.
Cloud feedback may be marginally positive but is so uncertain it may be negative.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig7-10.jpg
This is #jiminy’s crowning argument? The one that explains all the large changes in TOA radiant flux?
It is not a rational argument in good faith at all. It is just more of #jiminy’s pointless.
games.
It’s not the cloud feedback. It’s the CO2 forcing. The amplification of that is just proportional and comes from many sources, but leads to a highly correlated response.
Another story #jiminy?
Same one.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/scale:0.005/offset:-0.5/mean:240/from:1850
Given up on cloud feedback?
Just one of many factors that amplify the CO2 effect. If you want the primary cause, look no further than CO2. Clouds, not so much.
Net feedback is definitely negative. And we get back to the TOA data that shows warming in SW and cooling in. Quite obviously a CRE that isn’t an AGW feedback.
You are confusing feedback and response.
I can’t figure out if #jiminy is deluding himself or trying to delude us.
The Planck response is also known as the no-feedback response. Positive and negative feedbacks are defined relative to that.
The Planck response involves exponentially increasing IR emissions with temperature. It is -3.2 W/m2/K. It is the fundamental planetary response to changes in atmospheric temperature – that drives the system towards a transient energy equilibrium at TOA. It is a large negative feedback to temperature change whatever the source – meaningless #jiminy word salad notwithstanding.
The climate definition of a positive feedback is one that is larger than the Planck response, and a negative feedback is smaller. The Planck response is a no-feedback (neutral, black-body) response.
If you want to define a Planck response itself as a negative feedback, you end up with a positive feedback being defined as cooling when there is a positive forcing, which is wacky. This is the inverse of Monckton who defines any warming with positive forcing as a positive feedback in his own zany redefinition (or misunderstanding).
“Feedback denotes the reaction of the (climate) system to the forcing which, in return, leads to a change in the forcings. Example: a change in the Earth’s temperature may cause effects that lead to more radiation being absorbed or emitted. This then creates further changes in the Earth’s temperature. This ‘loop’ where a change in temperature creates a further change is called a climate feedback, or simply feedback.
A feedback is said to be positive if warming leads to further warming, and cooling to further cooling. Otherwise it is said to be negative. If the total feedback, counting all mechanisms, were positive, then the Earth’s climate would be unstable.” http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Climate+forcing+and+feedback
“Feedbacks are measured in units of watts per square meter per degree, denoted W/m2/K. The Planck feedback is called λ0, and the sum of the rest is called λ. The definition of feedback is”
T=−F/(λ0+λ)
where T is the change in temperature caused by a small radiative forcing F.” Small to ensure that nonlinear effects don’t kick in.
Using the mean of feedback estimates on the Azimutrh page there is an equilibrium temperature change of 1.5 K. But this calculation like so much in climate science is unreliable. A simplistic method that glosses over far too many uncertainties. It gives answers but is this science at all?
The frustration with #jiminy is that this information is available everywhere – and I spoon feed him with the most basic of geophysics when I really would rather be looking at more advanced aspects of Earth system science – but he keeps coming back with made up rubbish like this. And claims it is core climate science. As I said – I am not sure if #jiminy is deluding himself or trying to delude us. I don’t put either past him.
“If the total feedback, counting all mechanisms, were positive, then the Earth’s climate would be unstable”.
Wrong!. Who are these people? A positive feedback is an amplification, but not necessarily unstable. That’s a common misconception. Do you believe a positive feedback is always unstable? The climate system has a net positive feedback due to water vapor. Does that make it unstable? No. These are basic concepts in climate. A positive feedback is larger warming than the Planck response, and a negative feedback is less. The Planck response is about 1 C per doubling. The climate is nearer 2 C per doubling. This is due to net positive feedbacks.
Utter garbage from someone who will continue to try to rationalize and deny error – and go to unbelievable lengths to do so until no glimmer of sense can be found.
The Azimuth Project seemed simple enough even for #jiminy – and unlike any of his astonishing nonsense – is referenced.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2007/Fig7-09.jpg
They don’t seem to be familiar with how the term feedback is used in climate science. The net feedback is positive and the climate is not unstable. Go figure.
The reference is to Soden and Held 2006 – a little old but nothing much has changed in this. The graphic is from AR5. He is such a science denier.
It is a little funny – these are basic concepts in #jiminy’s wholly made up dissimulation and are not remotely credible Earth system science.
You don’t believe that the feedback is positive? The warming is twice the Planck response. That is a positive feedback.
The Planck feedback is -3.2 W/m2/K – as AR% shows. So for every degree K increase – IR emissions increase by 3.2 W/m2. Very basic Earth geophysics that #jiminy denies adamantly and interminably. Incredible as that seems – and deserving of an explanation. He is deluding himself or trying to delude us.
You have it backwards, which may be the problem. If the forcing changes by 3.2 W/m2, the temperature changes by a degree if it is just the Planck response. If there is a positive feedback, the warming is larger than one degree. For doubling CO2, which is 3.7 W/m2, the Planck response is 1.2 C. What is observed is ~2 C, a positive feedback to the Planck response, but not unstable because the warming is not infinite.
The odd thing is that the Planck feedback is given right there in the AR% graphic. -3.2 W/m2/K. This is cooling in IR for any increase in atmospheric temperature.
It is just manufactured #jiminy word salad as usual.
You get confused when you call it a negative feedback, because it isn’t. It’s a neutral no-feedback response. If you call it a negative feedback, you have to call the enhanced warming effect with water vapor even more negative, right? A positive feedback by that logic is where a positive forcing leads to cooling, which is impossible, yet in climate science positive feedbacks are talked about all the time. That should be a clue that your definitions are off.
It is the IPCC definition – it is shown right there. And in the Soden and Held and other references I have given.
#jiminy’s bizarre ad hoc inventions notwithstanding. A positive feedback amplifies warming and a negative damps it. You can tell it’s a feedback by the units – W/m2/K – and you can add them together to get the total feedback as everyone does. This discussion is bizzarely surreal.
“A positive feedback amplifies warming and a negative damps it. ” This part is correct. How about when there is no feedback? Then the warming is neither amplified nor damped. It is just the Planck response.
That part was correct when the Azimuth project said it. Warming is not the Planck feedback – the Planck feedback is the increased emissions from a warmer atmosphere – in as far as the Earth acts as a black body proportionate to the Stefan–Boltzmann law.
“The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:
E = σT^4” Wikipedia
It is what drives the planet to maximum entropy – with energy equilibrium at TOA – and is the most fundamental of feedbacks. Known since 1879.
You have not said what the difference between a positive and a negative feedback is, nor what the no-feedback response is, and whether you still distinguish that from the Planck response. Good try at deflection, however. You seem to be interested in this.
have several times with diverse references. Note that #jiminy has again failed to provide a single reference.
Warming or cooling derives from energy imbalances at TOA. The Planck feedback ensures that a transient energy equilibrium at TOA is restored. I have been interested in this over decades but it is very basic geopysics that #jiminy without any formal science or physics training appears to misunderstand – but it is really not about honest discourse with #jiminy. Other less laudable behaviors seem to be at the forefront.
You maybe don’t agree now with what you were saying before that (a) any warming is a negative feedback and (b) all positive feedbacks are unstable. For (a) you provided the IPCC definition where even positive feedbacks provide warming (and so can’t be negative too), and for (b) the IPCC doesn’t say positive feedbacks are unstable just amplifying factors. So you didn’t notice how that quoted phrase demolished both your previous positions. I didn’t have to do anything.
I of course said nothing like that. It is utter nonsensical, deliberate misrepresentation that is #jiminy’s habitual mode.
Read back. Thanks for playing.
Here is the AR5 graphic I provided. It all seems straightforward baby geophysics that #jiminy denies.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2007/Fig7-09.jpg
Perhaps I should thank him for again revealing his real purpose.
Good graphic. Great stuff. Where’s the point?
Has he missed the point yet again or is this deliberate obfuscation. I’m pretty sure it is the latter. No one can be that dense.
In climate, they would call that a positive feedback and it is not unstable. Perhaps you don’t get what they mean by a positive feedback. Have you come across it before? Your quote had it.
I’m fairly confident the total there is net negative.
It is called a positive feedback when you read any climate papers. It amplifies the Planck response. That’s how it is defined. Stable too. Maybe now you’ll understand what they mean by a positive feedback. Glad to help.
He appears not to able to decipher a simple graphic like that.
Do you see how the Planck response is amplified by those other terms? Positive feedback. It’s a multiplier greater than one.
Just add the numbers for the various feedbacks – it shouldn’t be beyond you. Wait – the IPCC have done it for you. If it makes you feel better we can add 0.25 W/m2/K – positive – for cloud.
Add the numbers and the response exceeds the Planck response, a positive feedback. You don’t seem to know what a positive feedback is despite quoting it as an amplification of the Planck response. You said it yourself “A positive feedback amplifies warming and a negative damps it.” Note that whether it is a positive or negative feedback you get warming anyway. This is a subtle point in your quote that you seem to have missed.
With net positive feedback there is an amplification of any change that itself is amplified in a loop. Unstable in any system. For stability damping is required from net negative feedback.
“The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.” http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html
Define a positive and negative feedback the way it is done in climate. Maybe you can define a positive feedback as anything that produces a warming for a positive forcing, which is not very helpful because then all feedbacks are positive.
Complete and utter word salad. IR emissions from a warmer planet increase exponentially to the 4th power – it is the fundamental planetary negative feedback that is the physics of planetary stability.
IR emissions from a warmer planet increase exponentially to the 4th power – it is the fundamental planetary negative feedback that is the physics of planetary stability.
Guess what? It is now even worse than worse than we thought:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/03/climate-scientists-are-struggling-find-right-words-very-bad-news/?utm_term=.b05fd50957d6&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Hilarious!
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8623
I had thought the increased land from 100 meter lower sea level during a glacial would be insignificant. Apparently land area increases by 30%, increasing ability of the climate to respond fast. Approximating the water involved 100m / 2 = 50m. 50m / 4000m = 1.25%.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Was the recent Slowdown caused by the super El Nino of 1998?
If you take the GISTEMP temperature series, and replace the 1998 temperature anomaly with a new value, that is spot on the trend line, does the Slowdown disappear.
Warning – the results of this article will be shocking, for some people.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998
Coming in a few days. A true shocking story that will keep us riveted. Skeptics will love it.
I can’t wait. Hopefully you’re taking about something coming from climate scientists.
It’s called a teaser. I’m confident it will be over your head.
Why are the people who know the least about climate science always so boastful and rude? Why do you think science will be over the head of a scientist? Are you about to publish fake science? That would be under my head and not worth my time.
You are the kind of person Dr. Curry likes having around because you are rude to the people who really know what’s happening in this field.
I am confident you are predicting something silly and will be wrong. Again.
Unless you are in the social sciences then you are down in the weeds, missing the overall. Stick with the granular perspective if you like, but if you want to contribute to science do a case study on the mass hysteria that the climate science establishment has succumbed to in the last 40 years. The latest IPCC report is just another circle freak out with another round of predictions that will be falsified just like all the preceding reports. In 30 years there will be a new generation of wide eyed climate scientists making excuses for the erroneous predictions that were made by the preceding 2 generations of climate scientists.
For 100 years glaciologists have been concerned about the Ice Sheets in Antarctica. For 100 years scientists have been concerned about the melting North Pole and continental glaciers receding. For decades cataclysmic predictions have been made about coastal communities being drowned. And yet Lady Liberty is still dry and the Sydney Opera House still stands.
The major media use the hype to sell copy and attract eyeballs but they don’t discuss all the science. They don’t speak of geothermal activity in Antarctica and Greenland and its impact on SLR. They don’t speak of previous warm periods or debates about adjustments in the historical record or the sparse data pre 1950. They don’t bring up that in the cities experiencing flooding, subsidence rates are often multiples of SLR. They don’t mention tornadic activity is not up, nor global cyclonic activity, nor do they mention the 200 year drought periods in California nor NH winter snowfall is not down. The list goes on. Not a single of these facts falsifies AGW. But any reasonable person with modicum critical thinking skills and using some logic ought to at least step back from their total certainty and wonder if they are missing the big picture.
So, go ahead if it makes you comfortable, and continue to participate in this mass hysteria movement. Continue to think you have aced the exam when some answers are unknowable. Ignore past failed predictions if you like and delete the counter explanations to the standard narrative. I can’t do it. Real scientists are the first to admit how little they actually know.
“The latest IPCC report is just another circle freak out with another round of predictions that will be falsified just like all the preceding reports.”
Good luck with that. Guess Watts has you fooled.
It’s a 60-year acceleration of warming that corresponds to an acceleration of the forcing. Note the upward curve of the temperature and CO2 relative to the linear fit. The forcing rate of change has tripled in this period from 0.1 W/m2/decade to 0.3 W/m2/decade.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:12/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/best/mean:12/from:1958/trend
We can do correlations to show that the upward curving CO2 is a better fit than the line too. This uses 60 years of annual averages.
.934 BEST against log CO2
.937 BEST against CO2
.912 BEST against year (linear fit)
Similar results come from GISTEMP and HADCRUT4.
But then there is this little problem, especially when it comes to taking these crude surface temperature estimates as accurate:
http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/
If the global average surface temperatures have actually changed, which we do not know, it is not due to atmospheric forcing because the atmospheric temperatures have not changed in the same way as these crude guesses, not even close to it.
http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/
Even the creators of the satellite temperatures don’t believe it replaces surface temperatures. They even use surface temperatures to calibrate theirs. Your faith in these products is touching, but ask Spencer what he really thinks. Mears of the RSS dataset realizes its limitations and “structural uncertainty” associated with daisy-chaining datasets from 10-15 satellites over a 30 year period. This is a particularly poor way to do trends.
“In order to simulate the sensible and latent heat fluxes, the surface temperature and wetness are needed.” http://www.pilps.mq.edu.au/fileadmin/pilps/pdfs/elsevier/results_HAPEX-MOBILHY_data.pdf
To remove the moisture artifact from the surface temperature record requires a very different approach. The satellite records don’t have this problem. Nor is it ‘calibrated’ against surface temperature. They have on the other hand compared results with radiosonde data where it is available.
The monthly CO2/temp data correlation ‘explains’ 75% of the variability – but the procedure is too simplistic to mean much at all.
My latest for CFACT:
http://www.cfact.org/2018/10/05/colorado-should-rethink-its-risky-energy-plan/
Colorado should rethink its risky Energy Plan
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recently approved a Colorado Energy Plan that attempts to substitute wind power for coal power. CFACT has petitioned the PUC to reconsider this ill-advised decision. Included below are some excerpts from the CFACT petition. Here is the Petition URL (disclosure: I wrote it):
https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi/efi_p2_v2_demo.show_document?p_dms_document_id=893368&p_session_id=
Others are encouraged to comment as well. The PUC comment system is here. To get to the comment entry form, check the “expressing an opinion” box on the first screen, then “electric” on the second screen, then “Public Service Company or Xcel” on the next, and finally select “16A-0396E – Proceeding to Approve the 2016 Electric Resource Plan and the Colorado Energy Plan“. You can then enter your comment, including attachments.
The Energy Plan basically calls for two coal fired units, with 660 MW of combined generating capacity, running at the Comanche Power Plant in Pueblo County to be retired prematurely and replaced with several wind farms. While many states have mandated the use of some renewables, Colorado is the first to propose actually replacing coal power with wind. This cannot work as planned, so it is a very bad precedent.
There are three major areas of concern, namely (1) risky bids, (2) the apparent lack of fair competition and (3) the risk of prolonged blackout under low wind, peak demand conditions.
There is more in the article and much more in the petition.
This is a national issue.
Here is the link to the PUC comment system referenced in the second paragraph above, which did not copy for some reason:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSclWDeNS2FCh0NdEijNU4igpUKqRZvTIYwZ8XSA2YYx3LF6qA/viewform
If John McLean is correct this could be the most important development since Climategate.
And Datagate has a nice sound to it. Time will tell.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/#more-60676
John McLean. I’d be very surprised if there was much of value in that report. Anyone who knows about his previous alarms and predictions knows that this is surely overblown. Most likely the values in question are not used, thus allowing the “skeptic” crowd to shift their cries to “fudged data” when in fact it would be adjusted or removed as outliers.
Please link to his previous alarms and predictions.
“It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349
Interesting stuff, and totally wrong. Not qualified in the least to be writing climate science papers, so he usually writes within the ICSC. Heartland, etc.
Alex Epstein and Dave Rubin Discuss the Climate Change Debate
Epstein’s good.
You all ought to share the above video. Let’s win.
Everyone here is making this issue overly complex. There are only two sciences you have to have a basic understanding of to reach a firm, scientifically backed conclusion of global climate warming. The first is thermodynamics, the only settled science according to Einstein 100 years ago. We know that as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases the planet will warm. The second is probability. We know that without global warning there are astronomical odds against 2014 being the hottest year on this planet until 2015, and then until 2016 being the hottest, with 2017 following that year being the 4th hottest year on record. 2018 is looking like a scorcher too.
More delusional nonsense from their IPCC , we must hold temp increase to no more than 1.5 C.
So how do they suggest we accomplish this and what new source of energy should we use? We know that S&W is just BS and fr-ud (Dr Hansen’s opinion) and can they tell us how much of the warming since the I. Rev is due to humans?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/07/the-new-ipcc-sr15-report-is-out/
Daniel Kahneman already told us how this ends.
The IPCC report is an obituary. Game over dude.
“It’s important to note that the difference between science and advocacy is not the presence or absence of data or even academic theory. Advocacy groups often appeal to both. The difference is that the aim of science is to explain, while the aim of advocacy is to advance the interests of a particular group. The fact that Walters’s article contains references to studies and observations isn’t sufficient grounds to label it science; what matters is the aim. Does it include conflicting data? Does it address opposing theories and arguments? This is where the distinction becomes clear. Unsurprisingly, every one of Walters’s studies and observations supports her case.”
https://quillette.com/2018/10/11/do-advocacy-groups-belong-in-academia/
We heard the story. Other fields are in a downward spiral. Losing touch with old white men who said E=MC squared. Joe Romm just wrote something about hurricanes. I couldn’t read it beyond two paragraphs. I am going to guess it said, This is why am no longer a scientist. The climate scientists left their field and joined the public debate and found Trump and his voters. The climate skeptics were Trump before Trump was Trump. The climate scientists caused Trump to be our President.
This is highlighted:
How Philosophy Can Reduce Your Confirmation Bias – areomagazine.com
This fits nicely with it:
https://quillette.com/2018/10/15/is-sociogenomics-racist/?fbclid=IwAR3xjmWQ9HUe2VySSlHG4H1sv4Oz11O82OhXayxkLHTir4MGgxdwmhs03u8
The Quillette articles gives examples of how bad things can get.
https://medium.com/@rljunco/eric-weinsteins-four-quadrant-model-the-knife-media-6e642ff3f54b
The model applies to the climate debate. Take 10 minutes to understand the 2 X 2 matrix. Those opposing wind and solar are climate deniers according to them. The two axis are belief in climate change and policy. Most of us are in a different quadrant than they try to put us in. A simple 2 axis model versus their 1 axis portrayal shows their dumbing it down and misleading Take Lomborg. He has different policy ideas. They lump him in with the everyone else not on their side. Their thinking and/or approach is too simple to even add a 2nd axis to their one axis.
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-k-core-predictor-collapse-mutualistic-ecosystems.html?fbclid=IwAR2yakBDNrJfPB2VcZtUtAB387JPGA5Xg_3ov5tIw4QF6hd7vOQfDS0m_Vc
To what extent are we impacting the core? I suppose the oceans are the core. And we measure something else. And ‘control’ from some place else.