Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

A new gem from Steve McIntyre: New post at Climate Audit on North American tree ring network of PAGES2K (2013) and PAGES (2017). Bristlecone addiction continues unabated -heroin for paleoclimatologists. [link]

Impact of urbanization on hourly precipitation in Beijing, China: Spatiotemporal patterns and causes [link]

Location of large mystery source of banned ozone depleting substance uncovered [link]

A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades [link]

Taking the pulse of soil [link]

Evolution of 21st Century Sea-level Rise Projections [link]  

Relative sea level change in Newfoundland over the past 3000 years – new paper includes update of our global sea level curve [link]  

Aquifers in the Sahara, Arabian Peninsula, and northern India are not sustainable, according to new analysis of remote sensing data. [link]

Gulf Stream Variability in the Context of Quasi‐Decadal and Multidecadal Atlantic Climate Variability [link]

Influence of Atmospheric Rivers on Mountain Snowpack in the Western U.S. [link]

Understanding Rapid Adjustments of climate to Diverse Forcing Agents [link]

Quantifying the importance of rapid adjustments for global precipitation changes [link]

Atlantic Water heat transport variability in the 20th century Arctic Ocean from a global ocean model and observations [link]

Asymmetric changes of ENSO diversity modulated by the cold tongue mode under recent global warming [link]

Forests Emerge as a Major Overlooked Climate Factor [link]

Dynamical coupling between atmospheric and oceanic circulations is fundamental to low-frequency Atlantic SST variability and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). [link]

A Wetter Arctic Coincident with Hemispheric Warming 8,000 Years Ago [link]

New perspectives regarding Gulf Stream and Kuroshio Extension influence on the atmosphere [link

Effect of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Context of Growth Enhancements in the U.S. since 1700: Net Source or Sink? [link]

A century of climate and land‐use change cause species turnover without loss of beta diversity in California’s Central Valley [link]

How well are clouds simulated over Greenland in climate models? Consequences for the surface cloud radiative effect over the ice sheet [link]

Retrievals of Arctic sea‐ice volume and its trend significantly affected by interannual snow variability [link]

Asymmetric Cloud‐Shortwave Radiation‐Sea Surface Temperature Feedback of Ningaloo Niño/Niña [link]  JC note: v interesting, i have long suspected something like this.

Ocean-Atmosphere Dynamical Coupling Fundamental to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [link]

ENSO change in climate projections: forced response or internal variability? [link]

The Ross Sea’s recent low-ice conditions let scientists learn how Antarctica’s ice sheets have responded to past climate change. [link]

Last interglacial was warmer than today and the climate was more variable – [link]  

Arctic‐wide sea ice thickness estimates from combining satellite remote sensing data and a dynamic ice‐ocean model with data assimilation during the CryoSat‐2 period [link]

Examining the origins of ocean heat content variability in the eastern North Atlantic subpolar gyre [link]

Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018) [link]

Climate drivers behind the Global Famine of 1876-78 [link]

Paleoclimatological Context and Reference Level of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement Long-Term Temperature Limits [link]

Scientists find missing piece in glacier melt predictions [link]

Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat’ [link]

Temporal Characteristics of Cloud Radiative Effects on the Greenland Ice Sheet: Discoveries from Multi‐year Automatic Weather Station Measurements.  Stabilizing feedback [link]

Social science & policy

Spain just finalized a $250M just transition deal for private sector coal miners. Compare that with the $2B they were spending to prop up the mines. [link]

Playing climate chess against the ultimate wicked problem [link]

Leading climate scientists and energy experts allege anti-nuclear bias in UN climate report [link]

To end poverty, increase access to energy [link]

Good essay on problems with Integrated Assessment Models.  What’s the damage (of that climate change cost-benefit model)? [link]

Gradual increases in soil salinity, not inundation alone, correspond to higher levels of internal migration in Bangladesh. [link]

“Economic Risks of Climate Change” which provides a detailed account of likely climate change damages in the US. Study is mainly based on econometric regression methods. [link]

Our fertilizer is killing us.  Here’s a fix [link]

China is still counting on coal to keep the lights on and keep its industrialization booming. While it has invested heavily in subsidizing solar power it realizes it cannot continue with the massive subsidies and is moving to phase them out. [link]

Vulnerability, resilience and adaptation of societies during major extreme storms during the Little Ice Age [link

The water system that helped the medieval city of Angkor rise may have also brought about its fall [link]

NGOs are causing african agriculture to stagnate. [link]

Explanation of 4th generation nuclear power: Next-gen nuclear is coming, if we want it [link]

Americans’ assessments of risks of policy-relevant potential harms are pretty accurate. But in opinion on whether preventive action should be taken, risk assessments matter little; the status of the victims matter a lot [link]

About science & scientists 

Bruno Latour Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science [link]   

The three great untruths that are harming young Americans.  College students are being protected from uncomfortable ideas—and that’s a problem, [link]

Interesting/outrageous  lawsuit about scientific cyberbullying [link]

How Philosophy Can Reduce Your Confirmation Bias [link]

Pielke Jr:  The case for intellectual hospitality [link]

What I learned about life at my 30th college reunion [link]

331 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. My latest energy policy piece for CFACT. Anti-fracking may win in Colorado, setting the stage for a national push.

    http://www.cfact.org/2018/10/24/anti-fracking-law-looms-large-in-colorado/

    http://www.cfact.org/2018/10/18/anti-fracking-chaos-in-colorado/

    A sad tale indeed.

  2. First, Dr. J, many thanks for this wonderful recurring resource. Much appreciated.

    Second, as I’ve been saying for a decade and a half now and taking heat for saying it, this study says the same …

    Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea‐level rise. A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted.

    w.

  3. I’ve run across two energy storage stories that might be significant. First, the billionaire owner of the LA Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, is making some big claims for a new zinc air battery breakthrough:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/cheaper-battery-is-unveiled-as-a-step-to-a-carbon-free-grid.html?__source=sharebar

    Second, Chinese researchers are claiming a carbon nanotube breakthrough that could be used for a space elevator. Tensile strength is a limiting factor in flywheel storage:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/26/space-race-game-changer-chinese-space-elevator-breakthrough/

    • My goodness, you read a lot, Dr. Curry!

      Canman, re: NantEnergy says the technology costs less than $100 per kilowatt-hour

      The last time I checked, Tesla’s website listed the price for their 13.5 kilowatt-hour Powerwall 2 storage system as $6600 installed ($5900 + installation). $5900 / 13.5 = $437 / kW-hr.

      On eBay, a 48 W-hr replacement laptop computer battery sells for about $20, shipped. $20 / (48/1000) = $417 / kW-hr.

      Of course, in both cases those capacities are effectively exaggerated, because if you want to get a reasonable number of charge/discharge cycles, you can’t charge the batteries quite all the way up, or discharge them all the way down.

      It also helps a lot that zinc is cheap, plentiful and non-toxic, unlike lithium.

      So, if this battery works as advertised, and if it doesn’t have other drawbacks (like an unduly limited number of charge/discharge cycles, or a high self-discharge rate), then it should definitely be very competitive with lithium-based batteries.

      However, it’s still nowhere near cheap enough to solve the intermittency problem of solar PV and wind energy, to make them viable replacements for on-demand electric power generation, for the grid.

  4. If climate change results in less barley to Bree beer… as the former Queen of England would say– let them drink wine

  5. The nitrogen fertilizer one is great. There is over application of amonia.

  6. To end poverty, increase access to energy [link]

    “…the goal would be considered met if a person in India or Senegal used as much energy in a whole year as an average American uses in just 33 hours.”

    Carbon alarmist’s goals do not involve people and their aspirations, rather, to those who actually control the destiny of these people of poverty; ie environmentalists and their subservient bankers, they involve ideology.

    The alarmists say: “yes, …but.” Shame on them. Death to the multitude justified by a framework of computer program outcomes. Shame! Shame! Shame!

  7. The papers on Arctic ice loss and consequential sea level rise might be contradicted by inconvenient data. Even the news media are picking up on this
    http://sciencenordic.com/how-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-2018

    • Since 1850 it has been known that Europe and Greenland climatically are sitting on a see-saw. A hot European summer means a cold Greenland summer. It is therefore not a surprise that Greenland gained ice this year. Although carbon brief is trying to frame it as bad news.

      • except it didnt GAIN ice.
        read the article

        “This budget takes into account the balance between snow that is added to the ice sheet and melting snow and glacier ice that runs off into the ocean. The ice sheet also loses ice by the breaking off, or “calving”, of icebergs from its edge, but that is not included in this type of budget. As a result, the SMB will always be positive – that is, the ice sheet gains more snow than the ice it loses.”

        ‘We must wait for data from the GRACE-Follow On (GRACE-FO) satellite mission before we know how the total mass budget has fared this year – which includes calving and melting at the base of the ice sheet. However, it is likely that the relatively high end of season SMB will mean a zero or close-to-zero total mass budget this year, as last year.”

        Surface Mass Balance: SBM
        Total Mass Balance: TBM

        the latter measures the actual loss or gain. for 2018? the final figures are not in

      • They made the same error last year.

      • Hans Erren | October 28, 2018 at 12:39 pm

        Since 1850 it has been known that Europe and Greenland climatically are sitting on a see-saw. A hot European summer means a cold Greenland summer. It is therefore not a surprise that Greenland gained ice this year. Although carbon brief is trying to frame it as bad news.

        I always get nervous when someone claims that something has been known “since 1850” or something like that.

        So I went and got the Greenland temperatures and the Europe temperatures from Berkeley Earth … and guess what? They don’t show that relationship at all.

        In fact, they show the opposite. I looked at the data since 1850 for J-J-A. There is a positive correlation, which is not statistically significant, but is positive (0.29°Europe / °Greenland).

        As Mark Twain never said, “It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble … it’s what you know that ain’t so” …

        w.

      • Studies have found evidence of sub glacial geothermal activity on Greenland. Other research has found marine terminating glaciers are being melted by geothermal warmed waters. There needs to be a thorough analysis of how much these geological processes are contributing to SLR. It’s not sufficient to focus only on AGW when trying to understand and estimate Greenland’s contribution to SLR and the probability of future Ice Sheet collapse. As long there are gaps in our knowledge of all the geological processes at play, not just in Greenland but also in Antarctica, projections of collapsing Ice Sheets are a joke.

      • stevenmosher (@stevenmosher) | October 28, 2018 at 9:47 pm |
        except it didnt GAIN ice. read the article.
        ?
        It always gains ice, from the article.
        .” As a result, the SMB will always be positive – that is, the ice sheet gains more snow than the ice it loses.”
        as in
        “The ice sheet also loses ice by the breaking off, or “calving”, of icebergs from its edge, but that is not included in this type of budget.”
        Gained a lot I see,
        “For this year, we calculated a total SMB of 517bn tonnes, which is almost 150bn tonnes above the average for 1981-2010, ranking just behind the 2016-17 season as sixth highest on record.”
        For the 2016-17 SMB year, which ended on 30th August, the ice sheet had gained 544bn tonnes of ice, compared to an average for 1981-2010 of 368bn tonnes.
        You and they can speculate all you like Steve, but,
        “We must wait for data from the GRACE-Follow On (GRACE-FO) satellite mission before we know how the total mass budget has fared this year ”
        Note last year they state
        “figures suggest that Greenland may have gained a small amount of ice over the 2016-17 year.” even though they had no GRACE data to back that statement. Why?
        Because they have an average ice shelf loss from past data that they can subtract from the average SMB gain. Guess what Steve.
        It was positive in 2017 and again in 2018.
        not by very much I grant you but positive.
        It did gain ice on the very and only measures DMI can use.

      • Hans Erren

        The Vikings supposedly were aware of the observation that winter temperatures and weather conditions could often be reversed between Greenland and Europe, in their case Denmark

        This is from the 11th Century book ‘The Kings mirror’ a varied account of the Vikings in the far north. It comes from the Royal Meteorological society papers, page 63. Phil Jones also wrote about it

        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.150

        ” The first unequivocal evidence of the NAO’s existence appeared in the writings of the eighteenth-century Danish missionary to Greenland, Hans Egede Saabye. His diary, published in 1745, clearly points to the anticorrelation in the severity of Danish and Greenland winters.

        There are also interesting earlier remarks about Greenland climate in the King’s Mirror which clearly reveal an appreciation for climate as distinct from weather. Indeed, Stephenson et al. (2003) conclude from the King’s Mirror that:‘’the Norse knew from their observations that colder than normal conditions in Greenland were associated with more storminess elsewhere – an important aspect of the North Atlantic Oscillation’’.

        Nevertheless, it seems rather far-fetched to assert that the Norse knew of the nonlocal relationships…..”

        tonyb

    • The paper is very interesting, see fig. 3 there: robust relaxing of sea ice volume loss after 2012. No spiral of death? :-)

    • I believe you are wrong that geothermal heat is melting the bottom of the suspended ice shelf. I believe the last ice age lasted 120,000 years. It ended about 18,000 years ago. The ice melting stage began about 80,000years ago. 60,000 years to make the ice and 60,000 years to melt the ice.
      Watrer cooling from 212’F to 39’F contracts ( gets heavier and sinks). Cooling from 39’F to 32’F it expands thus rises to the surface. The water at the poles, the top few feet, is between 39’f to 32’F Therefore the ice from the surface to the bottom of the ice shelf, except for the top is touching 39’F water. The 39’F water has been melting the lower part of the ice shelf, since the ice making began and the oceans began rising.
      When the ice melting staage began nature was eating away at the bottom of the ice shelf as the iced and snow grew on the surface, and the oceans lowered. Eventually the weight on top got heavy enough and began to break off. The new ice being addet to the ocean slowed down the lowerig of the ice or possibly began it’s rise. That is where we are now.Eventually the breaking off of the ice shelf will slow down and we will rapidly lower.

  8. One more very interesting cloud-paper: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0154.1
    The feedback of clouds above the westpacific is near zero and the mechanism for it also holds for higher SST.

  9. Awhile back Pat Michaels and I published “Is the Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases.”
    https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

    Now NSF has published as clear an example of Federal funding-induced bias as one can find . They are giving $30 million for Arctic research that assumes dramatic future climate change. Presumably no proposal that is not willing to assume this will be funded. This is what I call “paradigm protection.”

    Here is a central part of the alarmist NSF solicitation:
    “Arctic temperatures are warming faster than nearly everywhere else on Earth, with some models predicting that continued warming could produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by mid-century. The rapid and wide-scale changes occurring in response to this warming portend new opportunities and unprecedented risks to natural systems; social and cultural systems; economic, political and legal systems; and built environments of the Arctic and across the globe. The lack of scientific observations and the prevalence of interdependent social, natural, and built systems in the Arctic make it challenging to predict the region’s future. Understanding and adapting to a changing Arctic will require creative new directions for Arctic-specific research, education, workforce development, and leveraging of science, engineering, and technology advances from outside the Arctic.”
    See https://nsf.gov/pubs/2019/nsf19511/nsf19511.htm

    They are buying scare stories, as usual.

  10. Explanation of 4th generation nuclear power
    A great article. Rather than being against everything which easy to do, in favor of an answer. That both sides should be able to agree on. For the more calculating, split the left on the issue. Assume they are against nuclear power. The Republican have been mutts on the issue though. No vision. Afraid of the Greens.

    • This is just complete BS. Nobody in Texas is afraid of greens. Nuclear power cannot compete with natural gas. I nuclear power could compete, Texans would have kept right building them after Comanche Peak.

      • “Nuclear power cannot compete with natural gas”

        Of course it can, if the environmental and health burden of gas extraction and combustion is taken into account.
        Nuclear is expensive in the USA only because it has been made such by anti-nuke lobbies and their lawyers.

    • Unfortunately, what makes gas value able is what makes it cheap in the short-run. We should be building excess capacity for gas to deal with demand shocks (particularly large arctic blasts, the ones we plan for are only ~2 weeks), but generally conserving it to have for long term.

      Also, with exports, don’t expect prices to always be low. And they’ll be high when it’s most needed. And with more extreme winters if we see reversion toward the mean of the past 400 or 500 years, as seems could be happening we could see huge shocks. Fortunately it probably won’t cost lives in the US, but Europe may find it hard to get gas when it most needs it.

  11. “Climate and the Global Famine of 1876-78 “

    I wasn’t aware of this event before.

    It is a reminder of those who think that somehow reducing CO2 would prevent droughts.

    Clearly, for events such as this, drought is not a function of global temperature.

    • It is a reminder of those who think that somehow reducing CO2 would prevent droughts.

      Straw; house; hot air; goal.

    • Re: ““Climate and the Global Famine of 1876-78 “ I wasn’t aware of this event before. It is a reminder of those who think that somehow reducing CO2 would prevent droughts. Clearly, for events such as this, drought is not a function of global temperature.”

      As JCH pointed out, you erected a ridiculous straw man. The fact that droughts happened in the past, does not imply that reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions would not prevent droughts. To say otherwise is as silly as saying:

      1) Lung cancer occurred in the past before there was smoking. So reducing smoking won’t prevent lung cancer.
      2) Forest fires occurred before there were any humans around. So reducing campers’ use of cigarettes won’t prevent forest fires.

      The flaw here is obvious: reducing X can still prevent various occurrences of Y, even if Y happened in the past before X was around. It’s sad that so many faux “skeptics” conveniently forget this, to the point that the IPCC has to correct similar mistakes:

      “These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.”
      https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html

      Anyway, for those interested in anthropogenic climate change and drought, I’d suggest starting with sources such as:

      “Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California”
      “Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012–2014”
      “Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models”
      “Global warming and changes in drought”
      “Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences”
      “Observed drought indices show increasing divergence across Europe”
      “Influence of anthropogenic climate change on planetary wave resonance and extreme weather events”
      “Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events”

      • Re: “As usual, the excitables ignore past anti-correlation and offer only future speculation. Empirical reality only, please.”

        Evidence was already cited to you. Let me know when you finally learn how to address it. I won’t hold my breath, though, since you have the unscientific belief that citing peer-reviewed sources of scientific evidence amounts to “motivated parrotry”:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/#comment-877614

        Guess that makes it easier for you to dodge inconvenient studies that rebut your position.

      • Atomski doesn’t cite science in a traditional way.

        Just words – it seems mostly in the title – that confirms his bias. Anything that doesn’t confirm bias is automatically ignored or rejected – always on the basis of some overly simplistic physical argument. He understands little of Earth systems and is more interested in tribal politics than science. A bombastic thread bombing waste of time and energy.

        Anyone who doesn’t share his bias is an unreconstructed troglodyte. 😂

      • Re: “Atomski doesn’t cite science in a traditional way. Just words – it seems mostly in the title “

        You’ve clearly never checked the “references” section of a scientific paper. Otherwise, you would know that mentioning the title of a paper is a common way of citing it. And I cite papers in that way: by giving their titles.

        At some point, Robert, you need to actually learn about the topics you’re discussing. Snark, attitude, etc. are not a substitute for actually knowing what you’re talking about.

      • Citation involves invoking past work and specific ideas. Atomski waves them about like magic talisman ad hoc and in toto. Not the way it’s done. You should at least be able to define the relevance concisely – not merely say see this google list of magic talisman.

      • Re: “You should at least be able to define the relevance concisely”

        Reading comprehension is important, Robert. Please develop it.
        I clearly said:

        “for those interested in anthropogenic climate change and drought, I’d suggest starting with sources such as:”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882786

        That’s what’s known as a “defining the relevance concisely”. If I was any less concise than that, then you’d make up some new, vacuous criticism, like:

        “A bombastic thread bombing”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882809

        Really, you’re testing my patience.

      • The problem in hydrology is that every change since 1950 is supposedly anthropogenic. We can return to the 1950’s by reducing emissions? Laughable nonsense.

        It takes a certain type to imagine that intrinsic variability over decades to millennia can be captured in modern instrumental data. That is the problem that hydrologists such as myself has faced since Heraclitus.

        “Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered 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 on 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.” Koutsoyiannis 2013

        Emphasis mine. Inferring hydrology change from decadal data is one of the more bizarre ideas – among many – in climate science. Obviously something that Atomski doesn’t understand but enthusiastically endorses.

        Thread bombing is what he does – endless repetition of archived comments dripping with deprecation. And then he whines about moderation on a contrarion site.

        I am getting on his nerves? A round of applause please.

      • Re: “The problem in hydrology is that every change since 1950 is supposedly anthropogenic.”

        That’s a straw man you fabricated. If I’m wrong on that, then cite one peer-reviewed scientific source that made that claim. If you fail to do so, then people should just take that as evidence that (despite all your snarkiness, bombast, etc.) you simply make stuff up.

      • As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed on the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run.

        Perhaps I should have highlighted that ffs.

      • Guess that makes it easier for you to dodge inconvenient studies that rebut your position.

        You do not seem to accept observational data nor understand much of atmospheric science. In spite of this, you do seem to persistently parrot arguments without offering much insight.

      • Re: “You do not seem to accept observational data”

        Nope. I cite observational data, which you often then parrot without actually having the read the sources I’ve cited. For example:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#comment-880977

        Re: “nor understand much of atmospheric science. In spite of this, you do seem to persistently parrot arguments without offering much insight.”

        Nope. I cite observational data from peer-reviewed papers. You willfully ignore that data, often by calling me “crazy”. Maybe calling me crazy is what qualifies as “insight” for you?

        “Hi, crazy atom guy.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#comment-881049

  12. Re item 4 on atoll island planform changes, evidence of island growth rather than disappearance over the last 35-40 years has been previously reported (and cf Willis’s comments in this area). An Australian government minister was recently upbraided for an undiplomatic comment to a Pacific island leader that “You’re only after the money,” a comment which I think is fully justified. Other ministers who claim that we must pursue massive emissions reductions to save the Pacific are in denial of reality.

  13. Geoff Sherrington

    Interesting paper on forests impacting climate, work of Abigail Swann, etc. In some ways it can be seen to show how too narrow an understanding of global processes migh miss important mechanisms. Just imagining, for example, whether forest changes were significant to nileometer measurements of Nile River flow long ago and whether some of the conclusions about long term persistence of some climate effects per Hurst et al need to be revisited. Then, on another level, could these variations interplay with cloud extent, cloud feedback, albedo, ….
    Some advice to the young receptive minds out there. We continue to pay a large penalty because too much current research is bastardised by obsession with CO2. Open the mind to a fertile scenario of complex climate interactive causes and have a much more exciting intellectual career. Do not write papers predicated by “As Earth warms and suffers more extreme climate events for the next 50 years. ….” That practically stamps your effort as second rate. Geoff

    • 90% of rainfall derives from the oceans – for the Nile basin the AMO and the Pacific state especially.

      The graphic is from a Dietmar Dommenget paper. He is worth listening to.

      The work of Harold Hurst over many decades of delving into Nile River data is immensely impressive but he was of course constrained to the ideas of his time. There are more modern interpretations of his results.

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

  14. About scientists
    Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize in Physics for co-invention of pulse laser amplification. Only the 3rd woman to win the Nobel in physics after Marie Curie and Maria Mayer

    Frances Arnold won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for directed evolution to engineer enzymes

  15. Pingback: Atollit pärjäävät | Roskasaitti

  16. “The North Atlantic has shown large multidecadal temperature shifts during the 20th century. There is ongoing debate about whether this variability arises primarily through the influence of atmospheric internal variability, through changes in ocean circulation, or as a response to anthropogenic forcing.”

    The AMO via the NAO/AO acts as a negative feedback to changes in solar wind temperature/pressure:
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

  17. “ENSO Change in Climate Projections: Forced Response or Internal Variability?”

    A negative feedback to changes in solar forcing. At the extremes, during deep glacial periods, near permanent El Nino conditions exist, while during the Holocene Optimum La Nina conditions dominated. During the Maunder and Dalton solar minima, El Nino episode mean frequency roughly doubled. Most El Nino episodes in the space age have been during notably weaker periods of solar wind temperature/pressure:

    • There is just log science here – ultimately entirely inadequate. Not to mention the unreadable graphs.

      • Your graphs are unreadable as I have said before. A waste of time even trying.

        But if we look at the last 1000 years – low solar activity shows up in the isotope record.


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

        On a longer term the mid-Holocene transition from La Niña like conditions to El Niño like conditions is coincident with a solar transition to high activity.

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

        Proof of nothing but suggestive of a low TSI/La Nina link. Theory relates it to polar annular modes spinning up Pacific gyres. Without a plausible physical model it is just eyeballing junk signifying nothing that you repeat over and over as if this was of some critical import – it isn’t.

        But the what data there is suggests that Ulric has it totally arse about. As for permanent El Niño in glacials – there is no data. He is making it up.

      • As before, zoom out the graph. If your screen is too small that’s not my problem.

        The mid-Holocene transition from La Niña like conditions to El Niño like conditions is coincident with post Holocene Optimum cooling, i.e a decline in net climate forcings.

        Weaker solar wind conditions increase negative NAO/AO states which are directly associated with slower trade winds. We know that the mean El Nino episode frequency roughly doubled during the Maunder and Dalton solar minima. Most El Nino episodes in the space age were during periods of weaker solar wind states, and vice versa for La Nina episodes. Major volcanic events also drove El Nino conditions 91-92 and 82-83.

        “As for permanent El Niño in glacials – there is no data. He is making it up.”

        That is a lie.

        To suggest that ENSO is a positive feedback to net changes in climate forcings, as you have, is hopelessly irrational, and is contrary to what we know about recent centennial solar minima, and what the space age solar wind data indicates.

      • Cite science instead of repeating this narrative nonsense.

        ENSO is a charge/recharge oscillation. It starts with upwelling in the Humbolt Current region of the eastern Pacific. This sets up feedbacks across the Pacific that pile up warm surface water in the western Pacific. It has its own dynamic and resonant frequency separate to the causes of changes in flow in the Humboldt Current. This is caused by more meridional or zonal winds in higher latitudes. The causes of this include changes in solar activity influencing both the Antarctic and Arctic oscillation.

        e.g. – https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

        Solar activity UV especially – among other factors and feedbacks – seems to bias the system to one state or the other – but it is not a forcing at all in the IPCC sense. It is a control variable that pushes a system past a dynamic threshold. ENSO is an internal variability that shifts state in accordance with shifts in globally coupled flow fields.

        Understanding the physical mechanisms involved – including dynamical complexity – in a plausible conceptual model is far more interesting than eyeballing an unreadable graph and reaching arse about conclusions.

      • What I say is that ENSO has wind, current and cloud feedbacks. Not that ENSO is a negative feedback to anything at all. There is no simple cause and effect.

        But the cloud feedback to sea surface temperature in ENSO is a significant part of the global energy dynamic.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/10/16/stocks-and-flows-in-the-earth-system/

      • “ENSO is an internal variability..”

        That is as you say ‘reaching arse about conclusions’.
        Stop whinging about the graph and zoom out or go to the source, which you have been supplied the last time that you whinged about it.

      • ENSO is not internal variability?

        The graph has tiny axis legends that are unreadable – and the image is of too low a resolution to magnify into readability. What source would that be? Snaggy? And it is still meaningless in terms of ENSO. Eyeballing a short term satellite era graph of ‘solar wind’. Utter BS.

      • I can only conclude that either need a bigger screen or reading glasses, and that you are hopeless at visually analysing a time series. You’re not alone.

      • I can only conclude that – whatever it is – eyeballing is far from a conclusive scientific method.

  18. Hindcasts, Arctic recovery oft predicted, never eventuating. A lot of comment recently about warmer Arctic air while a 10 day streak in ice growth occurred. Apart from the joy in watching such comments shrivel in the cold.
    PIOMAS will be interesting.
    JCH, did we have a warmer October?? on your up to date observations.

    • It’s very hot all the way through to at least Nov 8, and maybe beyond.

      So sorry, Oct is way up, and four more days of big numbers coming:

      Gaze at your ice. I have no idea why.

      • There are vagaries in weather in high latitudes caused by changes in the polar annular modes.

        “Numerous studies have examined the predictability of the annular modes, and most of these studies focus on the impact of a relative slowly evolving boundary condition on the amplitude of the NAM or the SAM. As of this writing, there is observational and modeling evidence that: 1) both annular modes are sensitive to month-to-month and year-to-year variability in the stratospheric flow (see section on Stratosphere/troposphere coupling, below); 2) both annular modes have exhibited long term trends which may reflect the impact of stratospheric ozone depletion and/or increased greenhouse gases (see section on Climate Change, below); and 3) the NAM responds to changes in the distribution of sea-ice over the North Atlantic sector. To what extent changes in other external forcings (e.g., midlatitude sea-surface temperature anomalies, solar variability, etc.) impact the annular modes is less clear…

        Observations and numerical experiments suggest the annular modes have played and will continue to play a role in climate change. Both annular modes have exhibited trends towards their high index polarities over the past few decades: The trend in the NAM is largest during NH winter, is most pronounced from the middle 1960s to the late 1990s, and has relaxed somewhat in the past decade. We likely need at least another decade of data to know whether the trend in the NAM is, in fact, continuing. The trend in the SAM is largest in the SH summer season. The trend in the NAM helps explain the spatial structure of recent trends in NH climate and several ecosystems over the past few decades. The trend in the SAM helps explain the pattern of recent temperature trends over Antarctica.

        Why have the annular modes exhibited trends over the past few decades? We still don’t know for sure. But observations and model results suggest the trend in the SAM is at least partially driven by Antarctic ozone depletion. Climate models forced with increasing greenhouse gases consistently simulate a trend towards the high index polarity of the SAM. Climate models do not simulate a consistent trend in the NAM in response to either increasing greenhouse gases or stratospheric ozone depletion.” http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ao/introduction.html

        NAM (equivalently AO) is very variable for a number of reasons. More negative values push polar storms and winds into lower latitudes.

        Confusing short term (daily ffs) variability for long term trends is of course immensely foolish. JCH’s intellectual fail in a nutshell.

        The suggestion is that the NAM trend this century depends somewhat on solar activity and may trend more negative.

      • I don’t confuse anything you arrogant pos.

      • A typically acerbic and abusive nothing from a recalcitrant pos.

      • Phukk U.

        And Pray for cooler Pacific, and the cold phase of the AMO. Stay tuned. LMAO.

      • Sea surface temperature in the eastern and central Pacific will inevitably warm and cool as they always have. ENSO is a delayed charge/recharge oscillator that is both stochastically forced and subject to internal feedbacks – including in low level marine strato-cumulus cloud . The origin of ENSO is upwelling in the eastern Pacific. The problem is guessing the intensity and frequency of future upwelling. My guess is that it will revert to a more La Nina like state – stochastically forced perhaps by decreased solar irradiance. .


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

        And again here is the 100 year cosmogenic isotope record.

        And although there are leads and lags in surface temperature between regions it does appear that past centuries were naturally cooler. By how much is not definitively known.

        This is of course the PAGES 2K 2013 graphic that was doctored to produce a 2017 global hockey stick. What seems evident is different regional responses – including anti-phase temperatures of the Arctic and Antarctic.

        A cooler sun, a more La Nina like Pacific state and a lower atmospheric temperature. Is there a pattern emerging? Complexity and uncertainty is not something they can incorporate into their narrative. The resort by JCH – again – to an attempt at ridicule is an intellectually worthless endeavor at the core of the progressive charade. The rules were literally written in the 1970’s by Saul Allinski. It is ideology far from objectivity. An utterly pointless waste of time. We can contrast this with my detailed and well supported conceptual model – something essential for ultimately building the equations necessary for numerical modelling. Or for specifying and designing observation methods for the Earth system. Something – both modelling and monitoring – I have spent a career doing in hydrodynamics.
        .

      • Robert:
        “Both annular modes have exhibited trends towards their high index polarities over the past few decades”

        Firstly you should be looking at the NAO rather than the NAM, and the NAO was strongly negatively biased between 1993 and 2014. Hence the Arctic warming.

        “increasing greenhouse gases consistently simulate a trend towards the high index polarity of the SAM.”

        They are backwards then.

      • I didn’t get all that far with this Ulric. The NAO is the Atlantic expression of the AO – otherwise known as the NAM. It is a vortex that extends from the stratosphere to the surface. Quibbling about silly little points is of no interest to me.

        https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-96.44,93.36,273

  19. Thanks. Looks just like the temp forecast locally in northern Victoria. Aus.
    Well ice is one of those things that does not always follow the story.
    And exceptions need explanations.
    Took a long time for the El Nino heat to reach the Arctic,at last wearing off, so though I expect a flattening in the temp anomaly global I am hoping for a rebound in the ice this year.
    Mind you thought that last year and it stalled.

  20. What sweet irony exposed by MacIntyre’s analysis of PAGES. The hockey-stick signal arising from CO2 fertilisation is reprocessed into evidence for unprecedented warming. This in turn is used to label CO2 as a pollutant.

    • Re: “What sweet irony exposed by MacIntyre’s analysis of PAGES”

      I’m curious why you find McIntyre’s non-peer-reviewed blog article claims to be credible.

      In general, I don’t find McIntyre credible for a number of reasons, including his claims being rebutted in the peer-reviewed literature and him screwing up on basic points in climatology (because he repeats erroneous claims he heard from faux “skeptics”). The following claim of his is the one that makes me laugh the most, since it’s been rebutted since at least the 1970s, if not earlier:

      “Temperature increases in the tropical troposphere are, as I understand it, a distinctive “fingerprint” for carbon dioxide forcing”
      https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/26/tropical-troposphere/

      Santer et al. nicely put that nonsense to bed:

      “In the tropics, moist thermodynamic processes amplify surface warming […]. Such tropical amplification occurs for any surface warming; it is not a unique signature of greenhouse gas (GHG)-induced warming, as has been incorrectly claimed (Christy 2015)
      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1

      And I’m still awaiting the day when another research group can provide evidence in support of McIntyre’s analysis below:

      Figures 7 and 8: “Corrections to the Mann et. al.(1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series”

      Anyway, if McIntyre’s claims have merit, then he can submit them to peer review. Maybe he can write a response paper or a comment, as he did with his criticisms of Mann’s work. Then people can respond to them in the literature as well, as they did to many of his eventually failed criticisms of Mann’s work.

      • Is this the same Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) who put up pages of whatever on the existence of a hot spot only a month ago?
        Lucky Santer et al. nicely put that nonsense to bed:
        Shame he did not put up the Santer et al debunking at that stage but maybe it was inconvenient, maybe he just forgot.

      • Say good morning to Niño 3.4:

      • jch

        I didn’t think you had much time for meteorologists?

        If you do, that does of course opens up the field of climate studies substantially when we want to quote someone from a weather background to you

        “My forecasts do not represent the prognostications of any government office”

        Do you have anything from a recognised official source? Many thanks……”

        tonyb

      • It’s observations to date.

      • Again superficial nonsense from an untrained AGW obsessive. Bizarrely around natural warming or cooling in this case.

        “El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). ” https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

        This is the pattern – and a part of it is changing SST in specific regions. It changes dynamically.

        Model forecasts are based on the persistence of patterns – there is no prediction based on fundamental geophusics. The governing physics equations simply are not there.

        El Nino emerges from elevated water levels in the western Pacific. The La Nina ‘normal’ arises from from upwelling in the eastern Pacific when ocean spanning feedbacks in the MEI variables kick in. There is nothing in the system to feed into a large El Nino – but a big La Nina may kick in any time with spinning up of Pacific gyres coupled to negative polar annular modes.

        “In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.” http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

        JCH – and earlier Atomski and #jiminy – have not the remotest clue about putting things in a rational scientific context.

      • Keep praying, A “o”.

      • He has no training or experience – but he is a knob with bells on. That is the pattern.

      • Re: “Is this the same Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) who put up pages of whatever on the existence of a hot spot only a month ago?”

        You know it would help if you read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, for once in your life?:

        Re: “Lucky Santer et al. nicely put that nonsense to bed:
        Shame he did not put up the Santer et al debunking at that stage but maybe it was inconvenient, maybe he just forgot.”

        You mean the same Santer et al. that showed tropical tropospheric amplification?:

        Really, angech, it helps if you actually read scientific sources, before arguing with those of us who have.

  21. The study referenced in the link on the missing piece in glacier melting, Kendrick et al 2018, covers the issues of the interrelationships between supraglacial, englacial and subglacial melting and the effects on the stability of the Greenland Ice Sheet and connected glaciers, which were addressed in Smith et al 2014. In that paper one of the conclusions was that until they knew all those above mechanisms in totality, modeling for current and future contributions to SLR would be incomplete and could cause inaccurate estimates of meltwater reaching the ocean. To admit they don’t understand it all is a great first step. Science marches on.

  22. There is an uncommon high pressure cell in the north-east Pacific.

    blob:https://wordpress.com/c7aca386-75e0-49c1-941b-7a2136a11136
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/equirectangular/loc=-137.333,33.333

    This is resulting in enhanced upwelling – with a still cool south east Pacific. ,

    blob:https://wordpress.com/c7aca386-75e0-49c1-941b-7a2136a11136

    If feedacks kick in – we will see a cool Pacific state emerge, I think it more likely – but far from inevitable – at a low point in the Schwabe cycle. .

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

    I read Shellenberger’s Forbes article –
    https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1056922592295206912 – linked in his tweet above. We can obviously produce electricity and heat with nuclear fission – but this is still just 25% of the emissions. What is needed is a range of cost competitive technologies across sectors – in which advanced nuclear reactors seem very likely to play a part. Christina Back encapsulated the factors for nuclear energy to succeed.

    But Shellenberger is another misguided nuclear enthusiast – one without much depth in technology, physics or Earth system science. Unless nuclear is re-designed to achieve Back’s four pillars – it will never succeed. There is of course pie in the sky history rewriting that insists that we wave a magic wand. Not worth considering. Nor is nuclear demonstrably safer than fossil fuels – coal plants are being made low emission – sulfur. particulates, mercury, etc. Comparing a disputed nuclear safety record to past generation coal plants is not a credible procedure. And nuclear safety is disputed in the literature.

    e.g. http://www.cancer-environnement.fr/Portals/0/Documents%20PDF/Publication/Ondes/Sermage-Fare%202012.pdf

    He repeats the new nuclear shibboleth that population relocation is more dangerous than a meltdown. Duh – relocation is an effect of the nuclear accident cause. They would otherwise need to provide impossible proof of an astonishing claim that relocation from irradiated landscapes is not required after a nuclear meltdown. I don’t know why they bother promoting an antiquated and feared technology – the fruit of hundreds of accidents and radiation releases – with such intractable technical problems. New materials developed for advanced nuclear designs can make the old nuclear fuels more meltdown resistant. In older designs fuels have an aluminium casing. This when melted at high temperatures result in a a failure of moderation – the oxidizing aluminium releases hydrogen that then explodes making things worse. The cladding can be replaced with silicon carbide.

    “Nuclear energy – the most reliable source of clean non-intermittent electricity in the United States – is under threat from economic factors that could result in the premature closure of many or all of our current reactors. If the U.S. is to maintain this precious resource, which supplies 20% of our electricity needs and 60% of our low-carbon electricity generation, we must invest in cutting-edge technology known as Accident Tolerant Fuel (ATF). ATF can extend the life of current reactors by making them cheaper and nearly meltdown proof, while simultaneously paving the way for advanced nuclear reactors that can greatly exceed the capabilities of the current fleet.” http://www.ga.com/accident-tolerant-fuel

    The major problem of old nuclear is that it is expensive. Advanced nuclear has considerable scope to reduce cost at the same time as delivering vastly improved performance on the other three essential criteria.

    “Today, due partly to the high capital cost of large power reactors generating electricity via the steam cycle and partly to the need to service small electricity grids under about 4 GWe,b there is a move to develop smaller units. These may be built independently or as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added incrementally as required (see section below on Modular construction using small reactor units). Economies of scale are envisaged due to the numbers produced. There are also moves to develop independent small units for remote sites. Small units are seen as a much more manageable investment than big ones whose cost often rivals the capitalization of the utilities concerned.” http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

    Not to mention factory production and quality assurance. They have the ability to slot in where there is a poorly developed grid. A considerable cost advantage – with a much smaller footprint and the capacity to be installed almost anywhere. The new NRC ruling on the Tennessee Valley authority methodology for limiting safety zones for advanced nuclear to the site boundaries – is another step in the right direction.

    But it is still only 25% of greenhouse gas emissions at best. The major opportunity for reduction of emissions – and for negative emissions – is the land use sector. With benefits for food security, economies and environments.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE,
      When you are personally involved in the nuclear cycle as a career, you tend to read more of the better-researched literature, including – gosh – papers with actual measurement data. You tend away from most literature with green in the text because the green community showed itself superfluous from the beginning of their play with nuclear.
      The nuclear industry has, in general, always been rather aware of the basic requirements. No need for a modern guru like Back to repeat them.
      There are strange questions that seldom seem addressed. The public is exposed time and again to the dangers of a few reactors that have had significant accidents, all 3 of them. The public knows next to nothing sbout military reactors that have just sat down and delivered decade after decade with little fuss. Ones perception of nuclear energy is never very complete, but it is rather different if you use the accident reactors or the military ones as the basis of your understanding.
      Heck, these days I do not even write about nuclear, because few want to read the real state of knowledge and when they do, they have been conditioned to argue as instant knee jerk. My suspicion is that Shellenberger is a bit slow to learn this and so few people of influence bother to read.
      If you come here with references to educate readers, you should chose them to leave out largely irrelevant topic like cancer, your favourite containment material, your preferred future design, because the fundamentals of these factors are all known and do not improve through retold versions by onlookers.
      RIE, you have a good brain. Your expressions of understanding are often close to good sources, but often not close enough. You seem to have good, but sometimes misguided motivation. (I had been post grad for under a year before my CSIRO boss told me, harshly, to stick to my knitting). Research papers on nuclear fundamentals are in a different league and well above the quality of “environmental, sustainable, ethical, post modern” pop stuff.
      Geoff

      • I cited just one peer reviewed article on childhood leukemia in France just from from their aging and decrepit nuclear fleet – and recall that I have discussed others with Sherrington before. This is before serious accidents – there have been 100 – that are defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as “an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility…” at nuclear plants as well as a number of accidents with nuclear subs – the latest being Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of course.

        As for cancers I have read dozens if not hundreds of papers over the years as an environmental scientist with an interest in policy, science and risk – and as someone with a good understanding of statistics. I am a trained scientist and use only the most reputable sources. The health impacts of the nuclear industry are contested in the scientific literature and the failure to recognize this is a failure by amateur would be authorities such as Sherrington to give due weight to scientific uncertainty.

        “It is now becoming evident that exposure doses in Fukushima residents are much lower than those from the Chernobyl accident, and no strong evidence in support of the causal relation of thyroid cancer with radiation exposure in Fukushima is available so far (9,10). Thus, good epidemiological studies are still in demand. While reports by international agencies on the Fukushima accident state that proving the causal relation under such low exposure ranges is extremely difficult (11,12), the analyses of genetic abnormalities and pathological characteristics are now in progress to offer some clues on the possible etiology of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) in Fukushima patients.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/

        The releases of these novel nuclear isotopes – natural sources decayed long ago – as represented by cesium-137 are now seen in all the worlds oceans – from bombs and many nuclear accidents. There is indubitably a link between radiation exposure and cancers – and although there is much silliness from the fringes about exposure thresholds this is not something that any global authority endorses. The better idea – and one easier to sell to the wary public I presume – is to have designs that are inherently much less problematic.

        The problems of the nuclear industry are abundantly clear – even to such industry stalwarts as General Atomics. I did link to their page on modern materials for fuel cladding – very interesting. But do try to read on their advanced nuclear design – EM2 – on the same website. This is just one of many advanced nuclear designs globally that are fuel utilization and thermally efficient – as well as being at least potentially cost competitive.

        e.g. http://smrstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SMR-Start-Economic-Analysis-APPROVED-2017-09-14.pdf

        Here’s a video.

        As far as I am concerned Sherrington is capable only of advanced waffle. It is all just personalized, aggrandizing narrative without any sources at all but his own dubious authority as first a soil scientist, later other things and now a nuclear expert. Amazing. In reality he was a bureaucrat in a mining industry lobby group – and invariably writes with an air of condescension that is certainly unwarranted on the quality of his contributions to any topic. That he does not address any issue with any semblance of argument supported with reputable sources is a telling trait resulting in a waste of everyone’s time. I’d suggest he get up to speed but I am not optimistic.

        In essence there are many advanced designs and a few in construction that will vastly improve performance on the four pillars of Christina Back. These type of designs have some 400 years of operational experience to pull on – with new materials and fuel cycles that take it to the next level. As John Parmentola says in the video – the laws of physics tell you what to do. These are real experts unlike the poseurs on this site. But in this it seems that – unique in human experience – for some people 70 year old tech is better than new tech.

      • Robert

        As a matter of interest what DO we use to fuel a modern 24/7 economy bearing in mind green politics?

        As an example Germany is phasing out nuclear. The greens have gained many seats in the local elections. They don’t like nuclear, they don’t like gas and they certainly don’t like coal fired power stations using lignite that the germans have been building recently.

        What should a country like Germany be doing, bearing in mind the thick strand of green politics running through their govt?

        tonyb

      • climatereason,

        The only known fuel and technology that is sustainable and can supply all the world’s energy needs for thousands of years is nuclear. That includes producing all the transport fuels we need (petrol, diesel, jet fuel, etc).

        Nuclear power is also the safest way to generate electricity, by far, and always has been since the first power reactor began supplying power to the grid in 1954.

        More here: What could have been – if nuclear power deployment had not been disrupted
        https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/

      • Peter

        I am not disagreeing with you or with Robert. Bearing in mind all the demands of a modern 24/7 economy and mixing this in with green politics and wishful thinking I am just wondering what power sources we are supposed to rely on in the near future.

        IF renewables are too play a bigger part, and we all know of their inherent inefficiencies-then we really need to invest far more in battery technology.

        I personally favour tidal power-in the UK’s circumstances-but that is decades behind other power sources. So what do we use?

        tonyb

      • “Climate change can’t be solved on the backs of the world’s poorest people,” said Daniel Sarewitz, coauthor and director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. “The key to solving for both climate and poverty is helping nations build innovative energy systems that can deliver cheap, clean, and reliable power.” https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet

        Tony

        Sorry to say that – despite the royal tour of the diminished dominions winding up today – I can’t seem to give a rat’s arse what Europeans do. Across the ‘global south’ 1000’s of HELE coal plants will be deployed over the next couple of decades.

        e.g. https://www.iea-coal.org/hele-perspectives-selected-asian-countries/

        They are the cheapest and safest generating plants currently available in most places – almost no pollutants and somewhat reduced CO2 emissions. I am far too much a pragmatist – and regard optimum global economic growth as indispensable for humanitarian reasons primarily – to look far beyond that at this time. My environmental training tells me that only rich economies can afford environments. Something important to me as I realized again this morning watching snippets of Blue Planet while waiting at the tire shop. It left me feeling optimistic – I have had such a brilliant day.

        In the interim – if you want – there are low hanging fruit in many sectors and different gases and aerosols. In the longer term I expect the pace of technological innovation to continue to accelerate – and the price of fossil fuels to increase given rapidly growing demand and diminishing supply. There is a price break point there – at about $7/MMBtu US gas cost General Atomics calculated.

        I am not an advocate for any technology – but am an enthusiast for technology in general and free and fair markets. If the market is free to choose the transition to 21st century energy sources will be breathtaking. That said I expect that there will be a number of cost effective niche sources – there are already – with a number of advanced nuclear plants coming online by the middle of the next decade. The latter is a technology whose time has come because it is just so damn good.

      • It is worth having a quick look at the fuel cycle. The idea is to separate light fission products from the heavier and long lived actinides. Then reintroduce all but 3% (fission products) of the fuel into the next burn cycle with additional fertile material. This enables most of the fuel energy to be utilized rather than 1/2% with once through fuels. Fertile material includes uranium and thorium, once through nuclear waste and depleted uranium. The US has enough waste sitting around in leaky drums and ponds for 400 years of energy supply.

        Fission products decay to background levels in the original source within 300 years rather than many thousands.

      • Tonyb
        In my work career I managed OTEC and tidal projects for DOE.
        Ocean Thermal needed big pipes going from the surface to the deep cool ocean to take advantage of the temperature difference.

        DOE published a report a couple years ago on prospects.

        OTEC had such bad corrosion and fouling it created huge maintenance costs vs reliable and economical gas fired co-generation turbines.

        I can look up the old reports, likely 5 years ago.

        Electronic versions but fairly large reports.
        Would you be interested?
        Richard

      • Tony, I think for now nuclear with natural gas for heat, some cooking, and to manage variability. We should have significant excess capacity in natural gas supply to deal with severe and prolonged demand shocks, particularly in severe winter events. Renewables may play a role in reducing consumption of natural gas to extend the life of reserves.

        Eventually, we should be able to synthesize what we need for liquid and gas fuels.

      • ClimateReason: IF renewables are too play a bigger part, and we all know of their inherent inefficiencies-then we really need to invest far more in battery technology.

        Why? Instead of using electricity to recharge batteries, why not use it to make fuel from CO2?

      • Scott

        Sounds interesting.

        The sea is a cruel mistress, corrosion and ferocious conditions have scuppered many a plan. We have a testing platform fairly near us called ‘wave hub’ in which companies can test their wave energy devices. it hasn’t been a huge success as the devices are few and far between and not very robust.

        The technology is way behind that of other renewables. However in our circumstances it makes sense as we are an island with nowhere further than 70 miles from the sea. So there is a tidal resource at all times and in the case of the Isle of Wight they have four tides a day. The tide differential in many places between high and low is often considerable..

        We can readily predict the amount of power from tides and add in the less certain wave energy and temperature differential and this is a huge resource.

        I have a very jaundiced view of solar power at our latitude. Tacitus 2000 years ago observed our rain and amount of cloud. Add in that apparently completely surprising thing that they don’t work at night and without batteries to store their surplus they are a very poor use of resources.

        if you have anything you can readily upload that is relatively concise and up to date i would be interested to see it.

        all the best

        tonyb

      • Tonyb

        Here you go on prospects of wave energy.

        https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-energy-research-development

        Other Marine kinetics.
        Scott

      • Hi Scott

        I have clicked on the page three times but each time it comes up ‘this page can’t be displayed.’

        can you check the address? Thanks

        tonyb

      • Tonyb
        If this doesn’t work it must be overseas IP address blocked.
        Sorry
        Scott

  24. climatereason,

    Intermittent renewables supply just a few percent of world energy. Until about 300 years ago renewables supplied 100%. IMO, they can never provide more than a few percent. They have to be subsidised. Without the subsides they are uneconomic. Adding the cost of batteries and transmission makes the cost of energy from them many times higher than from fossil fuels and nuclear.

    The cost of nuclear can be substantially reduced (over time) if we remove the impediments. However, even if all the impediments were removed overnight, it would take many decades for the costs to reduce to where they could have be now if not for the disruption – which was caused by the anti-nuclear power protest movement (see notes in Appendix B in the link in my previous comment).

    Therefore, I believe we should all be doing all we can to educate the open-minded part of the population of the benefits of nuclear power, and that we need to remove the impediments that are blocking progress – i.e. the baseless fear of it.

    Renewables are a waste of time and money. They are severely damaging the economies of the countries who mandate and subsidise them.

  25. sandscondocommunity

    A somewhat dated reference:

    Sign seen at O’Hare airport: “More people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than in commercial nuclear power accidents in the US.

  26. Nice to see something fairly interesting and honest from Grist: https://grist.org/article/billionaires-and-bacteria-are-racing-to-save-us-from-death-by-fertilizer/

    Something to note is that excess nitrogen fertilizer inhibits symbiotic N and P fixing bacteria and fungi growth, this deficiency can make soil less resilient and not as good at retaining moisture.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Aaron,
      That Grist article is illogical and unreliable.
      First, there is no way that half the nitrogen fertilizer applied to fields is washed away to cause trouble. Nitrogenous fertilizers cost farmers money and they are averse to letting it go down the drain. Sure, a little of it goes undesirable ways, but half of it? Not on your Nellie.
      Second, the illogical bit. If you increase plant yields, you mobilise more nitrogen. It matters not of the extra nitrogen comes from urea or ammonium nitrate or whatever, as opposed to coming from nitrogen fixation, legume style. When you increase your yields, you increase your alleged nitrogen problem, whatever its source. So, in a sense, the qoted research into biological fixation is superfluous, for it does not solve the problem. It might solve a little of the problem because of solubilities of nitrogen sources, but whether it is worth going for that little is a matter of economics.
      Unfortunately, too many suckers see it as part of the green dreams.
      Geoff.
      Standing: In 1970s, I was a chemist through the establishment of the very large Austral-Pacific urea plant in Brisbane, Australia. I have followed plant nutrition technology since then.

    • “Recent advances in high-throughput molecular tools have revealed soil to be the most taxonomically diverse habitat on Earth, with best estimates suggesting that there may be 10,000 species of microorganisms per cm3 of soil (Fierer and Lennon, 2011).” Soil Microbiology, Ecology, and Biochemistry. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415955-6.00009-8

      This is from chapter 9 of a textbook I presume. Although it is my professional focus for decades – I’d thought I’d review the basics before commenting. I came across a copy that that fell off the back of a sci-hub truck – it seems an excellent review .

      I have been wondering about the global biogeochemical implications of the nitrogen fixing research discussed. Biogeochemistry involves the flow of water and substances through the Earth system. Water is conserved – in diverse states – and has its own cycle. Chemical substances are transformed chemically and biologically in the environment in complex dynamical ways – and at different scales. Remember that cropping systems are just part of the nitrogen cycle and eliminating one source of nitrogen in waterways and oceans is not a silver bullet. Phosphorous and other mineral are released from native rock – facilitated by rich and living soils. Dinitrogen is free and feckless – it is in the air in vast quantities from pre-planetary space. It is transformed to organic nitrogen by specialist organisms who thus gain a survival edge in environments limited by bioavailble – soluble as NH4 – nitrogen. Nuisance blue-green algae are prominent is the list of nitrogen limiting survivors.

      I first became aware of blue baby syndrome decades ago from French experience with very high nitrate levels in groundwater under dairy farms. The problem for cropping is heterogeneus soils. The ideal soil is rich in carbon energy and life but can vary over small scales. The farmers problem is how much fertiliser to apply to maximise productivity based on plants needs and soil conditions. No matter what type of cropping it is – all 42 nutrients (according to Elaine Ingham) removed from the land as energy and as classic Redfield ratio cellular building blocks – food is the point – must be replaced to retain soil productivity. Basic mass balance.

      Enhancing nitrogen fixing in cropping systems seems an innocuous occupation. These are organisms fed by solar energy supplied by plants. So potentially a balance of fixation and plant uptake – and less nitrogen export from cropping soils. In turn a rich soil ecology mobilises organic building blocks from parent material.

      When fixed as an ammonia ion nitrogen is soluble and mobile. Metals in the presence of oxygen are insoluble crystalline molecules. In the absence of oxygen some desperate organisms can strip oxygen from metallic crystals – for their own metabolic needs – releasing soluble and bioavailable forms that cycle through the globally coupled biogeochemical system. Nitrogen returns to the atmosphere when its oxidised version is reduced releasing gaseous dinitrogen and NOx. Metals and other insoluble solids end up in sediments.


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrification

      I can see that enhancing nitrogen fixing can go hand in hand with precision farming to eliminate nitrogen export from cropping. Precision farming involves detailed information on land condition and precise mapping. Nutrients and chemicals can be applied when and where needed in theory leaving little for percolation past the root zone or for export in surface water. Note a 30% saving in nitrogen application in this video from a very impressive farmer.

      Nutrients and pollutants are mobilsed in runoff, erosion, urban catchments, sewage, mining and industry – so additional soil nitrogen fixation in cropping is not a silver bullet for downstream environments. But 21st century management of farm inputs may be good for productivity and profits – and be part of broader environmental management goals.

  27. Tonyb (climatereason)

    IF renewables are too play a bigger part, and we all know of their inherent inefficiencies-then we really need to invest far more in battery technology.

    I don’;t agree. I think we should stop subsidising and incentivising renewables. Investing in batteries would be another enormous white elephant – like renewables.

    The battery was invented in 1800. It’s been developing for 218 years so far. Their performance and costs are where they are now after 218 years of development. The rate of development is not going to suddenly take an enormous step change that will quickly increase their storage capacity to TWh scale (which is what is needed) and reduce costs per TWh storage capacity by a factor of ten. Realistically, it’s not going to happen.

    • Peter

      Whilst we on this blog might think that most renewables are not effective and that battery technology won’t improve much, it is not us setting agendas nationally.

      If politically correct renewables are going to maximise their limited advantages they need to be linked in with improved battery technology. So unless and until this happens renewables will be pretty ineffective.

      I favour tidal power but not everyone can make use of it and the technology is decades behind other renewables.

      I don’t see us going back to large scale coal plants any time soon and as we all know nuclear has many detractors, quite apart from cost and time issues.

      tonyb

      • TonyB,

        Thank you. I worked on energy projects for most of my career, including managing research and development programs. Most was on hydro and nuclear, but also a wide range of others.

        Wave, tidal, ocean thermal have hardly progressed since the 1980’s, in terms of their capability and cost. Each wave power experimental plant Australia has tried has ended up broken up on the coast in a short time. Tidal has huge environmental issues, as well as others.

        Furthermore, the wheels are falling off the wind and solar schemes in Europe. I think it is just a matter of only a fairly short time until the majority of the population realises renewables are hugely expensive and can’t make much of a contribution.

        And that any global warming we can get this century will be beneficial overall.

      • Peter

        I’m not disagreeing with anything you say, except your penultimate paragraph.

        What the ordinary people may realise and what the people authorising new power projects might realise, are two different things. Unless there is major price hike or a major prolonged energy black out caused by our current energy policy I can’t see the elite changing their minds any time soon.

        tonyb

      • TonyB,

        Unless there is major price hike or a major prolonged energy black out caused by our current energy policy I can’t see the elite changing their minds any time soon.

        Well, if the decision makers continue to make energy policy decisions that incentivise renewables and disadvantage economic, dispatchable technologies, the cost of energy will continue to increase rapidly, as it has been doing for the last one to two decades. And there will be blackouts, as is already happening.

        However, I see clear evidence that the energy policy is changing. Policy makers are recognising the substantial cost to their economies and are stepping back. This is happening in Australia, Europe, UK, US, Canada, Japan, China.

  28. From GWPF:

    The alliance of rich, emerging and poor economies that sealed the Paris climate deal is falling apart. In many important countries, climate scepticism and economic nationalism are usurping the international green enthusiasm of 2015. –Sara Stefanini, Climate Home News, 31 October 2018

    https://mailchi.mp/d4c643a36ca1/bolsonaro-in-merkel-out-the-paris-climate-gang-is-breaking-up?e=d3ab024ae2

  29. Australia will meet our Paris commitment – 28% reduction on 2005 – cheaply. We still have a strongly growing population – per capita reduction are substantially greater. So what’s a few billion here or there? I have been arguing for many years that we should be spending $6B a year in land use and agriculture alone* – half from the private sector. We are in the ballpark.

    Here’s a summary and something new on how it is being done. Note that small scale renewables subsidies end in 2030 – and that the large scale target nameplate penetration ‘ramps up to 2020’. We are at about the 20% nameplate capacity target. It seems about 7% of supply in reality – as intermittent sources.

    https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f52d7587-8103-49a3-aeb6-651885fa6095/files/summary-australias-2030-emissions-reduction-target.pdf

    http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/renewable-energy-target-scheme

    * ‘The Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment found that riparian zones are declining over 73% of Australia. There has been a massive decline in the ranges of indigenous mammals over more than 100 years. In the past 200 years, 22 Australian mammals have become extinct – a third of the world’s recent extinctions. Further decline in ranges is still occurring and is likely to result in more extinctions. Mammals are declining in 174 of 384 subregions in Australia and rapidly declining in 20. The threats to vascular plants are increasing over much of the Australia. Threatened birds are declining across 45% of the country with extinctions in arid parts of Western Australia. Reptiles are declining across 30% of the country. Threatened amphibians are in decline in southeastern Australia and are rapidly declining in the South East Queensland, Brigalow Belt South and Wet Tropics bioregions.

    Our rivers are still carrying huge excesses of sand and mud. The mud washes out onto coastlines destroying seagrass and corals. The sand chokes up pools and riffles and fills billabongs putting intense pressure on inland, aquatic ecologies. In 1992, the Mary River in south east Queensland flooded carrying millions of tonnes of mud into Hervey Bay. A thousand square kilometres of seagrass died off decimating dugongs, turtles and fisheries. The seagrass has grown back but the problems of the Mary River have not been fixed. The banks have not been stabilised and the seagrass could be lost again at any time. A huge excess of sand working its way down the river is driving to extinction the Mary River cod and the Mary River turtle. The situation in the Mary River is mirrored in catchments right across the country. Nationally, 50% of our seagrasses have been lost and it has been this way for at least twenty years.’ – originally from my 2007 paper that appeared in Environmental Engineer. I revised it here recently – https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/05/01/changing-our-approach-to-the-environment/

    America is in a similar environmental state of decline – but we do better than less affluent nations. I can show you the WWF data.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/04/biological-abundance-and-economic-growth/

    The site – btw – I do for may own benefit – although I am now thinking of polishing it for marketing. I have 57 followers at last count – I think.

  30. Seven studies on the AMOC and Gulf Stream. Are researchers finally noticing where NH climate change comes from?

  31. Location of large mystery source of banned ozone depleting substance uncovered [link]

    We ‘gotta sleuth out the reason for these carbon tetrachloride emissions…

    “To do this, they used ground-based and airborne atmospheric concentration data from near the Korean peninsula and two models that simulate the transport of gases through the atmosphere.

    “Their results… show that around half of the ‘missing’ global emissions of carbon tetrachloride originated from eastern China…”

    Found it– local bicycle shops cleaning bicycle chains…

  32. Worth noting that often we discover (sadly) that the previous estimates were too conservative.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

    Quote: Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise.

    • What does the data say? How many data points did they have and where?

      Is this a materially better estimate than the data poor previous estimate?

      Come Scott – show that you understand what it means and the implications. I’d do it myself but I am still struggling with the attribution question.

      • I see you did not read the paper. Maybe try that before quizzing the person who pointed it out.

        Come Robert — show that you understand how science works. I tried helping you get started, but it seems you have some agenda that gets in the way.

      • As I said – I am still struggling with the anthropogenic or intrinsic components of 20th century warming to get into a new estimate of just how much it might have warmed. Call me a skeptic – but it doesn’t seem a high priority. But I politely ask him explain his point in posting it here and he replies with agenda snark. One wonders who has the agenda.

      • Their 0.8 W/m2 for the last 25 years is the kind of imbalance that is consistent with how much the ocean warming has lagged the land warming. If it wasn’t for its thermal inertia, it would have kept pace with the land that has been warming twice as fast since about 1980. Adding heat to thousands of meters of water takes a lot of energy away from surface warming.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:240/mean:120/from:1900/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:240/mean:120/from:1900/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1988/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1988/trend

      • Re: “What does the data say? How many data points did they have and where? Is this a materially better estimate than the data poor previous estimate?”

        That was literally addressed within the first two pages of the paper. As I’ve told you before, it helps to actually read the scientific literature, instead of just twisting it for ideological purposes without reading it.

        It’s helpful to compare an image from the paper to an image from a recent report.

        From figure 1 of the paper:


        [from “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition”]

        The APO analysis does not resolve shorter-term inter-annual fluctuations, and so does not included the fluctuations present in the other analyses.

        From a recent 2018 report:


        [from “State of the climate in 2017”, page S76]

        CHEN in the first figure is IAP/CAS in the second figure. Both figures shows ocean heat content increasing during the period when so many faux “skeptics” claimed there was a “pause” or “hiatus” that showed that increased CO2 doesn’t cause substantial warming. How telling.

      • As I have said before – I have my own much more interesting reading list.

        The question is not whether oceans and atmosphere warmed but why. They don’t quite get this. Here they still haven’t done the data meta-analysis required for confidence in any result. I doubt that Atomski knows how to or why.


        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/10/16/stocks-and-flows-in-the-earth-system/

      • Atomsk, it’s nice to hear that you read the paper. If so: I think you’ll be able to class it and to recognise where it makes assumptions which are over the top from the methods and the data. If not: wait’n see.

      • The problem with pre-Argo ocean data is the lack of spatial and temporal data density. So the question is how much precision is possible within the constraints of gross spatial and temporal averaging. This was the question I asked of this apparently new proxy. It is a question they are incapable of answering because they lack the skills and training needed to understand the essential question – can the data support the interpretation with what precision. I asked for their understanding of the meta – analysis needed to put the result into a rational scientific context. The answer is of course not forthcoming. More often they simply search for words that confirm their bias.
        Most often they simply repeat memes garnered from gatekeeper climate change blogs.

        It seems the case that the oceans warmed in the 20th century – that really isn’t of huge interest unless the attribution question is resolved. I know they think it has been – but they are wrong yet again.

        And there are many papers I don’t read – and that is the case for everyone. There are many authors and papers I don’t read by choice – they don’t add to my understanding and so are a waste of time.

        My strategy is to follow clues to the resolution of specific questions to build a more comprehensive picture of the Earth system. Atomski’s is to use a Google scatter gun approach throwing in random titles that seem to confirm his memes – limited and simplistic as they are. And these in his comments are spiced with denigration, contempt, dissimulation… On the couple of occasions I have checked out Atomski’s google lists – they don’t say what he imagines they do.

        For many years now the AGW cohort have been behaving as nasty little obsessives with no scientific training or experience but with the misplaced arrogance of a groupthink dynamic. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

      • Ocean heat has very fluctuations caused by orbital eccentricity that are transmitted to depth by eddies and returned to the surface by convection. Oceans warm and cool on an annual basis orders of magnitude more than anything that comes from AGW in that year. The idea that ocean thermal inertia is a significant AGW mechanism is predicated on a steady state diffusion of heat based on incorrect boundary conditions. The conceptual geophysical model is incorrect and the results must be regarded skeptically. The reality is that oceans cool to equilibriate with a warmer atmosphere on at least an annual basis. The old idea is based on old and inadequate data and it is time to move on to a better paradigm of the Earth system behavior.

        The disparity between land and ocean warming #jiminy explains with ocean thermal inertia – is an explanation that falls at the first hurdle. Some of the disparity emerges from instrument limitations. Thermometers measure sensible heat – but total energy includes latent heat – a substantial component of total energy flux at the surface and one that varies substantially with soil moisture. Drier soils globally is one source – an artifact and not real – of higher surface temperatures because of the changing partitioning between latent and sensible heat. Only total energy matters and we don’t know what that is.

        #jiminy is a stranger to data but he does have his few narratives.

      • Re: “Atomsk, it’s nice to hear that you read the paper. If so: I think you’ll be able to class it and to recognise where it makes assumptions which are over the top from the methods and the data. If not: wait’n see.”

        I read the paper, and your point lacks merit.

        And I know better than to trust your evaluation of sources after you selectively quoted an RSS article to make it look like it disagreed with me when it actually explicitly agreed with me, got mad at me for discussing the article since you claimed the article was irrelevant (even though you were the first one to cite the article), etc.

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#comment-881848

      • RIE says “The question is not whether oceans and atmosphere warmed but why.” He is the only one who still doesn’t know why. When the heat content is increasing by 0.8 W/m2 and has been for 25 years at least and the primary forcing is anthropogenic at nearly 2 W/m2 from CO2 alone in this period, it is hard to wrangle up other mechanisms of significant warming while at the same time discounting the large CO2 contribution of which the 0.8 W/m2 represents the remaining imbalance even after all the warming response that we have had in that 25 years. Forcing minus response equals imbalance. The response has not caught up to all the net forcing so it is positive.

      • Yes we have heard it all before #jiminy. I can recognize the pattern without reading much of it at all. Yes we been a 1000 times before and it is still nothing more than an absurd narrative. I am too bored to want to discuss it again. Just that – if the thermal inertia meme is moot there is no accumulated TOA radiant imbalance.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/10/16/stocks-and-flows-in-the-earth-system/

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

      • For someone who says they don’t have a clue why it is warming, you seem to have a lot of words.

      • I think I said that #jiminy doesn’t have a clue.

        Natural variability is 0.15 W/m2 from the sun.

        Or is it? I’d put late 20th century warming as half CO2 at best.

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

        #jiminy’s ‘explanation is that it is all AGW cloud feedback – as numerically illiterate as that is. And this has been dicussed 1000’s of times. His ploy is to ignore what I say in favor of misrepresentation. Perhaps he just can’t grasp the ideas – simple as they seem.

      • The CO2 forcing change since 1950 has been about 1.5 W/m2. What else do you have that is even close? Let’s look at this while you contemplate it. Your mechanism needs to be just coincidentally in phase with CO2 and not just a feedback. You seem not to be interested in explaining strong signals like this.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • “Come Scott – show that you understand what it means and the implications.”

        The attitude and snark on this site is weird. People who say they can read and understand science who insist that their gut feeling are more important than reading articles from experts.

      • What I asked was that they show that they can put the result into a rational and balanced scientific context. Otherwise they are just waving magical talisman about. Then when I say so they get offended.

      • Atomsk:
        “I read the paper, and your point lacks merit.”
        For the log: You think that the conclusions of Resplandy et al (2018)
        “An upward revision of the ocean heat gain… would push up the lower
        bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5 K back to 2.0 K
        (stronger warming expected for given emissions), thereby reducing
        maximum allowable cumulative CO2 emissions by 25% to stay within
        the 2 °C global warming target .” are justified by the data and methods used ( assumed they are proper…) in this paper? Please stay focused in your response!

      • I have discussed CERES and ERBS endlessly – and the mechanism and observations on how this is linked to changing SST in the eastern and central Pacific.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/10/16/stocks-and-flows-in-the-earth-system/

        So unless #jiminy has something other than his simplistic memes sans any actual science – the same wood for dimwits graph 1000 times is funny but it is not science – this ‘discourse’ is very one sided.

      • So you’re going with some kind of coincidence that the Pacific clouds conspired to change at the same time as the CO2 and dominate its effect over the last 60 years. Interesting.

      • “Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

        Some facts for #jiminy.

      • What does this have to do with ERBE/CERES and your cloud coincidence? You’re all over the place.

      • It is known that El Nino frequency and intensity peaked in 1000 year high in the 20th century – and that there is theory and observation of Pacific cloud change coupled to SST. It shows up in satellite data power flux data – #jiminy’s incredulousness notwithstanding.

      • Peaking even more strongly as we enter the 21st century? What else is doing that? Hmmm. Denial much.

      • So, as a result we are now having the warmest El Ninos and warmest La Ninas as you are just realizing.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • Re: “Atomsk, it’s nice to hear that you read the paper. If so: I think you’ll be able to class it and to recognise where it makes assumptions which are over the top from the methods and the data. If not: wait’n see.”
        “For the log: You think that the conclusions of Resplandy et al (2018)
        “An upward revision of the ocean heat gain… would push up the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5 K back to 2.0 K (stronger warming expected for given emissions), thereby reducing maximum allowable cumulative CO2 emissions by 25% to stay within the 2 °C global warming target .”
        are justified by the data and methods used ( assumed they are proper…) in this paper? “

        First, you selectively quoted the paper to remove citations to previously published material. I’ll put the citations you removed in bolding:

        “A higher ΔOHC will also affect the equilibrium climate sensitivity, recently estimated at between +1.5 K and +4.5 K if CO2 is doubled1. This estimated range reflects a decrease in the lower bound from 2 K to 1.5 K owing to downward revision of the aerosol cooling effect (in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, as compared with the Fourth Assessment Report)1,24, but relied on a low ΔOHC value (0.80 × 1022 J yr−1 for 1993–2010). An upward revision of the ocean heat gain by +0.5 × 1022 J yr−1 (to 1.30 × 1022 J yr−1 from 0.80 × 1022 J yr−1) would push up the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5 K back to 2.0 K (stronger warming expected for given emissions), thereby reducing maximum allowable cumulative CO2 emissions by 25% to stay within the 2 °C global warming target (see Methods).”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

        That’s important, because a paper is not required to base everything it says on its own results. Otherwise, for example, every new paper on smoking and cancer would need to once again show that smoking causes cancer. Instead, a paper can cite previously published evidence when making a point. You willfully excluded the paper’s citations to previously published evidence, so you could act as if the paper was under the burden of showing everything. Amazing.

        Second, you failed to mention that their “Methods” section includes a sub-section called “Ocean heat uptake, sea level and climate sensitivity”, where they cite further evidence and calculations supporting their claim. Excluding that allowed you act as if their claim was not well-supported. It’s amazing how often you selectively quote sources in a way that distorts what they say, as you did when you cited the RSS article before:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/#comment-881848

        Re: “Please stay focused in your response!”

        By which you mean ignore the parts that show you’re wrong, as occurred in the fiasco where you cited the RSS TLT article and then blamed me for pointing out that your own cited source debunked you.

      • Still on this? I haven’t read the paper – and they have still not shown shown why this is a better methodology. Can they?

        Only Argo provides reliable ocean heat data. And I went into some detail on the earlier data. 10% coverage – very little below 700m – averaging over 5 years – it wasn’t until the 1990’s that Josh Willis managed to reduce that to annual averages. And Wong et al 2006 compared that to ocean heat.


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

        It is all shortwave warming – in both ERBE and CERES. And in the intellectual shemozzle of #atomski and #jiminy it is all cloud feedback caused by CO2. How seems to be unknown because the modeled AGW cloud feedback doesn’t march the changes in energy dynamics. But there could not be anything else happening
        right?

        “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

        Of course these large wiggles sum to zero and are meaningless? A trite and superficial argument – not surprisingly. It is not random ‘white noise’ and does not sum to zero.

        People cannot of course see past the limitations of their conceptual architecture. It is one half of epistemological uncertainty that demands that you examine critically your assumptions. The problem with these guys is that they imagine that their consensus is unassailable. This is not a matter of science – real science is a lot less certain – but of groupthink. It goes with cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and an unreflexive certainty. Nothing dents their misplaced confidence in what are grossly simplistic memes and fundamental errors.

        There should be a consensus that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere – but there is equally a consensus that the Earth system’s fundamental mode of operation is dynamical complexity with extremes increasing with the period of observation. Hurst first understood this in the 1950’s. The fundamental mode involves chaotic climate shifts and regimes. They really don’t get this – and it detracts from global preparations for Wally’s wild beast.

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

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

        I quoted this from an illustrious group of climate scientists on one of my rare visits to another climate blog. One response was that it was ancient news. But it is the new science consensus that has only consolidated over time. And I am a climate change denier according to the AGW progressive urban doofus cohort? Really? Laughable nonsense.

      • Stay tuned – nic lewis has a critique of the new paper coming tomorrow

      • Re: “I use the MEI”

        No, you don’t. This is the MEI:


        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

        What you’re using is a arbitrary nonsense you constructed in the form of a cumulative MEI. Your cumulative MEI looks nothing like the real MEI above.

        Re: “I don’t think anyone else has used a cumulative MEI. I am pleased with myself.”

        An instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        Re: “There is much, much more but perhaps he could start with those to try to get up to speed.”

        None of those sources justify using an accumulated MEI, nor do they use one. Still no support for you claiming that the energy of ENSO magically just keep accumulating without dissipation (as per your cumulative MEI), in violation of basic physics.

        Re: “I’m just hydrologist and environmental scientist – but I have been doing it for decades. Recognizing Atomski’s intellectual and scientific shortcomings and his political motivation is not difficult. No scientific training or experience – his entire presence here is behaving in bad faith from a groupthink dynamic. His credibility is zilch on just anything I have seen. He is worth talking past rather than talking to – the latter being a pointless exercise.”

        And through all at ranting, bluster, etc., you presented no actual evidence for using a cumulative MEI that violates basic physics. Amazing. That’s probably because informed experts (so not you) know to use a non-cumulative MEI, which shows that most of the recent warming was not due to ENSO. After all, adjusting temperature analyses to remove the effect of ENSO, TSI, etc. still leaves more of the warming there:


        [from “Global temperature evolution 1979–2010”]

        Your assigned reading on this is below, Robert:

        “Global temperature evolution 1979–2010”
        “Deducing multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trends using multiple regression analysis”
        “Lower tropospheric temperatures 1978-2016: The role played by anthropogenic global warming”
        “Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature”
        “Spectrally dependent CLARREO infrared spectrometer calibration requirement for climate change detection”
        “Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled”
        “Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus”

      • Re: “I use the MEI”

        No, you don’t. This is the MEI…

        What you’re using is a arbitrary nonsense you constructed in the form of a cumulative MEI. Your cumulative MEI looks nothing like the real MEI above.

        Re: “I don’t think anyone else has used a cumulative MEI. I am pleased with myself.”

        An instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        “The objective of this study is to evaluate the relationships of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indices and the Blue Nile River Basin hydrology using a new approach that tracks cumulative ENSO indices. The results of this study can be applied for water resources management decision making to mitigate drought or flood impacts with a lead time of at least few months. ENSO tracking and forecasting is relatively easier than predicting hydrology. ENSO teleconnections to the Blue Nile River Basin hydrology were evaluated using spatial average basin rainfall and Blue Nile flows at Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. The ENSO indices were sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in region Niño 3·4 and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.7367

        I always find that I was not the first – but I was pleased it worked.

        Re: “There is much, much more but perhaps he could start with those to try to get up to speed.”

        None of those sources justify using an accumulated MEI, nor do they use one. Still no support for you claiming that the energy of ENSO magically just keep accumulating without dissipation (as per your cumulative MEI), in violation of basic physics.

        The sources were obviously on cloud in the Pacific – which he has both denied and got the coupling reversed. Any of those studies – that he does not read – would tell him so.

        And it is quite obvious that the energy dynamic involves both energy in and energy out – it is simply that the large changes are in energy out.

        e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/06/10/a-maximum-entropy-climate-earth-in-transient-energy-equilibrium-2/

        And through all at ranting, bluster, etc., you presented no actual evidence for using a cumulative MEI that violates basic physics. Amazing. That’s probably because informed experts (so not you) know to use a non-cumulative MEI, which shows that most of the recent warming was not due to ENSO. After all, adjusting temperature analyses to remove the effect of ENSO, TSI, etc. still leaves more of the warming there…

        The bluster of AIDS, smoking and vaccines linking to contrarion troglodytes? And the deprecating, overbearing and condescending air in which the memes are pasted endlessly in carpet bombing of a climate contrarion site?

        I read the original – https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/le08200o.html in fine detail and with considerable interest – but if they miss the energy modulation at toa then it is an attempt only. Far from the definitive study Atomski insists it is.

        Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

        Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” NASA 2008

        The question is not whether there is ENSO influenced decadal surface temperature variability – but by how much it dominated late century warming.

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


        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

        This is mainstream science way beyond Atomski’s pay grade obviously.

      • Re: “I always find that I was not the first – but I was pleased it worked.”

        You clearly didn’t read the paper, as expected. For example, their cumulative indices in figures 3 and 4 don’t look like you. Which goes to show that the cumulative indices are arbitrary, based on when one arbitrarily chooses to begin one’s accumulation.

        Re: “So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Anastasios Tsonis said.”

        You’re out-of-date again, like usual, relying on a 2009 article. In 2013, Tsonis said this based on his ideas regarding ocean cycles:

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

        Of course, he was wrong. But you conveniently avoid that point by cherry-picking his out-dated 2009 article. Humorous.


        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.3174

        I suggest you get up to date on more recent analyses, such as:


        http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/6/eaao5297.full.pdf

      • You clearly didn’t read the paper, as expected. For example, their cumulative indices in figures 3 and 4 don’t look like you. Which goes to show that the cumulative indices are arbitrary, based on when one arbitrarily chooses to begin one’s accumulation.

        Now that’s the in depth analysis we are used to. They used a bar chart for obvious reasons.

        The link was to refute the silly claim that no one reputable uses cumulative ENSO indices. Silliness refuted.

        Re: “So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Anastasios Tsonis said.”

        It was a seminal paper.

        “We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state‐of‐the‐art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.”
        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.3174

        Way beyond Atomski’s pay grade. And the argument he can muster is that it is 10 years old. This is an idea that it at the core of how the Earth system works – the current dominant paradigm in Earth system science. Climate cannot be understood without understanding this idea – and Atomski just doesn’t get it. He would be a dinosaur – a descriptor for those clinging to the old paradigm – if he weren’t so damned incompetent and irrelevant.

        And he brings up the multiple regression analysis again. I liked the original paper – in 2008 – a lot. The update I scanned for any new ideas. Nada. I have already dealt with the limitations of the simple methodology – and it is shown conclusively by this late stage that ENSO modulates the toa energy dynamic through coupled ocean/atmosphere processes that change cloud cover. The globally dominant source of cloud change. Making the whole thing moot as much as Atomski loves waving it about. Must I reference this again in so short an interval?

        Did Atomski claim that energy was not modulated by ENSO on decadal scales? Thoroughly refuted. Does he have any legs left to stand on or will he again obfuscate with rants and raves?

      • Re: “Now that’s the in depth analysis we are used to. They used a bar chart for obvious reasons. The link was to refute the silly claim that no one reputable uses cumulative ENSO indices. Silliness refuted.”

        I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you’re only pretending not to understand the point, as opposed to really not understanding something that simple.

        You’re acting as if the issue was that they used a bar graph, while you used a line graph. That was not the point. The point was that their cumulative indices looks nothing like your’s. That would be the case even if both your plots were line graphs. That reveals the arbitrary results one gets from accumulation.

        And it’s still pretty clear that you didn’t read the paper, since you still don’t seem to know why they got different results from you. Note what you said here, about adding values together:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882828

        Then look at their equation 1 on page 3655:

        https://sci-hub.tw/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hyp.7367

        As far as I can tell, that equation is for accumulating within a year, by adding the months together in order to get a cumulative ENSO value for that year. That’s not what you’re doing. You’re adding up values between years. Thus the shape your graph below is not like the shape of the graph from the paper:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882788

        So you can’t act as if the paper’s accumulation intra-annual accumulation justifies your inter-annual accumulation which you try to use to claim that ENSO is driving longer-term trends. You do this again when you write:

        “Did Atomski claim that energy was not modulated by ENSO on decadal scales? Thoroughly refuted.”

        Re: “The globally dominant source of cloud change.”

        Once again, I suggest you finally learn to read the scientific literature of how increased CO2 affects clouds and absorbed solar radiation. This has been dumbed down for you many times before:

        “However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
        http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.full

        “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.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18273

        Re: “It was a seminal paper. […] Way beyond Atomski’s pay grade. And the argument he can muster is that it is 10 years old”

        You quoted the paper you cited, but you mistakenly gave a link to one of the papers that I cited.

        And I’m again going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you’re pretending, as opposed to really not understanding a point this simple. My point was not just that the paper is 10 years old. Instead, I noted that the paper was out-of-date both in terms of its age and in terms of the predictions Tsonis used it to make. Those predictions did not hold up. Seriously, read the first paragraph of the conclusion:

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

        There, as in Telegraph article I mentioned, Tsonis was predicting that warming was not imminent:

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

        Turns out subsequent data showed otherwise. So the paper’s outdated. Of course you’ll continue to cite it anyway, since you have a habit of citing outdated material you think supports your implausible positions.

      • The response is in moderation – so let’s correct the formatting.

        I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you’re only pretending not to understand the point, as opposed to really not understanding something that simple.

        You’re acting as if the issue was that they used a bar graph, while you used a line graph. That was not the point. The point was that their cumulative indices looks nothing like your’s. That would be the case even if both your plots were line graphs. That reveals the arbitrary results one gets from accumulation.

        They used annual accumulation because they were interested in rainfall. I was interested in energy changes in oceans – dimly reflected in surface heat. It works. They are independent variables with a 0.82 correlation. Atomski’s arbitrary nonsense notwithstanding. It shows a plausible link between ENSO, TOA radiation budgets and global heat based on a lot of leading edge Earth systems science that I have cited. If he fails to acknowledge and wishes to indulge in vilification and petty quibbles instead – that’s the nature of progressive urban doofus hipsters in the ‘climate debate’.

        “Did Atomski claim that energy was not modulated by ENSO on decadal scales? Thoroughly refuted.”

        Re: “The globally dominant source of cloud change.”

        Once again, I suggest you finally learn to read the scientific literature of how increased CO2 affects clouds and absorbed solar radiation. This has been dumbed down for you many times before…

        Re: “It was a seminal paper. […] Way beyond Atomski’s pay grade. And the argument he can muster is that it is 10 years old”

        You quoted the paper you cited, but you mistakenly gave a link to one of the papers that I cited.

        Here’s the seminal Tsonis et al 2007 paper – if I dropped the wrong link. I have dealt with the quotes he repeats.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2007GL030288

        And I’m again going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you’re pretending, as opposed to really not understanding a point this simple. My point was not just that the paper is 10 years old. Instead, I noted that the paper was out-of-date both in terms of its age and in terms of the predictions Tsonis used it to make. Those predictions did not hold up. Seriously, read the first paragraph of the conclusion:

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

        Atomski links to the 2009 update – rather than the 2007 seminal paper.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030288

        Far from Atomski’s pettifogging quibbles – there is a grand idea here. The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain. This idea is the most modern – and powerful – in ESS and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

        There, as in Telegraph article I mentioned, Tsonis was predicting that warming was not imminent…

        Seriously? A newspaper?

        “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

        I suppose this is too old to? I suggest he take a few years and think about the fundamental mode of operation of the Earth system. I’m not hopeful however. Science is built on the foundation of past work and ideas are refined rather than discarded – even when paradigms shift. I have added numerous citations on the Pacific cloud topic that Atomski is unable to acknowledge.

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

        There is a wealth of literature on this – it is the new consensus. Watch out for Wally’s angry beast.

    • Re: “Here they still haven’t done the data meta-analysis required for confidence in any result. I doubt that Atomski knows how to or why.”

      Why are you still using a cumulative MEI? The mistakes on it were already explained to you:

      https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-882063

      • The Pacific state influences atmospheric temperature over decades to millennia. One of the mechanisms is coupled ocean/atmosphere cloud change.

        e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/10/16/stocks-and-flows-in-the-earth-system/

        The cumulative MEI has a 0.82 correlation with surface temperature.

        And the idea that this scientifically untrained debating society dropout could explain anything meaningful to me is hilarious.

      • Re: “The cumulative MEI has a 0.82 correlation with surface temperature.”

        The cumulative MEI can have almost any correlation you wish, depending on where you choose to arbitrarily begin your accumulation.

        To repeat this for you again:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/#comment-882063

        Cumulative indices (like cumulative TSI or your cumulative MEI) are:

        1) arbitrary
        2) have a compromised relationship between the cumulative index and the trends you’re trying to use the index to explain
        3) violate basic physics (look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law, for what’s going to happen to much of the energy from that short burst of warming you get with a temporary El Nino event).

        You’ve know you’ve dun goofed when your contrarian idea on accumulation is so bad that even John Christy turns his back on it (after previously using it when he knew it was wrong):

        “The amplitude of the 11-year [solar] cycle has diminished since the peak in 2000 and, in our residual time series, there is indeed a slight slowdown in the rise after 1998. One may arbitrarily select an accumulation period of TSI, so that a peak occurs near 1998 so the TSI coincides with (explains) variations in [lower tropospheric temperature] (e.g., a 22-year TSI trailing average peaks in 2000, though other averaging periods do not), but this would compromise the independence between the predictors and predictand [page 514].”
        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z

        And more from Timothy Osborn, who represents scientific points more accurately than does Christy:

        “They suggest that these trends arise from cumulative anomalies of ENSO or cumulative anomalies of solar irradiance, but offer no compelling physical basis for this hypothesis. There is no consideration that a warmer climate would cause increased loss of radiative energy to space, nor that a cooler climate would decrease the emissions of radiation to space. This effect is necessary to explain how the Earth’s climate has remained within a relatively small range of mean temperatures for much of the Earth’s geological history, yet their hypothesis assumes that a step up in temperature (due, e.g. to an El Niño event) would be sustained even after the El Niño had dissipated, because they use the cumulative ENSO index. Furthermore, a cumulative variable must have a physically-defined baseline from which the anomalies are defined, which has not been done in this case. Otherwise, the baseline can be changed to produce an entirely arbitrary upward or downward trend in the cumulative variable, and thus support a false claim that the cumulative variable can “cause” a trend in the climate.”
        https://climatefeedback.org/scientists-reactions-us-house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science/

        Re: “And the idea that this scientifically untrained debating society dropout could explain anything meaningful to me is hilarious.”

        The selective moderation on this forum will continue, as it does to the benefit of those who are contrarians on mainstream climate science.

        And the points I made were from both John Christy and Timothy Osborn. Glad to know you think they’re both “scientifically untrained debating society dropout[s]” as well.

      • He is untrained and his arguments are specious. His comments are replete with
        denigration, calumny, insults and deprecation. Then they get ‘offended’. He want’s a safe space for his arrogant disdain of skeptics and again complains about moderation?

        Cumulative indices are used frequently in Earth system science.

        There is a mechanism that reduces cloud cover in El Nino and increases it in La Nina.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/09/16/space-and-ocean-climate-monitoring-in-the-21-st-century/

        The accumulation of the MEI is over the entire length of the record. The HadCRUT data is over the same period. Nothing arbitrary about it. The HadCRU data has a baseline but the MEI data is absolute index figures. These are two very different series that should co-very – and they do exceptionally well.

        So factually wrong on Earth geophysics as well as being methodologically misguided. Here we have words that appear to have some relevant meaning but in fact refer to very different procedures in the case of Christy. The other guy on the AGW gatekeeper site – the sort of place I assume Atomski get’s all his ideas – is simply wrong on the geophysics. It is all Atomski word salad in other words.

      • Re: “He is untrained and his arguments are specious. His comments are replete with denigration, calumny, insults and deprecation. Then they get ‘offended’. He want’s a safe space for his arrogant disdain of skeptics and again complains about moderation?”

        It helps to respond to people directly, though you seem habitually unable to do that. And, of course, I do expect moderation here to be selective, as usual.

        Re: “The accumulation of the MEI is over the entire length of the record.”

        Which is still arbitrary. For example, there are different ENSO estimates of various lengths, including proxy-based estimates. Just because you started at the beginning of one of those estimates, doesn’t mean you started at the beginning of all the ENSO records. Nor does it mean you started accumulated at the beginning of all ENSO in general.

        Re: “The other guy on the AGW gatekeeper site – the sort of place I assume Atomski get’s all his ideas – is simply wrong on the geophysics. It is all Atomski word salad in other words.”

        No, he’s correct. And his claims match the published literature, unlike your incorrect claims. There’s a reason why no one in reputable, peer-reviewed journals uses a cumulative MEI. Instead they use a non-cumulative MEI.

        Osborn is right when he says that a warmer Earth would radiate more energy into space (as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law), instead of all the energy just accumulating. See:

        “Global monthly precipitation estimates from satellite-observed outgoing longwave radiation”
        “An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950”
        “An analysis of the dependence of clear-sky top-of-atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation on atmospheric temperature and water vapor”
        “Positive feedback in climate: stabilization or runaway, illustrated by a simple experiment”
        “Spatial patterns of modeled climate feedback and contributions to temperature response and polar amplification”
        “How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes?”
        “Four perspectives on climate feedbacks”

        This applies to ENSO-induced warming as well. Scientists can observe this increased radiation during a warm El Niño; the radiation increase occurs largely because El Niño increases cloud cover and these clouds then reflect the solar radiation Earth would otherwise absorb. This cloud-based mechanism compensates for less emission of radiation by clouds during El Niño. See:

        “ENSO-driven energy budget perturbations in observations and CMIP models”
        “Advances in understanding top-of-atmosphere radiation variability from satellite observations”
        “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty”
        “The ENSO effects on tropical clouds and top-of-atmosphere cloud radiative effects in CMIP5 models”
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
        “Does vertical temperature gradient of the atmosphere matter for El Niño development?”

        This isn’t about “AGW gatekeeping”, Robert. This is about people who know more than you, correcting the basic errors you make. I suggest you do your homework before continuing further in your mistakes.

      • It helps to respond to people directly, though you seem habitually unable to do that. And, of course, I do expect moderation here to be selective, as usual.

        I talk past him rather than to him quite deliberately. But his comments drip deprecation of many varieties – and recycles endlessly his verbose comments.

        Re: “The accumulation of the MEI is over the entire length of the record.”

        Which is still arbitrary. For example, there are different ENSO estimates of various lengths, including proxy-based estimates. Just because you started at the beginning of one of those estimates, doesn’t mean you started at the beginning of all the ENSO records. Nor does it mean you started accumulated at the beginning of all ENSO in general.

        I use the MEI because the method seeks to identify the Pacific state through relevant wind, cloud and current observations. I take the first value add it to the second and then the third to the sum and so on. It is neither difficult nor a mystery. The idea is that ENSO modulates the top of atmosphere energy budget and that heat accumulates in the ocean as a result. Surface temperature is a dim reflection of ocean heat.

        Many scientists – such as Isaac Held have missed the ocean/atmosphere cloud coupling – for that you need to understand satellite data. They assume atmospheric warming is a result of heat transfer from the oceans alone – oceans cool while the atmosphere warms. This is not the case.

        Re: “The other guy on the AGW gatekeeper site – the sort of place I assume Atomski get’s all his ideas – is simply wrong on the geophysics. It is all Atomski word salad in other words.”

        No, he’s correct. And his claims match the published literature, unlike your incorrect claims. There’s a reason why no one in reputable, peer-reviewed journals uses a cumulative MEI. Instead they use a non-cumulative MEI.

        I don’t think anyone else has used a cumulative MEI. I am pleased with myself.

        “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. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7”
        https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

        “Recent studies suggest that low clouds in the Pacific play an important role in the observed decadal climate variability and future climate change. In this study, we implement a novel modeling experiment designed to isolate how interactions between local and remote feedbacks associated with low cloud, SSTs, and the large‐scale circulation play a significant role in the observed persistence of tropical Pacific SST and associated North American drought. The modeling approach involves the incorporation of observed patterns of satellite‐derived shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) into the coupled model framework and is ideally suited for examining the role of local and large‐scale coupled feedbacks and ocean heat transport in Pacific decadal variability. We show that changes in SWCRE forcing in eastern subtropical Pacific alone reproduces much of the observed changes in SST and atmospheric circulation over the past 16 years, including the observed changes in precipitation over much of the Western Hemisphere.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071978

        “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

        There is much, much more but perhaps he could start with those to try to get up to speed.

        Osborn is right when he says that a warmer Earth would radiate more energy into space (as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law), instead of all the energy just accumulating.

        The Planck feedback is a mystery to him?

        A warmer world will emit more IR – in the order of sigma T to the fourth power more – although that is not exact for a not black body like Earth. But so will a world with less cloud. Less cloud will of course reflect less sunlight.

        Cooling in IR in the early record – little change in the middle of the record and cooling again in the more recent El Nino. The SW changes are a mirror image as expected in low level cloud changes. SW dominates as it is low level marine strato-cumulus in the frame. Energy accumulates in the ocean in El Nino mainly as a result of decreased reflected SW.

        I have read all of the papers in his google list already. He imagines that they support his really quite wrongheaded geophysics.

        This isn’t about “AGW gatekeeping”, Robert. This is about people who know more than you, correcting the basic errors you make. I suggest you do your homework before continuing further in your mistakes.

        He is about the gatekeeping sites I imagine he inhabits – like the one he linked to – and uneducated acolytes like Atomski repeating the memes in a frenzy of progressive groupthink. It is the arrogance of groupthink ignorance that permits people like Atomski to hector and patronize respected scientists – like they do with Judith. A very tedious delusion.

        I’m just hydrologist and environmental scientist – but I have been doing it for decades. Recognizing Atomski’s intellectual and scientific shortcomings and his political motivation is not difficult. No scientific training or experience – his entire presence here is behaving in bad faith from a groupthink dynamic. His credibility is zilch on just anything I have seen. He is worth talking past rather than talking to – the latter being a pointless exercise.

      • This isn’t about “AGW gatekeeping”, Robert. This is about people who know more than you, correcting the basic errors you make. I suggest you do your homework before continuing further in your mistakes.

        Meant to bold this above.

      • I have of course been playing with Atomski’s verbose and disjointed style. He is not one for concise clarity. He has no points but merely progressive urban doofus hipster memes – as a legend in his own lifetime he is too busy vanquishing opponents to make any sense at all. He has got himself into a fine mess.

        Did he claim that that cloud cover isn’t modulated by ENSO? Far too much science to believe that.

        Did he then claim that cloud increased in El Nino? We get back to closed and open cells in a liquid (the atmosphere) heated from below (oceans).

        The correct version of these ideas links decadal to millennial ENSO variability to modulation of the global energy budget. ENSO is a quasi standing wave in Earth’s globally coupled flow field – which is of course a complex dynamical system whose state shifts as the system is pushed past thresholds into new regimes. This is currently the dominant paradigm in Earth system science – leaving Atomski in the dust of irrelevance. Not that he he ever rose above that.

      • Re: “A warmer world will emit more IR – in the order of sigma T to the fourth power more – although that is not exact for a not black body like Earth. But so will a world with less cloud. Less cloud will of course reflect less sunlight.
        […]
        He is about the gatekeeping sites I imagine he inhabits – like the one he linked to – and uneducated acolytes like Atomski repeating the memes in a frenzy of progressive groupthink. It is the arrogance of groupthink ignorance that permits people like Atomski to hector and patronize respected scientists – like they do with Judith. A very tedious delusion.”

        It’s amazing what selective moderation will allow one to get away with here, if one remains a contrarian on the science.

        Anyway, let me know when you finally learn to read the scientific literature of how increased CO2 affects clouds and absorbed solar radiation. This has been dumbed down for you many times before. Try to pay attention, for once.

        “However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
        http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.full

        “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.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18273

      • It’s amazing what selective moderation will allow one to get away with here, if one remains a contrarian on the science.

        Anyway, let me know when you finally learn to read the scientific literature of how increased CO2 affects clouds and absorbed solar radiation. This has been dumbed down for you many times before. Try to pay attention, for once.

        The swamp of Atomski hypocrisy?

        I have read both of these studies. Here is the calculated feedback. It seems insufficient to account for the 2.1 W/m2 increase in SW down in ERBS or the more than 1 W/m2 increase in CERES. A reality check.

        “However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
        http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.full

        Warming in CERES and the earlier ERBS data was indeed all in SW – as it is in CERES. A paradox? Not really. I regard this paper as poor science at best.

        “In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.”
        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html

        Natural low frequency climate variability is very real. Let me quote from the Loeb et al paper Atomski waved about earlier.

        “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

        Atomski of course doesn’t complicated or uncertain.

        “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.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18273

        Again – I am pretty sure is not the scientific consensus on this. But let’s quote Koren et al 2017 again.

        “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. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

        And again – seemingly way beyond Atomski;s grif he were capable of even acknowledging this.

      • Accidentally posted before editing – ces’t la vie.

  33. I read lot of new articles, it’s my off season:

    https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-alternative-to-ideology/?fbclid=IwAR3lQujtBmDwmPvxGWEffgq5an8UAkv4URXT2JQVtupDHkB_iZ9c4Jpg2Vo

    Heterodox Academy highlighted the above. It’s good article. Even though he’s critical and some of it applies to a libertarian like myself. I am in agreement in that the philosophy is distilled, seeking ultimate rules. It’s done by party and intellectual heavyweights. Even though to be a libertarian is be of those without heavyweights. If there is a point, it may be, Idealogy may have exceeded its optimal level. In my case, old habits die hard. And it’s easy to take up the rhetorical sword. Take home solar…

    It it applies to some climate blogs. We defend our ideology. Could we do anything else? It’s kind of a given. I read something like three things: The past, freedom and the victims. Republicans, Libertarians and Democrats. Where does that end up? In compromise. But not if we are in a pitched battle with each other. While it provides hours of bemusement to criticize PC excesses, I am not sure that’s a good thing to do. Fixing the problem might be something. The moderates might be in a position to be influential. To gain trust. To impact outcomes. But not if they’re lobbing the most recent thing at the other side.

    • Re: “I read lot of new articles, it’s my off season:”

      You’re citing Jerry Taylor. He’s done a good job of calling out Patrick Michaels’ misrepresentations of James Hansen’s projections (though he doesn’t call out Michaels by name, it’s obvious that he’s talking about Michaels). Nice to see a political conservative actually accept the science on anthropogenic climate change. Such conservatives tend to be in the minority in the US.

    • Ragnaar –

      Thanks for that link. Very interesting.

  34. Palau has outlawed the use of sunscreen. It’s believed the chemicals are killing the coral. Models say it’s the sunscreen amounting to 6,000 to 14,000 tones.

    Annual tourism while higher than ever, much to the chagrin of the natives, is ~114k annually, most of whom are wealthy Chinese who mostly are fully clothed to protect themselves from the sun.

    No one questions the models?

    These folks are worried about global warming too.

    Hope the AGW models are better that the A-sunscreen models because they’d need ~200 million folks a year lathering up, jumping in and swimming around to arguably put that much sunscreen chemicals into the water.

  35. “While the drought in most regions was largely driven by the tropical Pacific SST conditions, an extreme positive phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole and warm North Atlantic SSTs, both likely aided by the strong El Niño in 1877-78, intensified and prolonged droughts in Brazil and Australia respectively and extended the impact to northern and southeastern Africa. Climatic conditions that caused the Great Drought and Global Famine arose from natural variability, and their recurrence, with hydrological impacts intensified by global warming, could again potentially undermine global food security.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0159.1?af=R

    Historic drought and flood are far more extreme than anything seen in the modern era. Warming may change things but by how much is unknowable. What is known is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not the core of a rational disaster management plan.

  36. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    How “special” was the recent slowdown?

    Warmists and Alarmists are still fighting the idea, that there was a recent

    slowdown. In order to show just how “special” the recent slowdown was, I

    have created a new type of graph, which shows the warming rate plotted

    against the date range which was used to calculate the warming rate.

    That may sound confusing, but when you look at the graph, it will become

    clear. The graph is based on very simple principles.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-special-was-the-recent-slowdown

    • Note how the slowdown immediately followed an exceptional speed-up where the mean trend was overshot, so the slowdown just compensated and brought it back to the mean. I have always said anything less than 15-year trends are all over the place, especially since 15 years severely aliases solar cycles. They can vary by 100% from one 15-year period to the next and you just end up with a meaningless rollercoaster of solar and other short-term factors. If you take 30-year trends, things are more reliable, and there was not even a hint of a slowdown.
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1988/trend:120/plot/best/mean:240/mean:120
      This shows the decadal trends of a 15-year and 30-year temperature. I would not rely on the 15-year trend to tell me anything about climate change because even in 5 years it could be totally different.
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:240/mean:120/derivative/scale:120/plot/best/mean:120/mean:60/derivative/scale:120

      • Reality is that there are no long term climate trends in the surface temperature record. There are regimes – of rainfall and temperature – and the next shift is due within the decade if it is not happening now. It is the new climate paradigm – and #jiminy is old school and not well educated in science or math.


        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

        But frankly – I don’t know what Sheldon is on about and I won’t miss it.

      • There were no long-term multi-decadal trends, but the last 50 years have been in one direction which is new and expected given the ramped up forcing, and it is still not showing any sign of slowing and nor is the forcing change. Perhaps 50 years is still not long enough for those in denial.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1988/trend:120/plot/best/mean:240/mean:120

      • Surface temperature increased from 1976 to 1998 – there is a new regime since that saw the rate of rise at least moderate. The regime my not be over – so trending it may not be possible as yet. Climate shifted after 1998 in a globally synchronized chaos.

        e.g, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030288

        It has been seen in surface temperature data for decades – look at the bottom panel of the graphic. Weather has been known to be chaotic since Edward Lorenz discovered the ‘butterfly effect’ in the 1960’s. Abrupt climate change on the other hand was thought to have happened only in the distant past and so climate was expected to evolve steadily over this century in response to ordered climate forcing.

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

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

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

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and steady since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due within the decade.

        This stuff is way beyond #jiminy’s pay grade.

      • If you want to talk about decoupling, it is the land temperature decoupling from the ocean temperature around 1976 which has to do with the fast-rising forcing and thermal inertia difference (ref. basic physics). The new study with the long-term rise in ocean heat content is consistent with this separation because it delays the surface warming of the ocean, being a significant fraction of the forcing change.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:240/mean:120/from:1900/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:240/mean:120/from:1900/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1988/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1988/trend

      • Talk decoupling? But I have deealt with thermal inertia. So unless #jiminy has something new to add – lol – or if he wants to address what was said instead of just repeating his memes – lmfao – I’ll leave it at that.

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882846

      • Tsonis deliberately removes “the greenhouse gases radiative trend of 2°C/century in global temperature”. This means his papers are not trying to explain that part because he knows its cause, but you are trying to use his papers to explain the part that he removed too, so you seem to be hopelessly off track with the subject his work. What’s up with that? Did you miss that part?

      • Tsonis is a scientist I try to keep up with. I don’t recognize the quote. I Googled it but I am not going on fruitless search for something I expect is invented.

      • The quote is from the paper you linked. You need to try to keep up with him more.

      • “Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse gases radiative trend of 2°C/century in global temperature (Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in behavior. In this simulation we observe two synchronization events, one in years 2027–2032 and another in years 2065–2072 (with an interruption in the middle). During both events the coupling strength increases until the synchronous states are destroyed. Here again these events are associated with marked temperature trend and ENSO variability shifts.”

        Now was that difficult? They detrend it. In a later paper they remove 20th natural variability – a questionable procedure – to find a 1°C/century residual. At least he seems to have read it – very unusual for #jiminy.


        http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120

        So which is it #jiminy? And is there any physical reason to expect that rate to increase this century?

        “Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.”

        #jiminy doesn’t like surprises.

      • So you didn’t believe he said there’s 2 C/century of background warming from greenhouse gases, and now you do. Some progress. Do you believe him on that quote or not? In fact you can’t really see the signal he’s writing the paper about unless you first remove that warming. This is to do with relative sizes of effects.

      • So you don’t believe it is 1°C as in the more relevant paper? Very odd. I’d question the throw away line on 2°C under Fig 4 – much more warming than did happen in the 20th century – but that is not the point of the paper is it?

        And yes we can see natural variability without detrending.

      • Don’t you think he means 1 C for the past century? That would be realistic for a linear average, don’t you think?

      • The 20th century was the subject of the paper.

      • 1 C in the 20th century corresponds to over 2 C per doubling which accounts for the whole current warming rate. Given this, do you support Tsonis’s 1 C in the 20th century or not? The paper I quoted with 2C was also talking about models of the 21st century, but you didn’t seem to notice that.

      • The original Tsonis et al paper was concerned with ocean and atmospheric indices – not models.

        And this convoluted nonsense doesn’t make any sense.

        I have thought about this for many years. Averaging over the last 2 Pacific climate regimes – 1944 to 1998 – gives what is an upper bound to AGW in the second half of the 20th century. The period of most interest of course.

      • Even 0.8 C in the 20th century gives you 2.3 C per doubling. Clearly you have not done the calculation. As I have mentioned 2.3 C per doubling also explains the last 60 years of warming.

      • Sanity check? Actual warming was some 0.4 C between 1944 and 1998. I assumed it is all anthropogenic. The period is based on break points in the trajectory of global surface temperature.

        It leaves us with a modest rate of rise – don’t panic #jiminy – and the prospect of AGW peaking within decades. Any natural warming last century is likely to be lost this century.

      • 0.4 C in half a century is. surprise, a rate of 0.8 C per century and still works out to 2.3 C per doubling. In fact a linear fit gives 0.9 C per century.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mean:12/trend

      • Duh!!!! The period selected corresponds – coincidentally – with the period of most CO increase – post WWII.

      • Then calculate it from this. It is 2.3 C per doubling and correlated at 0.93 with annual temperatures.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • Use monthly data and the correlation is 0.86. #jiminy has stopped expressing it as a percentage – and not before time.

        This is 0.82. Can they both be right?

        Both have data limitations – and correlations
        at any rate are not all that interesting. The ends points below were chosen quite deliberately as inflection points in the surface record that correspond precisely with multi-decadal Pacific states. An honest observer would note that 1950 was considerably cooler than 1944.

      • With decadal averages, it is 0.985 and 0.995 from 1968-2018. Very linear and robust gradients when the short-term noise is averaged out. Calculate the sensitivity and it is 2.3 C per doubling for 1958-2018 and 2.6 C per doubling for 1968-2018.

      • Eh – failure to discuss or even acknowledge this is #jiminy’s problem. It is a new paradigm and he is not even a dinosaur. He is a motivated amateur with no scientific training or experience. .

      • I have discussed it. It’s self-canceling wiggles. Tsonis has to remove the mean trend to even see them properly. Same with the stadium wave. I only have patience for the trend part.

      • No it ain’t random ‘white noise’.

        He should open his soul to the beauty of Earth system science and math. The stadium wave is a beautiful idea from a beautiful mind. Unless you can appreciate the system as a globally coupled turbulent flow field – you are down in the dirt counting marbles.

        “Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.” Marcia Wyatt

        And #jiminy sadly seems interested only in one piece of the puzzle.

      • It is a really strong highly-correlated signal from which you get the sensitivity. Sixty years averages out the stadium wave, which isn’t too visible here anyway. You only get to see it with a lot of data processing. Give me the raw data.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • I gave you the graph showing the land warming twice as fast as the ocean since 1976. Your response is a mix of not believing the data and not understanding how thermal inertia slows down the ocean’s response to forcing relative to the land. I can’t help you.

      • You’re making that up. There are no references for the land drying out which would imply less precipitation. There are references that the ocean is gaining significant amounts of heat content that slow its response to forcing.

      • LOL – land drying out reduces soil moisture and surface latent heat flux leading to an increase in surface temp. Increasing aridity in the period added to temperatures. The SPEI drought graph is somewhere around here.

      • So your explanation for the land warming is a previously unnoticed global drought or…? How about the strongest warming being in high-latitude continents that have reduced annual-averaged snow albedo as a positive feedback?

      • Not noticed by #jiminy more likely.

      • Kind of interesting that areas like Siberia without drought and the Sahara are warming faster than the oceans too. External forcing and thermal inertia explains this.

      • Just data. Not global droughts, back to the drawing board for you.

      • #jiminy’s ‘data’ always wood for dimwits. Global aridity has increased since the 1970’s. His narratives about the Sahara and Siberia seem just that.

        Surface energy flux consists of latent and sensible heat. Where moisture is limited more of the flux of the surface energy flux is as sensible heat. This registers as a surface temperature increase. Very simple physics.

        Higher latitude warming is a robust feature of large scale atmospheric circulation. There is a complex global dynamic that #jiminy’s grossly simplistic mdemes don’t touch the sides of.

        He should learn someting new – just for curiosity’s sake – if only to avoid boring me to death.

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

      • Dry soil and wet soil is not as different as wet soil and water when it comes to temperature changes. We see the different thermal inertias of land and water every summer as the continents heat more (even when they don’t have a drought, by the way). Externally forced change does that. Thermal inertia explains it. If you don’t know why the continents warm more than the oceans in the summer you need to read up.

      • 1001 memes!!! Or at least one meme repeated 1001 times.

        #jiminy should carefully consider the Dietmar Dommenget video I just linked. Educating #jiminy is a thankless task – but if he is not going to look at these things.

      • Dommenget is a mainstream scientist and starts out with CO2-doubling forcing and its several degrees of warming, so you probably dismiss this all from the start. I, on the other hand, see it as a reasonable opinion that accepts AGW as a given.

      • I am a mainstream scientist – who is amused at #jiminy’s prevarications.

        He should watch the video.

      • I did and he starts out with doubling CO2 causing several degrees of warming, and the rest of the video is more detail on just how it does that. AGW is a given.

      • Did you see where he doubts the models?

        It is very interesting video highlighting complexity, uncertainty and unknowns. And #jiminy’s take home message is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Duh squared!!!!

      • His whole talk is based on models. Is he doubting his own presentation or just being modest? You post the video and then dismiss the whole thing when challenged? What’s the point?

      • Listen to the end and take notes.

      • This is about AGW not models. Unless he is doubting AGW, it is not forwarding your argument. One part of the video I saw was where the models were underestimating the observed effect on the Hadley circulation. Does he think they are generally underestimating the observed effects of AGW? Worse than we thought?

      • Let’s take a look at the 60-year trend. The land and Arctic Ocean are warming most.

      • That’s the dynamic in question – the problem is why it happens. #jiminy has his memes that I don’t want to hear yet again.

      • Thermal inertia according to basic physics.

      • Boundary conditions #jiminy? There is an orbital eccentricity wrinkle not sampled in earlier data. This translates to depth and results in large annual ocean warming and cooling. Think man.

      • Now eccentricity causes the long-term deep warming??? Are we spiraling into the sun then? Or is this just another rabbit-hole?

      • Oh for God’s sake.

        #jiminy suggested at one time that this was dynamic was an irrelevant orbital eccentricity. It wasn’t news of course. The orbital graphic below is in the text he was quibbling about. Now he is blathering on about spiraling into the sun. He knows perfectly well what was said and why and this is just more dissimulation.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/06/10/a-maximum-entropy-climate-earth-in-transient-energy-equilibrium-2/

      • So what is eccentricity when it comes to long-term energy changes? If we are not spiraling into the sun, it isn’t changing the long-term trend in the ocean heat content, so it is just a rabbit hole you introduce for no apparent reason.

      • There are obviously no implications total annual energy input. It is however an energy dynamic that causes warming and cooling from the 20 W/m2 annual change – this is orders of magnitude more than any annual warming expected from greenhouse gases. In a warmer atmosphere oceans cool a little less than they otherwise would – rather than warming slowly as a result solely of a slow forcing. No heat in the pipeline as with Hansen’s very old and mathematically unphysical idea. Ancient and wrong? Sometimes science just needs to move on. But this is an idea precious to them – and of course #jiminy cannot give it up.

      • The CO2 effect is sustained at currently about 0.6 GJ/m2 per decade and growing. Eccentricity gives you 0.2 GJ/m2 for half the year that is canceled out by the next half year. See the difference? After a decade the score is CO2 0.6 GJ/m2, eccentricity 0.

      • Wow!!! Getting back to the point – oceans warm and cool stringly in the annual cycle and this has zilch to do with global warming. His numbers and his ideas are bizarrely unphysical. We have been through this dozens of times – not again.

      • Oceans respond to forcing in the most obvious way possible, by warming, and it looks like you agree. Whether the forcing is cyclical or continuously rising, it doesn’t matter.

      • Of course the satellite data shows warming in SW and cooling in IR. The nonsense meme around this is that it is all AGW cloud feedback.

      • Water vapor and surface albedo feedbacks are more important. Clouds add a bit, but are not critical to the overall positive feedback.

      • As I have explained patiently to #jiminy –

        Let him take it up with the IPCC.

        As for clouds – he can take thaqt up with Atomski – who will tell him that all warming was in SW as a result of CO2 and cloud feedbacks. See I can read but I can also walk and chew gum at the same time.

      • SW warming is from albedo feedbacks of all types including surface albedo (snow/ice/greening) and clouds as well as absorption by the extra water vapor. Clouds don’t show up in your picture and the models have a range near zero making the sign indeterminate.

      • #jiminy should at the numbers not merely rattle off his memes.

      • You veered off into albedo after I told you that forcing does lead to the oceans warming and more forcing leads to the oceans warming more. CO2 has a bigger decadal effect than eccentricity, so first you have to show clouds also have a bigger effect than eccentricity. That should be a low bar according to you.

      • I started with albedo.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/10/16/stocks-and-flows-in-the-earth-system/

        Eccentricity has so little decadal variability. The significance is in the very large annual warming and cooling and its relevance to ocean energy dynamics. #jiminy’s tangents are misguided or dissimulation. The abject confusion around this seems evident from this meaningless mishmash of a current seems genuine. BUT CRE has been discussed many times – it hasn’t changed. #jiminy should broaden his outlook – on his own.

      • It is both positive and negative like eccentricity, right? That’s what your CERES and ERBE plots show. You seem to only be interested in the sign-changing stuff, not the steadily increasing stuff, right?

      • No #jiminy – I have been interested in ocean thermal inertia for a long time. Ecentricity is relevant only in that context. Get that straight.

      • And it is the CERES data that is significant in this.

      • Isn’t that dominated by Pinatubo? Volcano effects (which are a real forcing) are so much larger than spontaneous cloud changes in that data. Have you compared them, or did you not know that till just now?

      • This is IR – CERES is in blue.

      • Do you trust (a) or (b)?

      • Oh for God’s sake – neither. It is an ad hoc splice of data from different platforms. I prefer not to – which has the problem of shrinking coverage periods. Like Argo – CERES data is more precise and stable than older generation observing systems. ERBE was cobbled together from platforms launched for other purpose. Great work but the final revision took until 2006.

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

        This is obviously far too ancient for the likes of Atomski – but it is the final version of the data.

      • The ocean heat content is far more reliable to calculate the imbalance because it is a time-integrated measure. I would not trust that satellite data either, especially for long-term budgets that span more than one satellite. This is the same problem RSS and UAH have. Not suitable at all for trends.

      • The old XBT data had 10% coverage – little of that below 700m – and so lo in data density that results were somehow averaged over 5 years. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that Josh Willis was able to reduce that to annual averages.

        The problem of satellite platform inter-calibration relies on overlapping periods of operation. ERBE seems OK – as does the MSU used for atmospheric temps. I wouldn’t bet the house on precision of the earlier data – but it is not completely pointless either.

        If you want reliable data – CERES and Argo are it. The correlation gives confidence that both independent sources are more or less correct.

        Even then – I suspect that the early Argo record has some issues.

        Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout

        While we can calculate rates of change in ocean heat – but that should ideally equal the energy imbalance over a period. Note that I haven’t calculated energy. That could be done easily – but I wanted to keep the original units. The running sum should co-vary with ocean heat. It does so much better than I expected. NASA seems to have done all the hard work. Satellite data provides additional information on what is happening in the system and therefore why ocean heat changes.

      • Jim D | November 3, 2018 at 2:37 am |
        “There were no long-term multi-decadal trends, but the last 50 years have been in one direction”
        Pardon?
        A “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men” moment, JimD.

      • Starting with 1968-1978 through 2008-2018, each decade has been significantly warmer than the previous one. This is what I mean by one direction. This was shown by this graph of the 30-year temperature.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1988/trend:120/plot/best/mean:240/mean:120
        Whether most US mass shootings recently have been done by white men, that’s your question to research for yourself. The ones I remember have mostly been, by far, but maybe you remember different.

    • Re: “How “special” was the recent slowdown?”

      That’s not how one does a competent statistical analysis. One doesn’t draw horizontal lines of a graph, and then see which graph is more seems more subjectively “special” to one’s eye. Instead, one would need to do a more formal and objective analysis, like a change point analysis. And when one does that, this “special” “slowdown”, as you call it, isn’t statistically robust. That’s been shown time and time again, in papers such as:

      “Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls”
      “Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature”
      “Debunking the climate hiatus”
      “Change points of global temperature”

      But hey, if you want to judiciously choose your start-points and end-points to minimize a trend as much as possible, then go ahead. Just know that what you’re doing isn’t statistically sound.


      https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.3174

      Also, you call the people making these rebuttals “warmists”, “alarmists” and worse on your website, under the heading of “debate in a non-hostile environment”. I find that hilarious. I don’t have a problem with a hostile environment, but let’s not pretend it isn’t what it is.

    • sheldonjwalker: How “special” was the recent slowdown?

      FWIW, the slowdown overlapped substantially with a period that had the highest rate of change: look at the bottom line and the top line.

      If you take a sample of a lot of stuff, you can generally find a minimum and a maximum. That the minimum epoch and maximum epoch overlap so much is a curious detail. If there are any implications for future warming or the CO2 mechanism, they are obscure.

  37. UAH up a whole 0.08 C, so disappointing, Arctic ice leaping upwards in > 100,000 increments despite a “warm” arctic. New outbreaks of ice in Bering and Barent’s.
    What’s not to like about monthly climate.

    • “Arctic ice leaping upwards in > 100,000 increments despite a “warm” arctic.”

      And why wouldn’t it?
      As even though it’s currently 10C warmer than normal it’s still -13C north of 80 deg ….

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

      • You mean
        “To-date 2018 Arctic sea ice extent is a total 1.05 million square kilometers more than 2016! Now, 2018 is even approaching the sea ice extent average of the 2010’s, despite High Arctic temperatures leaping to 10degC above average.“
        What is not to like about massive ice increases (off a very low base) in the middle of a heat wave?
        Ah, physics.
        Looking forward to the next Piomas.

      • “You mean”
        No I mean what I say.
        Observations.
        So you think that the IPCC is projecting an “Arctic death spiral” then?
        And you think that a comparison with THE outlier year that is 2016 is valid as a means of dismissing a long trend that is the slower/lesser Arctic winter ice build-up?
        You would not expect the weather to have any effect season to season?
        I do hope you’re not so far down the rabbit-hole as to hold that opinion.
        PS: you don’t seem to be reading your posts on ATTP?
        Why is that?
        Are there 2 angechs?

      • Tony Banton Nice to see you engaging.
        “No I mean what I say. Observations.
        So you think that the IPCC is projecting an “Arctic death spiral” then?”

        To be clear the term Arctic Death Spiral is an invention and result of some warmest graphist not the IPCC. Backed up by a professor Wadham, Gore, Neven etc. The graph goes into hibernation in years when ice is growing and comes out again in years like 2012 and 2016 when ice is shrinking.
        It seems likely that it will disappear as a topic for the next year.

        “And you think that a comparison with THE outlier year that is 2016 is valid as a means of dismissing a long trend that is the slower/lesser Arctic winter ice build-up?”

        Sigh. Not my quote or comparison. Taken from a warmist blog actually. 2016 is the lowest extent on the satellite record of what 38 years which is a very small time. I believe they used it purely as the lower limit for comparison. Nothing wrong with that is there?

        Your comment is factually wrong.
        Firstly there is no long trend, 38 years is not a long time.
        Secondly Arctic Winter ice build up is in a trend of increasing winter ice build up. You see if you have a lower base as currently the percentage of recovery, otherwise known as winter ice build up, is almost always increasing. You meant to say that in the short time range we are discussing there has been a trend to lower ice volumes in winter which has currently paused and looks like increasing.

        “You would not expect the weather to have any effect season to season?
        I do hope you’re not so far down the rabbit-hole as to hold that opinion.”

        Ahh, you should read your mates on the Arctic sea ice blog. Headlines like the great Arctic cyclone of whatever it was. Was that 2012? With endless cheering on of warm Arctic weather, massive waves breaking up the ice ( Jim Hunt).
        As you know it has been unseasonably warm in the Arctic but the ice keeps growing partly because it depends on the heat in the incoming waters, which must be colder than usual. Does water temperature constitute weather? Yes.
        Try a bit of Doctor Roy Spencer on his views of why climate sensitivity is low due to multi decadal weather patterns, PDO, which incidentally does run on long term trends. Not that I need to remind you as a meteorologist.

        Thanks for your concern re my posting. ATTP continues to put up good posts with good topics and advice e.g. Mosher to Fuller “ My suggestion. Pick something where you can make an individual difference.

  38. Bear with me here, he has something important to say about being an ideologue:

    When one adopts an ideology, they are not longer in the conversation. They are no longer there, and you can swap in another ideologue in their place and it makes no difference. Yes in some form, I think this applies. Wouldn’t it be nice if with all the partisanship in this country, we set an example. Prager U, Cato, the IDW and name your typical known climate scientists ally on nuclear power.

    • Quick remarks, it’s qued to get to the point I do think. If you only watched one Peterson video, this is the one. The interviewer does a great job. Peterson is on tour as far as I know and he may be tired for this one. Also check the number of views.

  39. Forgive me if this has already been posted and discussed, but here is the latest scary stuff from Mann, Rahmstorf, et al:
    “Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification.”
    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272

    It is all CMIP5 modeling of course. In fact they have this caveat in the abstract:
    “Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease.”

    Nevertheless it is dutifully reported as established fact:
    “Global Warming Is Messing with the Jet Stream. That Means More Extreme Weather.”
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31102018/jet-stream-climate-change-study-extreme-weather-arctic-amplification-temperature?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=4d63e0dc13-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-4d63e0dc13-327531733

    Junk in, junk out?

  40. Here are the polar annular mode indices.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_mrf.shtml

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index_mrf.shtml

    On this basis I am expecting surface temperature in both the north and south Pacific to continue to cool. Based on a physical link between polar wind fields and enhanced flow in the Peruvian and Californian currents.

  41. There is half a thread missing – starting here.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882827

    The comments were innocuous and actually went somewhere for a change. Now they are disappeared. Very disappointing. Did you read before deleting – or just arbitrarily act?

    • Re: “The comments were innocuous and actually went somewhere for a change. Now they are disappeared. Very disappointing. Did you read before deleting – or just arbitrarily act?”

      Remember, you’ve repeatedly told me that moderation is not selective. Stick to that.
      ;)

      • What I said was that I was bored with the whining refrain about selective moderation – something to do with contrarions on a contrarion site – from someone who has no problem with a ‘hostile environment’ carpet bombing threads with copy and pasted prolix comments.

        And really he does not have to copy, paste and bold comments in the reply.

        The comments removed were entirely civil and technical – and #jiminy was finally getting it I think. We have set back rapprochement by decades – and that’s hyperbole if you missed it. But this is boring too – so I Googled ENSO in the past week.

        “This work demonstrates the influence of the initial amplitude of sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) following its evolutionary phase on the forecast skill of ENSO in retrospective predictions of the Climate Forecast System version 2. It is noted that the prediction skill varies with the phase of the ENSO cycle. The averaged skill (linear correlation) of Niño3.4 index is in a range of 0.15-0.55 for the amplitude of Niño3.4 index smaller than 0.5°C (e.g., initial phase or neutral condition of ENSO), and 0.74-0.93 for the amplitude larger than 0.5°C (e.g., mature condition of ENSO) for 0-6 month lead predictions…

        These results imply that skillful prediction of the ENSO cycle, either at the initial time of an event or during the transition phase of the ENSO cycle, when the anomaly signal is weak and the SNR is small, is an inherent challenge.”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0285.1

        This is a key idea and relevant to current conditions. It provides criteria for judging the reliability of ENSO forecasts at transitions. This is better than simply waving them about as climate talisman. Science is not magic.

      • That’s disingenuous. You posted a video by Dommenget, a mainstream warmist and modeler, and were trying to figure out how to get around that he fully accepted AGW and you don’t. It was a corner you painted yourself into. She put you out of your misery there. You should be thankful.

      • Re: “You posted a video by Dommenget, a mainstream warmist and modeler, and were trying to figure out how to get around that he fully accepted AGW and you don’t. It was a corner you painted yourself into.”

        You mean the same Dommenget that co-authored this?:

        “The twentieth-century Northern Hemisphere surface climate exhibits a long-term warming trend largely caused by anthropogenic forcing, with natural decadal climate variability superimposed on it.”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3347.1

        Because if Robert was trying to abuse the work of such a person, then that would be hilarious.
        :D

      • Dommenget’s video was about the warming pattern and explaining it via model simulations turning on one effect at a time, e.g. land/ocean differences, advecton, etc. It was a good talk for a general audience. Not sure why RIE posted it, but I think he was trying to agree with Dommenget that it is complex, and trying to refute my thermal inertia argument for our current land/water warming rate differences, while ignoring Dommenget’s AGW-supporting part on which the study was based. It was a delicate balance and he fell off.

      • Moderation is selective in the sense that i check twice a day and don’t catch everything. I delete content free snipes and insults. If there is alot of content plus mild insults, i usually let it through.

      • Still can’t figure out why half this particular thread was trashed.

    • It was an undergraduate lecture. They might reflect on uncertainty and the gaps in knowledge. But that seems unlikely doesn’t it? “I still don’t understand fully how it works… over the past 10 years or so people have started thinking about these sort of things… People see trends and think it is climate change… not everything is climate change… You can wave about 10 papers that all say the same thing – it doesn’t mean they are right… etc…” I am quite literally laughing at how these scientifically uneducated AGW fanatics reduce all science to the level of their limited and inbred comprehension.

      How do you fully accept AGW? The radiative physics seem simple to this engineer – but global geophysics are far more complex and interesting. But there is a new scientific consensus on the fundamental mode of operation of the globally coupled Earth System.

      https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

      I quoted Wally Broecker. I always do. Watch out for the wild beast – but it will bite you anyway. Wally is a warmist and I am a skeptic. It is true – I am skeptical of the simplistic memes – far from science in fact – of #jiminy and #atomski.

      I read the first assessment report – the rational response is technological I decided way back when and went back to hydrology. I am a mainstream scientist at the postgraduate level.

      I discussed ERBS – https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3838.1 – but this is obviously too ancient for the likes of the mesmerizingly incredulous Atomski. Who insists that only he reads science apparently – as least that’s what he says to everyone here. Atomski and #jiminy are opposite ends – #jiminy who never cites anything and #atomski who has google lists of the very latest papers that apparently all say the same thing apparently. I have done due diligence on occasion for the latter – they don’t and some were on entirely different topics. I suspect that he simply doesn’t have the background. I have asked – but both are suspiciously silent. I don’t have a problem with fresh and curious minds – but these are typically bombastic, inflexible and far from skeptical. It is a groupthink thing.

      I discussed CERES and ERBE via Norman Loeb et al – https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3838.1 – on the back of a throwaway statement that volcanoes are real – manly forcing – unlike this wimpy Pacific effects that he can barely see.

      I discussed in great detail the mechanics of ocean and satellite observing systems – intervalidation, data density and coverage, equipment and limitations. This goes to the heart of what precision is achievable and how much the result can be relied on. I think I might have discussed Rayleigh–Bénard convection and cloud again. Because – really – all of the warming in satellite TOA power flux data this century – and in the late 20th century has the cloud signature. AGW might be there but it can’t be seen in theory or in practice. I might have quoted the IPCC.

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

      Things have moved on – it seems very real. But if you are looking for cloud changes associated with ‘low frequency variability’ the middle of North America is the wrong place. Fortunately – people have looked elsewhere.

      “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.” And yes – the science on this is now much more certain #atomski.

      And yes I discussed ocean thermal inertia which is an idea from the dim past based on a model of slow, steady state heat diffusion.

      Say you have a pot of water with 2 heat sources, One is a small and very slow increase in atmospheric temperature. The other is variable over short periods and orders of magnitude greater. The pot will warm and cool – in the cooling phase the water will not cool as much – rather then warming slowly.

      One could easily turn this improved conceptual model into math. But I distrust the assumptions on diffusion constants. One – they are not constant – two – we have not a clue about how fast the physical system – the planet and not the pot – is. Heat is carried down by eddies – and rises by convection. These are fast processes. How would you interpret this?

      There is no one right answer. Science in such complexity is less certain but more fruitful. Having said that these guys are more certain and far less interesting – it is hedgehog heaven and they are ludicrously behind the curve with their one big, catastrophic idea.

      In the complexity of the Earth system simple ideation will be wrong – and only data counts. But that is the true nature of science – an idea that seems alien to these types. Their’s is all about simple narratives – when it is not attempts at ridicule, misrepresentation and character assassination of the standard progressive – rule book and all – groupthink type. Invidious nonsense of the highest order but which is the futile order of the day.

      • Re: “I am quite literally laughing at how these scientifically uneducated AGW fanatics reduce all science to the level of their limited and inbred comprehension.”

        Ah, so that’s why your previous comments were deleted. Good to know.

      • Again – literally laughing. We may contrast this with #atomski’s sociology of skepticism.

      • Re: “Their’s is all about simple narratives – when it is not attempts at ridicule, misrepresentation and character assassination of the standard progressive – rule book and all – groupthink type.”

        I don’t think JCH, Jim, I, Scott, or anyone else here have accused you (faux) “skeptics” of being inbred fanatics. Yet you’ve made such an accusation. So by your above logic, that makes you a progressive who resorts to groupthink, ridicule, and character assassination.

        Do better.

        “I am quite literally laughing at how these scientifically uneducated AGW fanatics reduce all science to the level of their limited and inbred comprehension.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-882960

      • The ideas are bred in internet echo chambers – and the fanaticism is evident. I wasn’t of course implying anything about #atomski’s familiar relationships. Calling it is no different in character from any of the calumny spread by these people. Their defense is that it is true and they bridle at any fair play turnabout.

        But I am so socially progressive that I have bells on both legs.

      • RIE asks “How do you fully accept AGW? ” How do you think Dommenget does? Is he wrong? It is energy conservation. The anthropogenic forcing, by far the largest term since 1950, can account for all the warming we have seen and more in the remaining imbalance. Energy conservation is fundamental physics that is fully accepted. Alternative arguments need to be made in those terms to be heard.

      • Funny how I agree with Dommenget more than I do these guys. They have blinkers – they simply do not understand much beyond the key words – carbon dioxide. Yet they keep up this absurd pretense.

      • The climate consensus is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse. I’m not sure the 1st law of thermo needs a consensus. Hilarious.

      • Re: “The climate consensus is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse. “

        Yes, that’s part of the consensus. But the consensus includes more than that, just like the evidence-based scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS includes more than the claim that HIV is virus that exists. This is made clear even in the work of Dommenget, the person you cited:

        “The twentieth-century Northern Hemisphere surface climate exhibits a long-term warming trend largely caused by anthropogenic forcing, with natural decadal climate variability superimposed on it.”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3347.1

        There’s an evidence-based scientific consensus that:

        A1) There has been global warming since the mid-20th century.
        A2) Humans [largely via anthropogenic greenhouse gases] caused most of this recent warming.
        A3) Most of the recent [or near future] climate change is [or will be] caused by humans.
        A4) Climate change is a serious problem and/or a danger to humanity.

        The above quote from Dommenget illustrates points A1 and A2. The following sources document the consensus on A1 and A2:

        Table 1: “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”
        “Does it matter if the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is 97% or 99.99%?”
        “The consensus on anthropogenic global warming matters”
        Page 49 of: “Models, manifestation and attribution of climate change”

        For the consensus on A3 and A4, check the views of AAAS PhD earth scientists currently working for a 93% consensus on A3 and a 95% consensus on A4:

        http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/elaborating-on-the-views-of-aaas-scientists-issue-by-issue/

        The source below also shows a ~87% consensus on A3 and a ~86% consensus on A4:

        Figures 88 (v043) and 2 (v007) of: “The Bray and von Storch 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016”
        https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf

      • Predictable BS. The 97% consensus is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – I agree – and we are adding it to the atmosphere – well yes. Beyond that there is no evidence of the extent of agreement on anything much at all – indeed there is a great deal that is unknown making ‘consaensus’ moot. This is because it is complex and uncertain. Nor would it matter much to objective science and not public propaganda.

        There is a scientific consensus – in fact – that the fundamental mode of operation of the Earth system is dynamical complexity.

        “The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

        He will say I am out of date as usual – shoulders and giants comes to min. Who would you believe – a committee of illustrious scientists or the petulant and petty ponderings of #atomski?

        A1 – over a couple multi-decadal climate shifts.

        https://wordpress.com/media/watertechbyrie.com?s=cowtan

        A2 – it might be 0.4C at most over the second half of the 20th.

        A3 – all warming in the satellite record is cloud seemingly. #atomkski will insist that cloud is caused by CO2 and increases in El Nino. Yeah right.

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

        The details are explained elsewhere – but #atomski is incapable of processing another such radical idea thrown up by Earth system geophysics.

        A4 – the rate of change in the period of highest CO2 concentration increase is less than 0.1C/decade. And why on Earth would it increase. Bearing in mind that multi-model opportunistic ensembles are theoretical nonsense.

        e.g. – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751

        Obviously James McWilliams, Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer are so out of date that I can barely contain my mirth.

        The rational response to Wally’s wild beast is technological across many sectors and including black carbon.

        e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/30/black-carbon-a-health-and-environment-issue/

        In energy.

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

        And the land use sector.

        e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/26/food-for-people-conserving-and-restoring-soils/

        These are great ideas for many reasons. Just some advice #atomski. You need to make your comments punchier. As it is – they are just so dull and pedestrian.

      • You are confusing consensus with basic physics. First law of thermodynamics – basic physics. Effects of greenhouse gases – basic physics. No one doubts these things except the ones who don’t understand one or both. Adding GHGs by the first law of thermodynamics leads to warming – basic physics. How much warming for how much forcing? Consensus is 3 C per doubling, and with strong evidence from 60 years of observations like this you don’t even need to rely on models alone.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • “Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.” http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

        I know #jiminy doesn’t understrand this – from personal experience it takes a lot of application. But the multi-model opportunistic ensembles are wildly misguided.

        “In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?

        Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.” James McWilliams.

        Ultimately I think that a static sensitivity is a futile idea. Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer. Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer.


        https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

        Ultimately the world isn’t static – and opportunistic ensembles couldn’t show it if it was. It is perpetual and chaotic change and a 3C ECS is ludicrously unsupportable scientifically.

        e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Demetris_Koutsoyiannis/publication/318226882_'Panta_Rhei'_and_its_relationship_with_uncertainty/links/595e153e0f7e9b1d9cde0719/Panta-Rhei-and-its-relationship-with-uncertainty.pdfhttps://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1351/

        Frankly – if they are not capable of subtle and interesting ideas – #jiminy and #atomski don’t come close – and they are woefully short on the tools of scientific skepticism – it isn’t part of my consensus.

      • When the effective TCR is 2.3 C, a likely effective ECS is ~3 C. This is not subtle. It is after six decades of rising temperatures and corresponding forcing with a correlation of 0.985, a gradient that gives you 2.3 C per doubling. Running away from the most obvious supporting data is not a good tactic for a skeptic.

      • “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

        The problem is disentangling anthopogenic from internal variability.

        Taking the trend over 2 multi decadal regimes – between 1944 and gives a residual of 0.4K. Assuming all that is anthopogenic gives an upper estimate of TCR of 1.6K.

        But then TCR is still too flimsy an idea to constrain the future evolution of the Earth system.

      • Pre-Keeling CO2 levels are not well known, and numbers since 1958 are rather better defined. And the last 60 years represents 75% of the CO2 increase, so the signal to noise is much stronger, hence the high correlation.

      • … between 1944 and 1998…

        #jiminy on the other hand assumes zilch internal variability.

      • The stats don’t leave much room for it. The trend in 30-year temperatures is almost linear since 1980 similar to how the forcing from CO2 has grown. A line gives little scope for natural variability unless it also happens to be coincidentally proportional to the growing forcing change. I think you’re interested in how close these lines stay to each other. The difference is what natural variability and non-CO2-proportional factors are doing (e.g. solar and aerosols in the early part).
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1988/trend:120/plot/best/mean:240/mean:120/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • Extrapolate backwards!!!!

      • The sun can account for the 1910-1940 deviation from CO2. The CO2 forcing change can only account for about half of that. The lines would converge again around 1900 and before. Natural variability figures more early in the century because CO2 forcing was increasing less than 0.1 W/m2/decade prior to 1950, which other things like the sun can also do. Lovejoy has a nice graph of log CO2 and temperature that goes back to 1750. It all fits.

      • Solar intensity increae of 0.12 W/m2 since 1750. A silly argument indeed.

      • The sun went from its weakest in the century in 1910 to about ts strongest by 1950. How many W/m2 is not known but 0.2 W/m2 would be all that is needed to account for half the warming in that period. I think even CO2 skeptics agree that the sun can be a factor in such periods of variation.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:44/mean:88/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • 0.12 W/m2 increase since 1750.

      • What, one steady increase and nothing between? Interesting. I don’t think so.

      • Does this tell you what happened between 1910 and 1940? No.

      • Well no – delta tsi then was even less.

        “Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known quantity. We review our understanding of these two closely linked, fundamental drivers of climate.” http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

      • So you think it is impossible that the 1910-1940 strengthening and 10-year solar cycles caused even 0.2 C of warming? You quote one paper, and that is not a consensus, nor does it say that more sunspot activity doesn’t lead to warming. It does in 11-year cycles.

      • Well no – delta tsi then was even less.

        “Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem
        to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the
        terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known quantity. We review our understanding of these two closely linked, fundamental drivers of climate.” http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

      • What again?

      • The TSI forcing change is less than contrails. It continues to be appallingly numerically incompetent.

      • Yet, we see 0.1-0.2 C swings just in the 11-year cycles. Don’t dismiss it so fast.

      • Was it doing anything special to account for all the warming after 1980 (no), or is this just a rabbit hole?

      • The IPO was in the positive phase contributing to warming of the atmosphere – through cloud feedbacks importantly.

      • It has had several very similar looking positive phases in the last century or so. What’s the difference now? You’re clearly looking in the wrong place.

      • The muti-decadal surface temperature trends – 1944 to 1976 and 1977 to 1998 reflect the state of the Pacific. If he can’t admit that then it is doubly pointless.

      • 1977-2018 is very linear. Where is this oscillation you speak of? It’s 40 years and counting because now the CO2 has taken over with a forcing change of 0.3 W/m2/decade which is not peanuts. The PDO can’t just keep up with that.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1988/trend:120/plot/best/mean:240/mean:120/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • The inability see what what is readily apparent is a sign of fanaticism.


        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

        “Extension of this analysis to the entire 20th century as shown in Figure 1 (bottom) reveals three climate shifts marked by breaks in the temperature trend with respect to time, superimposed upon an overall warming presumably due to increasing greenhouse gasses. Global mean temperature decreased prior to World War I, increased during the 1920s and 1930s, decreased from the 1940s to 1976/77, and as noted above increased from that point to the end of the century. Insofar as the global mean temperature is controlled by the net top‐of‐the‐atmosphere radiative budget [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], such breaks in temperature trends imply discontinuities in that budget. Such discontinuities are difficult to reconcile with the presumed smooth evolution of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol radiative forcing with respect to time [Hansen et al., 2005]. This suggests that an internal reorganization of the climate system may underlie such shifts [Zhang et al., 2007].”

      • The big picture: CO2 forcing has increased by 2 W/m2 in the last few centuries, half of that just since 1980. The temperature has risen 1 C in the last few centuries, half of that again since 1980. Coincidence? No. Just physics.

      • Co-incidence? Well no #jiminy is blind to it – so it doesn’t exist. Yet more science? Why not.

        http://joellegergis.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Henley_ClimDyn_2015.pdf

      • OK, then, a random paper on the PDO.

      • IPO actually – he didn’t even parse the title. And again something that #jiminy cannot even acknowledge. Any science that doesn’t fit his narrative – and there is lots – is rejected out of hand like here on specious grounds. It is very odd. I link hundreds of scientists and papers – and it is all arbitrarily dismissed without what even a minimum of open minded consideration. He asked where the climate regimes are – it is obvious to a rational mind.

      • Did the IPO do anything different that you noticed since 1980 that it hadn’t in the last century? No, of course not. Attempted sidetrack failed.

      • Again – it was in the positive phase.

        The shear volume of motivated nonsense amounts to an exercise in futility.

      • If you look carefully it downtrended after 1980.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: “The twentieth-century Northern Hemisphere surface climate exhibits a long-term warming trend largely caused by anthropogenic forcing, with natural decadal climate variability superimposed on it.”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3347.1

        There’s an evidence-based scientific consensus that:

        A1) There has been global warming since the mid-20th century.
        A2) Humans [largely via anthropogenic greenhouse gases] caused most of this recent warming.
        A3) Most of the recent [or near future] climate change is [or will be] caused by humans.
        A4) Climate change is a serious problem and/or a danger to humanity.

        Your post lists the questions that do not have solid quantitative answers

        A1: the warming has been occurring since the late 1880s. What has caused the earlier warming? Is the process that caused it ongoing?

        A2: Largely CO2? How much is due to everything else? 10% 25%? 49%

        A3: is mostly redundant with A2, except for your terms in square brackets. Of the human causes, how much warming it attributable to deforestation, urbanization, and other land-use changes?

        A4, why the switch to “climate change” from “warming”? What evidence is there that warming since WW2, or more properly since the 1880s, has been either a “serious problem” or a “danger? Cyclonic storm intensities and frequencies, flooding extremes, wildfires, malaria have been approximately stationary in that time span; there has been no increased threat of drought to agricultural productivity; the combination of increased CO2, increased warming and increased rainfall and absolute humidity has been mostly beneficial to natural flora (I put up a large list of articles from Science Magazine to that effect a few weeks ago.) How much of the hypothetical future damage might be preventable by restrictions on CO2 emissions?

      • The most straightforward and obvious way of estimating climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is by examining the result of the “experiment” which we’ve performed on the Earth’s climate, by raising the atmospheric CO2 level from about 311 ppmv in 1950 (or 285 ppmv in 1850) to about 408 ppmv in 2018. We simply examine what happened to temperatures when the atmospheric CO2 level was raised by 31% (or 43%), and extrapolate from those observations.

        However, you need to plot temperature vs. log(CO2), rather than simply CO2 level, because the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmically diminishing.

        Also, there are a few pitfalls with that approach. For one thing, natural global temperatures variations due to ENSO can be larger than the “signal” we’re looking for, so it is important that we choose an analysis interval which avoids those distortions. For another, it would be a mistake to assume that all of the warming which the Earth has experienced since pre-industrial conditions was due to anthropogenic CO2, because much of that warming occurred when CO2 levels were still very low, and because we know of other factors which must have contributed to warming, such as rising levels of other GHGs, and probably also aerosol/particulate pollution abatement in the 1980s.

        So the key question is, how much of the warming can be attributed to rising CO2 level? In the calculations below, the assumed answer to that question is an explicit parameter, “A” (for “Attribution”).

        You can calculate an estimate of TCR sensitivity, using the time period and temperature index of your choice, as follows:

          A = attribution to anthropogenic CO2, e.g., 0.5 = 50% attribution
          T1 = initial global average temperature (or temperature anomaly) for your chosen time period
          T2 = final global average temperature (or temperature anomaly)
          C1 = initial CO2 (or CO2e) value
          C2 = final CO2 (or CO2e) value
          S = sensitivity in °C / doubling of CO2

        The formula is very simple:

          S = A × (T2-T1) / ((log(C2)-log(C1))/log(2))
          S = A × (T2-T1) / (log2(C2/C1))

        For example, to capture most of the period of rapid CO2 level increases, while avoiding distortions from major ENSO spikes, we could use the period 1960-2014:

        https://sealevel.info/co2.html?co2scale=2

        https://sealevel.info/oni_2018-08_with_1960_and_2014_marked.html

        Over that period, CO2 level rose from about 317 ppmv in 1960 to about 399 in 2015. Depending on which temperature index you trust, temperatures rose by about 0.5 °C (HADCRUT3) or about 0.75 °C (GISS), or somewhere in-between, as you can see in these four temperature indices, 1960-2014 (WoodForTrees):

        https://sealevel.info/WoodForTrees_four_temp_indices_1960-2014.html

        Let’s use the midpoint between 0.5°C and 0.75°C, 0.625 °C. If T1 is 0.00, T2 is 0.625, C1 is 317 (in 1960), C2 is 399 (in 2015), and A is 50%, then:

          S = 0.5 × (0.625-0) / ((log(399)-log(317))/log(2))
            We can use Google as a calculator to find:
          S = 0.94 °C / doubling

        Note #1: ECS is usually estimated to be about 1½ × TCR.
        See: http://sealevel.info/glossary.html#ecs

        Note #2: the above discussion doesn’t mention minor GHGs like O3, CH4, N2O & CFCs. To take them into account, there are two simple approaches you can use. One is to substitute estimates of “CO2e” (CO2 equivalent) for C1 and C2. The other is to adjust A to account for the fact that some portion of the warming (perhaps one-fourth) is due to other GHGs.

        Other than that, the attribution factor, A, is really just an educated guess, but it is based on expert opinion. The AMS frequently surveys meteorologists and asks them what percentage of the last 50 years’ warming they attribute to “human activity” (presumably mostly GHGs). This bar chart is from their 2017 survey report:

        As you can see, the “average” or “midpoint opinion” of American broadcast meteorologists is that a little over half of the warming was caused by human activity (presumably mostly by CO2):

          (.905×15/92)+(.7×34/92)+(.5×21)+(.3×13/92)+(.085×08/92) = 57%

        So if we attribute 57% of the warming to anthropogenic causes, and 75% of that to CO2, the attribution factor, A, should be 0.75 × 0.57 = 0.43 (43%), resulting in a calculated TCR sensitivity estimate of 0.81 °C per doubling of CO2.

        Note that our calculation includes the effects of both positive and negative temperature feedbacks.

        For ECS, multiply that result by 1.5, yielding 1.21 °C per doubling of CO2.

        The ECS/TCR ratio is sometimes estimated as high as 1.65:1. If we use that multiplier we could get the ECS estimate up to 1.34 °C per doubling of CO2, which is still slightly below the IPCC’s “low end” estimate of 1.5 °C per doubling.

        On the other hand, if the ECS/TCR ratio is only 1.25:1, then ECS = 1.25 × TCR = 1.01 °C per doubling.

        Even if 100% (rather than 57%) of the warming since 1960 is attributed to anthropogenic causes (and 75% of that anthropogenic warming is attributed to CO2), TCR still comes out to only 1.41°C per doubling, and ECS = 1.5 × TCR = 2.12°C.

        It is very difficult to approach the IPCC’s “midrange” estimate of 3°C per doubling, using this sort of analysis.
         

        For a different approach to estimating climate sensitivity, which results in an estimate of ECS rather than TCR, I can recommend this blog post by “SteveF” at The Blackboard climate blog:
        http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
        …and this follow-up:
        http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/human-caused-forcing-and-climate-sensitivity/

      • Again on the benefits of warming:

        http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/10/31/1808035115

        Longer growing season, reduced maximum daytime high temperature, cooling effect of large acreages of the plants — kind of complex. No separate accounting for increased CO2 concentration.

  42. “… with natural decadal climate variability superimposed on it…”

    This is actually relevant to the wilder weather in a ‘wavier’ jet stream that the last thread. started with.

    Decadal fluctuations sum to centennial variability.

    Dommenget understands – he talks about it in the video – these hedgehogs don’t

  43. Dommenget also discusses in the video the land/ocean temperature divergence. He said it is a robust feature of the surface temperature record – and one that is not fully understood. This contrasts with #jiminy’s certainly in his grossly simplistic one dimensional narrative. #jiminy has a theory but no data or science.


    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL048442

    “To examine these factors more closely, examination of Figure 2 reveals that the trends in specific humidity tend to be higher in warmer annual mean temperatures. Also, the higher the annual mean specific humidity, the lower the temperature trend tends to be.”

    So increasing terrestrial aridity results in a higher surface temperature trend. Hmmm? It makes sense based on very simple physics discovered 250 years ago.

    #jiminy’s response was to suggest that no one but me has noticed this – and that I made it up. Disingenuous much?

  44. A day in moderation and nothing has improved.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/27/week-in-review-science-edition-88/#comment-883097

    When they say it is at the higher end of warming rate estimates – it is the more credible end.

Leave a Reply to Atomsk's Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s