Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Re-evaluating the ocean conveyor belt [link]

More robust projections of sea ice only possible by improving physics in simulations e.g. accounting for melt ponds & the loss of drifting snow [link

Key Role of Internal Ocean Dynamics in Atlantic Multidecadal Variability During the Last Half Century [link]

NASA update: Snowfall accumulation in parts of Antarctica increased in the 20th century. The added precipitation has led to some mitigation of sea level rise. Overall, Antarctica still lost more ice than it gained. [link]

Air‐Sea CO2 Flux Estimates in Stratified Arctic Coastal Waters: How Wrong Can We Be? [link]

Dynamical Precursors of Stratospheric Sudden Warmings [link]

Quantifying uncertainty from aerosol and atmospheric parameters and their impact on climate sensitivity [link]

Outer space may have gotten a bit closer [link]

Ocean carbon inventory under warmer climate conditions – the case of the Last Interglacial [link]

Natural ocean fluctuations could help explain Antarctic sea ice changes [link

Nerem & Fasullo 2018, Observations of the Rate and Acceleration of Global Mean Sea Level Change [link]

What is the most appropriate palaeo period for comparison? Under RCP8.5, we end up with a mid-Pliocene climate by 2030 and the Eocene by 2150. With RCP4.5, we stabilise in the Pliocene [link]

Role of stratosphere, tropics and oceans in skilful forecasts of extreme NH wintertime storms [link]

Some parts of Tehran are falling by as much as 25 centimetres a year. [link]

An ancient case of the plague could rewrite history [link]

On the effects of increased vertical mixing on the Arctic Ocean and sea ice [link]

Spatial analysis of early-warning signals for a North Atlantic climate transition in a coupled GCM [link]

Hydro-climatic variability in the southwestern Indian Ocean between 6000 and 3000 years ago [link]

Heat waves in Berlin and Potsdam, Germany–Long‐term trends and comparison of heat wave definitions from 1893 to 2017 [link]

Explaining asymmetry between weakening and recovery of the AMOC in a coupled climate model [link]

link between global warming, ocean oxygen loss, and mass extinction at the end of the Permian, 252 million years ago. [link]

Soil is the biggest terrestrial carbon sink, but land degradation is reducing its ability to mitigate climate change [link]

Global Carbon Budget 2018 just published [link

Isaac Held has a new essay on “100 Years of Progress in Understanding the General Circulation of the Atmosphere” [link

Differences in seasonal energy exchanges in regions of sea ice retreat drive uncertainty in Arctic amplification. [link]

Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent oxygen decline in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean [link]

Social science & policy

New technologies, not Paris climate agreement, will do the job [link]

Unintended consequences: “Oregon planning to increase CO2 emissions by taxing plastic bags and banning straws.” [link]

Long, informative read:  problems with California’s cap-and-trade system [link]

Jonah Goldberg: Climate change frenzy clouds our judgment [link]

Protecting climate by protecting nature [link]

On the present improbability and future necessity of carbon pricing [link]

Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review [link]

Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal [link]

‘Climate campaigners must now ask themselves which they prefer, renewables or the stable and long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for it is increasingly clear that they cannot have both. ‘ [link]

Climate policy backlash: “Activists and delegates in Poland begin to realize that a comprehensive transitioning over to green energies is not going to happen any time soon because their proposals are unmistakably generating anger.” [link]

Lucas Bergkamp: As often in climate policy matters, the US is right: states should note, but not endorse the IPCC’s findings. A thorough debate on the limits of climate science is required before any IPCC findings are used to develop policy.  Climate science on 1.5C erased at UN talks as US and Saudis step in [link]

Liebrich:  Two business cycles to prepare for a low-carbon world [link]

The story behind the PG&E transmission tower that failed minutes before roared to life. [link].

The moral assumptions embedded in economic models of climate change [link]

Can the climate movement survive populism? [link]

An approach called sponge cities can more effectively lessen , save water for dry spells & reduce . [link]

Reiner Grundman:  Rightful Place of Expertise. [link]

Observed and Projected Impacts from Extreme Weather Events: Implications for Loss and Damage, “No substantial evidence is present for long-term increases in normalised losses” [link]

About science & scientists

Extraordinary interview with 15 year old Greta Thunberg, who spoke at at COP24 [link]

receiving Climate Communications Prize at .

“Left-wing scientific denialism now poses a greater threat to academic freedom than right-wing scientific denialism.” [link]

Heterodox Academy:  A teachable moment at Sarah Lawrence College (of relevance to the Cliff Mass imbroglio)  [link]

How can universities can better support public engagement activities, especially for geoscientists. [link]

This is a statement signed by 363 censorship advocates at Williams College. A perfect encapsulation of the fundamentalism sweeping America’s elite colleges.  A collective student response to the “Chicago Statement” (also of relevance to the Cliff Mass imbroglio) [link]

Heterodox academy: Using open letters to shame and silence scholars undermines open inquiry and constructive disagreement. [link]

“Are Academics Cowards? The Grip of Grievance Studies and the Sunk Costs of Academic Pursuit” [link]

A far cry from its mission, academia today resembles “a priesthood or a guild,” or even a “cult“, with peer review serving an essential administrative need in a system of promotion, tenure, funding, & accolades designed to maintain the established order. Academia’s case of Stockholm Syndrome [link]

 

 

574 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. I appreciate Ocasio-Cortez’s sincerity in offering the Green New Deal. I also appreciate all of the faux quotes attributed to her. Just a sample-“If money doesn’t grow on trees, why do banks have branches?” She is going to be queen of the quote for the next 2 years, both real and imagined.

    But at some point simple arithmetic shakes you back to reality. She wants to have free Medicare for all, in addition to a lot of other freebies. The estimated price tag is $4 Trillion per year.

    The problem is that the total of all Americans’ Gross Income adds up to $10.2 Trillion. The Federal Government currently spends $4.4 Trillion, of which $3.1 Trillion is for Social Programs. State and Local Government spends $2 Trillion. So adding another $4 Trillion, without trade offs, would have us spending $10.4 Trillion out of $10.2 Income. Only a self identified Socialist-Democrat could think that is no biggie.

    How can a Green New Deal be taken seriously when the author has trouble with math?

    • The deal could be that if everyone just pays 5% of their salary into a Medicare payroll tax pool, no one would incur additional medical costs, no matter how poor or sick they were. Covers emergencies, preventive care, basic drugs, no deductibles. Wouldn’t you pay a nickel on the dollar for that? Seems like a good deal to me.

      • Is this in addition to health insurance paid by employers and employees and in addition to Medicare taxes already taken out of everybody’s paychecks? Or do we get all that money back? 🙂

      • It replaces health insurance and includes existing Medicare as about one third of its cost. People could pay extra for premium health care if they don’t want the state system.

      • Americans spend about $12,000 per year per person on health care or about 18% of their total earnings annually. Tell us again how we can all get our health care for less than a third of what we pay now.

      • Healthy people pay nothing like that much so it averages out to much less. The numbers are also high in the US due to inefficiencies related to the system, such as drug costs and handling uninsured people. Other advanced nations have half the per capita medical costs.
        The 5% number I used is just over 3 times what we pay into Medicare, as I estimate covering everyone about triples the cost of that. Medicare is about 20% of the population, but probably about twice the cost per person of the rest of the population because of age, making it 33% of the total.

      • Going with everything she wants means we spend more on government than we make. There is a limit.

      • The wealthy pay 15% on tax, and the middle class pay 30%. There’s enough revenue sources out there when it becomes fair. Cutting taxes has only blown up the deficit (remember that?) to trillion dollar levels. Not a good plan.

      • Jim D:
        | December 15, 2018 at 6:29 pm |
        Could clarify please? Are you talking about marginal rates?

      • Payroll tax. With the Medicare part increasing from 1.45% to 5%, the total payroll tax increases about 3.5%. Note that the payroll tax pays for about half of Medicare (including almost all part A which is hospital care) with the rest from general revenue.

      • JimD
        First of all the effective tax rate for the 1% is 27% per IRS archives.

        But that is beside the point. Somehow I’m not communicating with you. The $10.2 Trillion is the TOTAL Income of all Americans as reported to the IRS. The total amount to be spent per her plans ($10.4 Trillion) is greater than the total amount of income. This is not about how much should be paid by the rich. All incomes, even the rich, is included in the $10.2 Trillion. Tell me how we spend on government MORE than we make.

      • You need to provide a source for that 10 trillion in spending. Are you sure that’s not spread over ten years? That would be 15 times the current military budget per year.

      • Jim D:
        I meant this:
        The wealthy pay 15% on tax, and the middle class pay 30%.

      • The Warren Buffet rule. Many of the wealthy pay mostly the capital gains rate because most of their income is in that form, and that is taxed at a lower rate. Romney was at about 15% when he released his tax forms.

      • Ragnaar

        I’m sure he means effective tax rate. The IRS shows those in the top 1% pay 27% effective income tax rate. I just looked up the IRS data again and those making $50,000-75,000 pay an effective income tax rate of 8.7%.

        Jim is way off on both counts. But more importantly, as I pointed out to him is that Ocasio-Cortez plan spends more than all Americans make, including the rich, very rich, and filthy rich. I’m not sure why that is not clear to him.

      • The basic middle-class rate is 22% plus you’re paying payroll tax at another 8% and maybe local and state taxes on top of that.

      • Jim

        You are watching too much Bill Maher and reading HP too much. I just looked at the latest IRS annual report. You have no idea what you are talking about. $50,000-75,000 Effective Income Tax Rate 8.7%. Get over it.

        Do something useful and tell me how much the waters melting the Totten Glacier have warmed in the last 100 years.

      • The middle-class tax rates are in the 20’s. Add payroll tax and it gets near 30%. If you earn everything in capital gains you do better.

      • It never occurred to me you haven’t read the Annual Federal Budget. Here is the link.

        But when I talk about $10.2 Trillion in Income that is an IRS number which represents what all Americans make and report to the IRS.

        Do you know the difference? Read my first comment again to make sure you understand what I am saying.

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

      • Yes the total income part is fine, but what are you talking about with $10 trillion in annual spending when that is 15 times the annual military budget?

      • Jim D. – “Healthy people pay nothing like that much so it averages out to much less.”
        $12,000 per person per year is the average – how can the average be less than the, uh, average? Total personal income in the US – 16 trillion dollars; total cost for health care, 3.5 trillion dollars. Or, 3.5 trillion dollars spent on health care by, let’s see, over 300 million US citizens. So maybe it’s only 11,000 dollars per year, per person. But 5% (your figure) of 16 trillion dollars is only, let’s see, 800 billion dollars – not the 3.5 trillion dollars we are spending now.

      • The way payroll tax works is that it would be 5% from the employee and another 5% from the employer, so 10%. That gives 1.5 trillion. Payroll tax is only covers half the total currently, but if we improved our efficiency to the level of other socialized systems, it could bring the cost down by half per person anyway. I think we need roughly 3 times the current Medicare budget, assuming Medicare’s level of efficiency, which is 0.7 trillion times three, 2.1 trillion.

      • Regarding the average, it is a very skewed distribution, so the median would be much less than the average.

      • Jim D – to have the health care you are suggesting would require a payroll tax of over twenty percent. Maybe we could lower health care costs by not reimbursing chiropractic care, psychiatric visits by dysphoric teenagers, surgery for back pain and other non-beneficial treatments. How about making hypochondria illegal and maybe, to cut costs, putting Big Pharma out of business. All kinds of things we can do to bring medical bills down.

      • The part paid out of income is a nickel on the dollar and that is the Medicare for all payment. You can compare that with insurance rates and issues those have with deductibles and cost efficiency. For that price you get full coverage, preventive, emergency, hospital, basic drugs. A good deal. If people don’t want to spend a nickel on the dollar for that, what are their priorities?

      • Jim D – not to beat a dead horse, but…
        Medicaid is a better example of a government-managed health care system than Medicare. It costs almost 600 billion dollars annually to provide health care for a little over 70 million people – all younger than Medicare’s aged and many that require little or no care throughout the year. The cost is somewhat less than 600 billion dollars annually, about $8000 per year per person. Again, 5 or 10 or 15 percent payroll taxes won’t be enough for you plan.
        I’m done.

      • I figured on Medicare at $13k and Medicare for all at $7.8k which gives 2.38 trillion, or it could be 12k and 7.2k which gives 2.16 trillion. 5%/10% applied to 16 trillion gives most of this just from the payroll tax,

      • oops! strike that – not all Medicaid recipients are younger than Medicare recipients. Many are in nursing homes. But the numbers are still valid.

      • Jim D:

        Your 30% and 15% make sense in the case of a 22% marginal Federal rate and a roughly 8% FICA rate. The qualified dividends and long term capital gains rate is mostly 15%, it collapses at higher incomes in some cases being 23.8%. It didn’t used to go from 15% to 23.8%. At higher incomes, it does now. NIIT.

        My argument, and it’s all subjective is, corporations pay their own tax and then pay out dividends. Double taxation. Long term capital gains can be sales of stock (of a corporation) from an after tax account, but you also get that from the sale of your cabin or rental housing you own. What’s the justification for the lower rate then? Let’s make something up. Because you owned something for a long time, more than a year, you deserve a break. Or we want people to invest in real estate. Provide affordable housing. Which is another thing, the demand for ½ priced housing is infinite. Do the math. Not quite infinite but close. It’s a good scam. I can keep that one going for another 50 years. Chuckle head economics. We should all live in government provided housing like they do in the inner cities. Except for that’s for someone else. Not my family.

        If you can’t beat them, join them. Consider investing after tax money and get some of your own qualified dividends and their currently nice tax rates. Are you sitting only on your 401(k) balance? Wait until these boomers start with drawing that money. Mega tax revenues.

      • jimeichstedt

        Can you reconcile the $16 Trillion total personal income with the IRS total Adjusted Gross Income of $10.2 Trillion. I’d like to crosswalk it to see what is available for actually spending. That is a huge difference and puts JimD even further into lala land using Utopian amounts not really available for spending.

      • I have seen both numbers for total US income.
        E.g. here for the 16 trillion.
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/
        But 10 trillion from taxfoundation.org.
        The 16 trillion is from all sources that may be other than salary.

      • JimD

        The $10 Trillion comes straight from IRS. The Tax Foundation is using IRS numbers. The $17 Trillion comes from Bureau of Economic Analysis, which I trust implicitly.

        I’ve read various definitions of “personal income “ . I know exactly what the IRS Adjusted Gross Income is since the IRS tables show all components. In reading the definition of “personal income “ there aren’t any obvious differences except for things like some Transfer Payments that an individual wouldn’t necessarily put on their 1040 form. None of the differences are obviously making up the $7 Trillion difference. But doing that also could be a double accounting entry. Not sure.

        If we want to know how much Income is actually available to “spend” by the individual, then the IRS number is more appropriate. But I can’t reconcile the HUGE difference between what people are reporting on their tax returns and what is shown in US personal income. It must relate to some government transfer payments and some obscure share of GDP attributed to the aggregate income for all citizens.

      • Personal income also includes non cash contributions from employers to insurance, pensions, 401 (k) and other benefits. But still seems very big difference.

    • Current Federal Budget $4.4 Trillion
      Current St & Local Budget $2 Trillion
      Her Plans All Proposals. $4 Trillion
      $10.4 Trillion

      • How are the current budgets already 60% of total income? Is that why we are a trillion in deficit? Anyway show a reference for those numbers because they don’t make sense. How does she spend six times what we do currently on the military?

      • JimD my intent wasn’t to debate the specifics of her proposal. It’s been costed out elsewhere and covers more than Medicare. She wants freebies on Everything.

        My point was she is emblematic of the new left-divorced from reality. They don’t understand capitalism or economics or business or the banking system or capital markets or insurance. To them national wealth comes down from heaven dropped by Tinker Bell, The Tooth Fairy and Elf on the Shelf. The sad thing is that millions are such economic illiterates they fall for it.

        Now let’s do something productive like discuss the Antarctica articles and how much warmer those waters are that are melting the glaciers. I’ve never seen an estimate of the temperatures at the ocean glacier interface compared to 100 years ago.

    • Canada spends around $3,700 per person for healthcare. US citizen adds it up to 10 trillion.

      Hire a Canadian arithmetician.

      • Janet Ratliffe

        You miss out the money which individuals spend on their health over and above what “the government” spends out of their taxes on hospitals and doctors. I refer to the $3,500 that a “typical” family will have to spend on drugs, dental care etc out of their own pocket. My own Blue Cross costs are about that. The total Canadian per capita spending on health is much larger than your figure. How much larger? Who knows – its not well tracked.

        Tony.

      • My brother owned a factory in Canada, so I have discussed this in great detail with him and some of his workers. My son is a resident physician at one of the leading hospitals in the US.

        Canada has a superior system. Our system is broken.

        Americans also spend a great deal out of pocket.

      • Canadians pay less. I blame it on our swamp. Trump isn’t always wrong. It’s easy to blame only the Republicans and Trump. That’s wrong.

      • JCH:
        Our system is broken. The Democrats ran on pre-existing conditions in 2018. I am not sure they cared more about the problem. I think they just were looking for a winning issue. I see the self employed paying family premiums of $20000 a year for high deductible health plans. We can’t blame that on the insurane companies. Okay, we can’t assign more than 10% of the blame to the insurance companies. Make that 15%. We need to find the problem. Strangely, Trump might be the one to do that. Even by blowing things up. Donald Trump meets healthcare. Might work.

      • It would be interesting to normalize the per capita expenditure of each country, in PPP units, to the main figure of merit for health matters… i.e. life expectancy.
        Most, if not all, European countries would rank better than the us, and Canada would do it as well.
        Living six years in the great country which is the USA has taught to me one thing, dear American citizens: you spend way too much for your health care, waaaay too much.

      • Trump cannot do anything.

        I am not sure they cared more about the problem. I think they just were looking for a winning issue.

        LMAO.

      • The Democrats cannot do anything about healthcare at the Federal level beyond running on the issue (in 2021 maybe they can). This problems did not start in January of 2017. We can ask if the ACA fixed anything? We can answer that many people of lesser incomes were helped. The larger problem remains.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993#Controversy_in_retrospect_and_perspective
        The first sentence at the link is a keeper. Worth the click. Expecting Congress to solve the problem. That’s a good plan.

      • The ACA exists because of multidecadal Republican recalcitrance on single payor. Votes bought and paid for by the health insurance industry.

      • As long as we keep blaming each other. Or as long as one side blames the other, I don’t see it. What has Trump got to lose? Maybe he can fix it. Best case, you’d be betting on the Democrats to control the House, Senate and Presidency. And then it would be fixed. Is my position any more irrational than the best case Democrats one? The problem has resisted fixing since the 1990s. “…insurance industry…” Do you honestly believe the health insurance industry pockets more than 15% of total revenues? That’s not the problem. On target JCH. That’s how to win.

      • To lose, he would have to have a plan. He has none.

      • Total healthcare spending, all sources, is supposedly 3.5 trillion dollars. The Canadians would spend ~1.3 to 2 trillion to do the same basic thing. MedicareForAll is supposedly 4 trillion.

      • JCH:
        Not having a plan is no hindrance. Here’s my plan, we are going to vanquish the other team. And do slightly better than we have in the past with policy. We are going to tweak, so we can get elected and still get campaign money.

        Here’s a nice article:
        https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-gets-13-million-health-industry-now-says-single-payer-will-never
        The plan was for her to be President. Now that that didn’t happen, we have a new plan, and never wanted her to win anyways.

      • All she is saying its it’s Obamacare, which was already in place.

        Near the end of the midterms Republican candidates were in bed with Obamacare. They suddenly loved it, but forgot to get the message to their ultra extremist activist federal judge here in Fort Worth.

      • JCH:

        Here’s what I think I know:
        MN Care is good for those that have it. Cheap or no cost. Have Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) less than about $33,000 for a married couple.
        MN Sure is Okay. AGI more than about $33,000 but less than about $66,000 for a married couple. Net premiums vary. With more income they are higher. I have seen them ballpark $200/month but they can be higher. This can be complicated when filing income taxes. Most of my clients have me looking at what happens to their 1040 when they make traditional IRA contributions and/or HSA contributions? These people generally love the new deal. I’ve said somewhere, before this deal, premiums were high. Now they seem high for those above about $66,000 for a married couple. These numbers of mine apply to Minnesota. For those less than about $66,000, life is good in my opinion. Better than if the ACA did not exist. But this applies to Minnesota. Don’t ask me about North Dakota. I assume the ACA is pretty standard across states, but I don’t know. So you are correct. The Republicans should no longer make this an issue. Though, there is a rural divide. If you live in our sticks, where all the food is grown, network problems. Drive 40 miles to see your doctor. We have seen a few providers drop out. That is the insurance companies. Not sure where that is going. The product is good. Any people generally want it to continue assuming they can make the income thresholds. Now the people above the income thresholds have nothing. No credits. Market prices. People plan their post 60 life around health insurance. A lot of them do anyways. Once they make it to 65, life is good again because of Medicare. I don’t think blowing this thing up would work for the Republicans. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. But say Trump has done that too. All he needs to do is change his mind. Because what people think about him doesn’t matter to him in many cases, he can do that. Pelosi rain manned this the other day. They’ll work together on this and fix it. It will be the best healthcare ever. She said the MSM has gone nuts and fixates on Trump 24/7. She wants to be remembered as the person who took down the President? No. My best example was the day after they took back the House. I forget what it was, but no one talked about that. It was something Trump did. He has them mesmerized. It’s the greatest thing that ever happened. They are going liberally insane. This will be in the history books. The end of the MSM.

      • “The ACA exists because of multidecadal Republican recalcitrance on single payor. Votes bought and paid for by the health insurance industry.”

        The biggest lobbyist in favor of the California single payer plan was the nurses association. And we were told they were spending millions lobbying for it because they wanted the pay cut that comes from making it government run.
        California couldn’t make the numbers work with a 15% payroll tax plus an income tax increase. Maybe because everyone understood that once you started charging $15,000 a year for health care to all those healthy 29-year-olds in Silicon Valley making $100k a year they’d catch on to the fact that single payer is really income redistribution from the young to Baby Boomers and anybody who wanted to stroll across the Mexican border.
        Allowing pre-existing conditions isn’t “insurance”. You can’t wait to buy health insurance until the day after you’re diagnosed with cancer for the same reason you can’t purchase your first car insurance policy from the scene of your accident.

      • There are countries that have versions of single payor.

      • The one in red is the only one that doesn’t ration health care. And all the ones in blue have 20-25% VATs paid by people of all incomes. Plus they have middle class income tax rates 10-20% higher than those in the US. Plus they have populations unhappy with the level of spending on health care. Plus their doctors and nurses are paid less than those in the US.
        But up above, Jim is saying the US can have a 5% payroll taxes and charge only “the rich.”

  2. The Breakthrough Institute has rejigged its web presence – I get a lot of 404 errors.

    https://thebreakthrough.org/food

    This seems the latest meat publication – promoting feedlots.

    “But “can responsible grazing make beef climate-neutral,” as the foodie journalism site Civil Eats suggested last spring? A careful review of the claims made by both conventional beef defenders and new-fangled regenerative agriculture advocates suggests those claims are myopic at best and misleading at worst.

    While it is narrowly true that some demand for beef can be met with land that has negligible crop production value, over 500 million hectares — about half of the land used to graze cattle today — could be used as cropland, according to one recent analysis. This is a vast amount of land, equivalent to about 35% of all global cropland today.” https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food/is-beef-good-for-the-planet

    Here’s a convenient breakdown.

    In a broad reality – grazing of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, lamas and whatever convert marginal resources into important food sources and irreplaceable economic opportunities over 4 billion hectares of rangeland. Meeting a future doubling of demand requires returning land to optimum productivity through increasing the organic (carbon) content of global agricultural soils.

  3. Not sure if this one has been discussed.

    “Through a fingerprint pattern matching method, we estimate that this internal variability contributes to about 40–50% of observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8?WT.feed_name=subjects_cryospheric-science

  4. I had to laugh at the story of the kid who skips school every day and on that basis is hailed as a climate hero … any excuse to skip school will do these days, I guess, but on my planet that makes you a cop-out, not a hero of any kind.

    w.

    • A great find. With Global Warming, Sweden will be unsuitable for intelligent life. I use “be”, not “become”, because the process has started already.

    • I bet the climate chaos propaganda made her feel like taking her own life. Read what her father said:
      ‘SVANTE THUNBERG: Oh, in every possible way, I’d say. It started maybe four years ago. She was very sort of—she got herself in a position where she was learning a lot about the climate change. And she was finding out that everyone was saying one thing and doing the exact other thing. And that, she could not cope with. So, she fell into a depression. She stopped eating, stopped talking. And she fell out of school and stayed at home for almost a year. And my wife and I sort of—we stayed at home with her, of course, and we did everything—I stopped working completely, and we spent, you know, all our time with her.’

      • Ulric
        The climate doom and gloom false forecasts is having an effect on young people. Talk with first responders in secondary schools. It is adding to the sense of hopelessness.
        Regards

  5. I would have thought that Salby’s presentation at
    Helmut -Schmidt U. would have got a mention here. He discusses a couple more independent first principal analyses that show ACO2 not responsible for increased Atmospheric CO2 and addresses the efforts to cover or censor hais and harde’s work. https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/

    • I think its well known that Salby’s analysis is not quite right. CO2 increases are perfectly correlated with human emissions. It’s implausible that all of it will be absorbed by the biosphere and oceans. It also happens that temperature increase have been correlated with increasing CO2 but the warming oceans have been absorbing CO2, not releasing it into the atmosphere.

      • dpy6629 the warming oceans have been absorbing CO2, not releasing it into the atmosphere.

        Wish you could reword this better.
        If CO2 is being increased with human emissions which seems likely then of course oceans will absorb some of it.
        On the other hand warming oceans do release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Always have and always will.
        net flow I will defer to you but …. it could be a moot point.
        Does a 0.3 C rise emission balance a 130 ppm increase in CO2?

    • Salby makes fundamental erros in each of his three presentations. His analysis is junk, properly ignored. Has been discussed here before.

      • He’s wrong on atmosphere, but I think at least partially right on ice cores. I’m dubious that there aren’t biological and chemical processes which affect CO2 in ice and smooth the data beyond the low resolution of samples.

  6. “Re-evaluating the ocean conveyor belt”
    Another example of half-thinking: under CAGW, the Arctic waters fail to sink because the incoming waters are not dense enough due to fresh water influx. But if the sinking/not sinking is determined by the DIFFERENCE in densities between the tropical and non-tropical marine areas, as the tropic water warm and become less dense (temperature and [?] more rainfall), the current density difference is maintained, or at least partly maintained.

    Circulation would stop only if the Arctic surface density equaled the deeper density, AND the tropical lateral density difference became zero. The deep water movement from the Arctic to the tropical areas would cease only if the pressure difference between the Arctic water column equaled the tropical water column – there would be no force to move Arctic bottom water to the tropics.

    CAGW or simply global warming does not involve a single variable changing. Shutting down the ocean circulation system would not result from a just Arctic waters freshening or warming as CAGW/AGW has other, mitigating or countervailing changes.

    But detail, depth or nuance ruins headlines and the need to have 20,000 people get free trips and goodies in foreign places more than once per year. Or sell newspapers or raise share prices.

  7. “Outer space may have gotten a bit closer”
    What would be more useful technically would be to know, through his research, if the altitude at which atmospheric drag becomes a problem has changed. According to the sun-atmosphere, global climate change thinking, non-standard TSI influences due to sunspots, magnetic field variations, impact atmospheric circulations and energy content. If his research shows variation in the “problem” height that is correlatable to any other atmospheric variation, there may be a causative reason worth determination. Which could influence the temperature and weather pattern changes we are told will, on extrapolation, will begin to destroy the biosphere in 12 years, or maybe just by 2100, it is hard to tell what the timeline is any more.

  8. I see WUWT is asking people to write emails to support Mass. Please do, following the advice about being polite and all that other stuff. One of my comments may have been lost to interwebs a few days ago. It was supposed to be something like this: When the Left comes to get somebody, stand up. We have lost at times in the past by not doing that. Perhaps it was out of fear. One thing I’ve heard recently, and this is a paraphrase of what Dave Rubin said: The people kicked out of the Left have found themselves welcomed by the center Right. Wait, hasn’t this happened before?

  9. “Are Academics Cowards?”
    The dangers of speaking out in academia are the same in government offices or the free-market, for-profit corporation: nobody likes the off-side voice, especially if it is speaking a truth.

    There is a lot of government and corporate activity that has as its objective the same thing: the support and promotion of the goals of the executives. Both government and corporate worlds have two external groups that also demand service: for government work, the political or social activists, and for corporate (for profit), the shareholders. (You can both have both activists and shareholders: voters are “shareholders”, and shareholder groups, including investment houses, are activists economically). Regardless of type, government offices and corporations have executives whose salaries and reputations are tied to the images of their paymasters. They are also the ones who create, or at least maintain, the images, which means that their personal images rise or fail as the images of their professional associations rise or fall. All in all, there is a strong force to maintain an image of corporate and moral correctness, responsibility and quality to not just the government or corporate body, but to those at the top in the organization.

    The thrust of the top reaches all the way down. Anyone at any level who seeks a change, i.e. an improvement, challenges the work and status of the group above him/her. It’s a challenge that says “I am smarter than you” or “I know more than you” or “I see better than you”. Doesn’t matter if the change is an improvement that, were it in place, the management would approve. The challenge is a disruptive statement that says someone or the group did not take the best route.

    The more fundamental the observed need for change or benefits of the change, the higher the level that is challenged. From my experience, most top executives want to do a decent job and then go home or on vacation. Changes require more work from management, the more fundamental, the greater the work, and they especially require that a management level get other levels to buy in. Nobody particularly wants to do this extra work, especially if they have personally aligned themselves with the values that go with the previous set up.

    Or challenge those values. “Make more money? You saying we weren’t focused on that already?” “Be good to the environment? You saying we are not looking after the environment?” “Be accepting of other points of view? You saying our views are not the best possible?”

    Pot-stirrers are not liked anywhere in society. If they have enough power before they stir the pot, they can get their influence, but they still will not be liked and will be blacklisted professionally and socially until the wisdom of their “new” approach becomes historically obvious. Even then …. stirrers make other people uneasy.

    There is a lot of danger to career advancement to “speaking up” wherever you are, not just in academia. It’s all about “Wrong Thinking”. Doing it causes “Burning bridges”, in the corporate world – your “trouble-making” nature gets out, regardless of the soundness of your thoughts. You don’t get the calls even when you are noted as smarter than the average bear. “Going along to get along” is the road to a non-disrupted life in the governmental or commercial worlds. You can be not terribly bright, but if you follow the lead set for you, you’ll be fine. Just don’t think (or say) the Wrong things.

    Tenure was supposed to stop this. Academic life was supposed to – at least in an “urban legend” way – allow the Thinkers to Think without personal repercussion. Dumb thinking was even tolerated. You can correct for dumb thinking with smarter thinking. You’d have to be egregiously dumb to loose your job, profession or reputation for dumb thinking. There wasn’t supposed to be Wrong Thinking. Now there is. And, just as happens in government/corporations, you can be destroyed for having the non-sanctioned opinions.

    The scythe is not new, it’s just cutting weeds in another place.

  10. Inorganic coatings on black carbon particles multiply the warming potential?

    “The coating materials of atmospherically aged BC consist mainly of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and organic carbon (OC).”


    “The figure illustrates the systematic underestimation by factors 2–3 of the AAOD in current climate models relative to observational programs in the key regions of East and South Asia, which may originate from an uncertain combination of several factors described in the text.”

    The aerosol uncertainty paper is not one that can be taken seriously.

  11. “Walker used simulations of ocean temperature from a model and compared them to actual measurements from sensor-tagged marine mammals. She found that recent changes in winds and sea ice have resulted in an increase to the heat delivered by the ocean waters to the glaciers in Wilkes Land and Vincennes Bay.”

    This was from the article about East Antarctica glaciers. So the conclusion is that the Totten, et al, glaciers were experiencing an increased melt rate due to wind and sea ice changes. It would be more informative to know how much those ocean waters that actually come in contact with those glaciers have warmed in the last 100 years. Not the OHC globally, but those specific waters that are melting those particular glaciers.

    That kind of longitudinal study might give a clue as to whether this rate of melting is unprecedented.

    I’m not sure which we will see first, these data or an analysis of how much of the West Antarctica glaciers (Pine Island and Thwaites) are melting due to geothermal activity.

  12. It’s dismaying to see quadratic curve-fitting being used to project SL rise into 2100AD. Despite pro forma disclaimers, that’s a highly specious, manifestly unreliable basis.

  13. “An ancient case of the plague could rewrite history [link]”

    Your chances of getting the plague is 1 in 3M (or, virtually no chance if you live in the US– your chances of being hit by lightening are a lot higher (1 in 700K), or dying of the flu (1 in 6K). You have a 1 in 645 chance of dying in a car crash.

    But, what’s the likelihood you’ll die of human-caused global warming? That’s the job of global warming alarmists… to make you fear it with zero evidence of it ever really ever having killed a single person.

    • Even the most ardent climate change alarmists are predicting the problems to happen after everyone alive today is dead, so the chance of anyone alive today dying from climate change are basically zero. It’s all “for the children” (of the future)

  14. here’s one other article that just came out that people here should find interesting
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/

  15. Re-evaluating the ocean conveyor belt

    Not surprising that any mechanism of natural non-anthropogenic climate change will be “re-evaluates” to death.

  16. On the other hand …
    Good to see a study recognising internal (as opposed to externally forced) oceanic circulation variability:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL080474

  17. ‘Heat waves in Berlin and Potsdam, Germany…’

    Periods of stronger solar wind driving positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions. The 2006 heatwave occurred on the same type of heliocentric Jovian configuration as all of the greatest NW European heatwaves of the last 800 years.

  18. Academia’s case of Stockholm Syndrome [link]

    Not top down reform. Bottom up. My new favorite topic. Hierarchies. Peer review is too something. I suppose some game the system. The system is corrupt. It is not adapting. The hierarchy is too rigid. It is failing. Those trying to prop it up, what can we say? Clinging to power. They may be established under what may become the old game. I’d cling to power too. Only CPAs can do this or that. It’s not safe unless I am doing it for you. The biggest defenders are those that have benefited the most. It’s like being a Republican. Which is reassuring in an odd way. And there I was thinking they were going to save the world. No, they just want to save their world. Quillette. Good site.

  19. RE: Outer space may have gotten a bit closer

    The Karman line is arbitrary because an aircraft’s lift not only depends on speed but also on its weight, wing area and wing shape. A “flying wing” aircraft with air flaps made of carbon fiber can fly higher than convention jets. The X-15 rocket plane had small wings that’s why it can’t fly higher than 80 km. Orbiting satellites below 100 km can’t fly even at 10 km because they don’t have wings. They have to attain orbital speed or they fall to the ground.

    The boundary to space should be independent of aeronautical engineering. I propose the thermosphere as the beginning of space (above 85 km). Nothing to do with airplanes and satellites. Thermosphere has a characteristic of space where gas molecules are so diluted that kinetic temperature can reach 2500 C while thermometer temperature is below 0 C.

  20. The Economist: “The moral assumptions embedded in economic models of climate change.” A once-great periodical (from 1843 to about 2000) has descended to clap-trap.

  21. We have been doing ‘sponge cities’ for decades – and frequent flooding can be minimized. But major flooding is a force of nature that can’t be ameliorated with practical stormwater systems.
    The best that can be done is to calculate flood, minimise development in floodways and have pragmatic evacuation plans. Over hyping it creates unrealistic expectations.

    On the other hand…

  22. “This confirms that the time scale for full adjustment of the deep ocean is about 3000 yr (e.g., Stouffer 2004; Danabasoglu 2004). It is set by the diffusive time scale estimated for the deep ocean using the very small model diapycnal diffusion coefficient below the thermocline.”

    Diapycnal diffusion is based on consideration of the collapse of gravity waves at the surface and the creation of small regions of turbulent dispersion to depth. The theory is of course that greenhouse gases slow the release of ocean heat to the atmosphere resulting in warming oceans. Some of that heat is then transported to depth resulting in accumulation of the tiny instantaneous increase – some 10^-9 W/m2 – in greenhouse gas forcing that sums in this simple conceptual model to the total average warming rate of oceans – some 0.8 W/m2 currently.

    But what happens if heat transport to depths through mesoscale eddies basin wide and 1000’s of meters deep is much faster? The variation of solar input on an annual basis of +/- 10 W/m2 as a result of current orbital eccentricity provides a way of tracing heat transfer through ocean layers in Argo data.

    This chart is helpfully provided by Ole Humlum and shows rapid translation of very large energy input variations to depth.

    “We therefore suggest that previous estimates of these important characteristics of the global ocean require reconsideration.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068184

    The other source of heat to oceans is of course from the Earth’s interior – at some 0.06 W/m2 on average although with hot and cool regions based on geology.

    Conceptually the increase in greenhouse gas forcing marginally reduces heat loss from oceans – oceans and atmosphere stay warmer and there is no ‘heat in the pipeline’. The corollary is that current energy imbalances seen in CERES are natural – mostly related to cloud over the eastern Pacific (e.g. Loeb et al 2018) and a temporary reduction in volcanic SO2 emissions. And no doubt other things in the multiply coupled dynamical complexity of the Earth system.

  23. Here is a nice compilation of 30 natural systems in which global warming exerts both an effect and the opposite of that effect

    It was first posted by Jimbo then re-posted by Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone, with links to papers:

    http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/

    Here they are as a text list:

    Amazon dry season greener
    Amazon dry season browner

    Avalanches may increase
    Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]

    Bird migrations longer
    Bird migrations shorter
    Bird migrations out of fashion

    Boreal forest fires may increase
    Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing

    Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
    Chinese locusts swarm when cooler

    Columbia spotted frogs decline
    Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world

    Coral island atolls to sink [?]
    Coral island atolls to rise [? – ?]

    Earth’s rotation to slow down
    Earth’s rotation to speed up

    East Africa to get less rain
    East Africa to get more rain – pdf

    Great Lakes less snow
    Great Lakes more snow

    Gulf stream slows down (and it causes warming)
    Gulf stream speeds up a little (and it also causes warming)

    Indian monsoons to be drier
    Indian monsoons to be wetter

    Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
    Indian rice yields to increase

    Latin American forests may decline
    Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!

    Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
    Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]

    Malaria may increase
    Malaria may continue decreasing

    Malaria in Burundi to increase
    Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]

    North Atlantic cod to decline
    North Atlantic cod to thrive

    North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
    North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf

    North Atlantic Ocean less salty
    North Atlantic Ocean more salty

    Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? – ? – ?]
    Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]

    Plant methane emissions significant
    Plant methane emissions insignificant

    Plants move uphill
    Plants move downhill [?]

    Sahel to get less rain
    Sahel to get more rain
    Sahel may get more or less rain

    San Francisco less foggy
    San Francisco more foggy

    Sea level rise accelerated
    Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf

    Soil moisture less
    Soil moisture more

    Squids get smaller
    Squids get larger

    Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
    Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling

    Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
    Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
    Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume

    UK may get more droughts
    UK may get more rain

    Wind speed to go up [?]
    Wind speed slows down [?]
    Wind speed to speed up then slow down

    Winters maybe warmer [? – ?]
    Winters maybe colder ;O)

  24. Book reviews:

    “His protagonist, Winston—like Kitty—works for the government in its Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue in Newspeak, where he rewrites historical records to support whatever Big Brother currently says is good for the regime.”

    https://qz.com/quartzy/1498891/the-pillars-of-science-fiction-are-two-writers-you-dont-know/?utm_source=quartzyfb&fbclid=IwAR27iZhP7MwCxLcUxKfCffbe7Glf0piRscsqPlANPlYwOTMZG-_GcIX37Ec

    Regime 1 is what the Democrat party has embraced. Regime 2 is what climate science has embraced. Past history continues to change. We can ask is that without bias? The Hockey Stick was an argument about the past. BEST has some plots with wide error bars on the left side of the plots. Dropping those as most other plots do is a rewrite. All false certainty of the past is a rewrite. I used the word all. I write the uncertainty out. Let’s go with most instead.

    “I feel my cheeks burn as I write this. To integrate the colossal, universal equation! To unbend the wild curve, to straighten’ it out to a tangent—to a straight line! For the United State is a straight line, a great, divine, precise, wise line, the wisest of lines!”

    To come up with the ECS. The one number to rule them all. The pursuit of it, with towers of GCMs. To reach to science heaven with more RAM and faster graphics cards. Liquid cooled.

    “I agree with Orwell that Zamyatin’s book is deeper than Huxley’s and seems to capture what humanity loses when the state takes over every aspect of life and even lobotomizes thinking citizens who rebel.”

    Someone said, some things endure through time. Perhaps the mark of fitness. But fitness in what way? I am not talking about these books, but what these books are against.

  25. Sweeping Civil Rights Lawsuit Alleges Racial Bias In Implementation Of California Climate Policies – Michael Shellenberger
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/13/sweeping-civil-rights-lawsuit-alleges-racial-bias-in-implementation-of-california-climate-policies/#705669643c07
    To think that they could get away with cheating the physics of energy generation. They went for the King.

  26. Organising a weekly school strike may be good click bait, but my local Borough Council has recently opened new schools designed to be self-sufficient in energy.

    I suggest COP25 highlights projects like those, which if replicated globally eliminate the entire energy budget of school level education. Of course where extreme winters occur, technology demands are greater.

    But technology exists at 50N in a maritime climate today.

  27. What are the objective measures the readers of this site use to determine whether the “climate” has been improving or worsening, say over the last 100 years?

    Take the USA as a subset as an example. Where and how has the climate changed and what weight was applied to each to determine whether it was positive or negative overall?

  28. ATTP has a post up on the non pause if anyone is interested. My comments. as I find this one of the touchstones of great importance.
    “what was meant by a “pause” in global warming.”
    A topic of controversy due to the fact that skeptics are supposed to use it to deny global warming from CO2.
    A pause should be simple to define but no one wishes to accept common sense definitions because of the ramifications.

    “Was it an actual pause?”
    Well if someone can find a start and stop date on a set of observations and draw a flat trend line that would be a pause??

    “Did it just mean that the trend was lower than the long-term trend?”
    No.
    Here at least we have the concept of a short term trend being accepted. A short term trend can be flat [AKA as a pause], down, yes down, or up at a rate lower or higher or equal to the long term trend. My answer would be a pause is a pause, a flat trend, not an upward trend lower than the long term trend.
    Semantically I have seen this used by people on both sides [Lucia for example] but it is only and always referred to a slower upwards trend rate, not an actual pause which has no upwards trend at all..
    Hope this helps.

    ” Was it based on the uncertainty being large enough that we couldn’t rule out that there had been no warming? ”
    No.
    The pause, if such there was, was based on up to 20 years of data which showed a flat trend at some stage. This argument conversely could equally be used to deny an upwards trend by those so inclined or blinded.

    “Did it refer mainly to a model-observation mismatch?”
    No
    While models and observations must by necessity be out of kilter the pause refers to observations only.

    “, there wasn’t even a clear definition of what time period was being considered;”

    Hence the need for a simple pause definition.
    The problem with interpretation is that a pause is dated backwards from when it occurs.
    Hence if it is seen and persists the starting point of the pause [which is at the end] moves forwards. At the same time the pause can also extend back further in time as it lengthens if it has a downward continuing trend.

    “global warming didn’t “pause”, at least not in the sense of it having done anything unusual,”

    Short pauses occur all the time when an end point brings the trend over the preceding interval to zero [or flat]. They are a natural occurrence. Pauses of a week a month or 6 months can be found easily. They occur all through the temperature record documented from 1850 on. There are even periods of falls for years.
    Was this pause unusual?
    We just do not know. We can surmise, speculate,wish as much as we like but it will take 30 years minimum to actually know somewhat.

    • If we define climate as a 30-year temperature, there was no pause in its trend.
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/from:1988/trend:-3.25

      • Well Atomski, the latest RSS TLT product actually agrees pretty well with surface datasets on long time scales as Marco showed. That’s why RSS came up with their new version. All your long winded stuff about reanalysis and indirect water vapor tests is irrelevant to the main point here. And thats why measurement error is not going to explain much of the divergence.

      • Re: “Well Atomski, the latest RSS TLT product actually agrees pretty well with surface datasets on long time scales as Marco showed.”

        RSS is not a near-surface analysis. How many times must this be explained to you? It is a satellite-based analysis focusing on the lower troposphere. It would be expected to show a bit more warming than the near-surface analysis, not exactly same rate.

        Re: “That’s why RSS came up with their new version”

        Nope. The reason for the change was an issue with RSS’ diurnal drift homogenization. Actually read the research you’re commenting on. It’s not that hard:

        “A satellite-derived lower-tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”

        Re: “All your long winded stuff about reanalysis and indirect water vapor tests is irrelevant to the main point here. And thats why measurement error is not going to explain much of the divergence”

        “Long winded” is just your way of saying you can’t address the evidence, as expected. Next time, don’t cite RSS pages as if they agree with what you said, when the RSS pages actually debunk you. We’ve been over this before:
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/there-was-no-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-134070

    • A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence

      “In learning lessons from the pause-episode in the GMST record we can describe some elements of the pause-timeline and its consequences. The origin of the ‘pause’ lay in contrarian narratives about the climate (Mooney 2013, Lewandowsky et al 2015a). With the ‘pause’ (or ‘hiatus’), a false narrative about an alleged inconsistency between natural fluctuations of global temperature and ongoing global warming was inserted into climate discussion. Once the notion of a ‘pause’ was established, some of the major journals gave prominent feature to articles about it (Nature 2017). The IPCC formalised the ‘pause/hiatus’ for the climate community in its 5th assessment report by defining and accepting it as an observed fact about the climate system (Stocker et al 2013) [Box TS.3]. Many climatologists also adopted the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ into their own language about climate change. The adoption of these terms by the mainstream research community gave the ‘pause’ further legitimacy, even though they often explained that it was not unusual in the context of natural variability. Whether intended or not, this fed the public narrative that there was a ‘pause’ in global warming (Mooney 2013). To complete the cycle, researchers and climate institutions have now declared the pause to be ‘over’, thereby reinforcing the notion that it once existed (Xie and Kosaka 2017, Met Office 2017).”

      It’s like the Clinton why I lost tour. The last line is great. Donald Trump is elected President. If it’s over, it must have existed. The MSM hailed the end of the pause. It was trumpeted from the high heavens. It’s like driving off a foe who never invaded. Just like a politician declaring victory.

      It was a narrative. It was established. The IPCC was in on it. Mainstream research too even though many of them didn’t mean to be. The public narrative was fed.

      Is the question ever ask, what’s wrong with us? Or is it more, what’s wrong with you. When you play politics, you have to bring your A game. Or things will get away from you. They just might do that in any case.

      • Re: “Atomskiy, You are responding to something I didn’t say. Water vapor feedback is no doubt positive. That is a very weak constraint for a model and says virtually nothing about the model’s skill. Your other measures are equally very weak constraints.”

        “no doubt”? I wonder how’s that consistent with a claim of ambiguity?

        “As Nic Lewis points out the data is ambiguous on the water vapor feedback.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886424

        Anyway, you’ve given no evidence that it’s a weak constraint. In contrast, I explained to you one reason why it’s an important constraint (climate sensitivity) and explained to you that it’s important enough that various contrarians denied it, while using it’s denial as a criticism of the models.

        Re: “What you said about the RSS TLT product at ATTP was just wrong and misleading. The RSS TLT product now actually warms faster than GISS or HADCRUT on 40 year time scales. Shorter time scales such as you cite can be biased by things like ENSO. This makes it very unlikely that “measurement error” is making a contribution to the divergence from climate models.”

        Same mistakes I already corrected from you, and which you had no cogent response to. Once again:

        The RSS team admits their TLT version 4 analysis under-estimates warming. They confirmed this through comparisons with other analyses [re-analyses, radiosonde-based analyses, etc. ] and with an indirect water vapor test. Your claim on time-span isn’t pertinent, since time-span and ENSO would impact the re-analyses and radiosonde-based analyses of lower tropospheric trends just as much as RSS TLT. After all, they both should be measuring the same underlying trend.
        Your claim on near-surface analyses doesn’t work, since RSS shows less than GISS over the past two decades, as the RSS team said, as I confirmed with an analysis I showed you, and which you had no response to. Appealing to HadCRUT4 is not pertinent, since it under-estimates recent warming.
        So despite you citing RSS’ page (without you apparently having read it), the RSS team debunked the claims you’re making.
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/there-was-no-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-134113

      • I quote the complete abstract from the RSS paper about their new version as it confirms what I have said both here and at ATTP and what Marco showed as well.

        “Temperature sounding microwave radiometers flown on polar-orbiting weather satellites provide a long-term, global-scale record of upper-atmosphere temperatures, beginning in late 1978 and continuing to the present. The focus of this paper is a lower-tropospheric temperature product constructed using measurements made by the Microwave Sounding Unit channel 2 and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit channel 5. The temperature weighting functions for these channels peak in the middle to upper troposphere. By using a weighted average of measurements made at different Earth incidence angles, the effective weighting function can be lowered so that it peaks in the lower troposphere. Previous versions of this dataset used general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time on the measured temperatures. This paper presents a method to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves. The new method finds a global-mean land diurnal cycle that peaks later in the afternoon, leading to improved agreement between measurements made by co-orbiting satellites. The changes result in global-scale warming [global trend (70°S–80°N, 1979–2016) = 0.174°C decade−1], ~30% larger than our previous version of the dataset [global trend (70°S–80°N, 1979–2016) = 0.134°C decade−1]. This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde data. However, comparisons with total column water vapor over the oceans suggest that the new dataset may not show enough warming in the tropics.”

        Basically RSS now shows more warming than radiosonde data. Only indirect evidence might show that that is too low.

    • Worth a thousends words:

    • Instead of trying to deny what the records show clearly, they should be making excuses for what is happening.

      Since February 2016 we are assisting to the fourth greatest cooling since 1950, and the greatest since 1975. Global temperature is now 0.3°C below where it should be according to CMIP5 average and below 95% of CMIP5 model predictions. And it has lost those 0.3°C in just 20 years, since 1998.

      Natural variability is driving a ~60-yr oscillation so since 1950 global temperature follows a linear increase and temperature goes from being above the trend line to being below it, and back. CO2 obviously doesn’t do anything like that. And the problem for these people is that what comes next is temperature being below the linear trend. After the expected La Niña of 2020-2021 that should be the natural result. By then the Feb2016 cooling should be the biggest in 70 years. They better get their excuses ready, because it is going to look a lot worse than it already does.

      • A La Niña can’t change the 30-year trend for anything longer than a moment, which is likely to be .2 ℃ per decade by the end of 2020.

      • Javier

        Personally I am waiting for the AMO to see what happens to Arctic Sea Ice extent. That will be observational evidence hard to refute. I can see the new mantra on the other side “ Oh, it’s just natural variability, we always projected a recovery.”

        Yeah, right.

      • the 30-year trend … is likely to be .2 ℃ per decade by the end of 2020.

        The problem is going to be the 2000-2030 30-year trend, and afterwards. With the 2015 El Niño in the center or the first half of the data, the 30-year trend could very well be zero or negative.

      • Javier
        Thank you for the updated temperature chart. In my opinion this is the most important chart available to the climate discussion. But alas skeptics do not realize it.

        It should be top and center of every skeptic, nuetral and CAGW web or blog site, updated at the first opportunity every month. No words are needed. Its all about the temperature – this is the central point of the issue – where are we at – what is the trend. The rest is jibber jabber.

        I will forward it to the relevant political Dumbo’s immediately, especially those that have just returned from the indoctrination camp in Poland. A report card.

        My regards to you and yours for the festive season.
        Martin

      • Javier, I suggest to add an extra offset of 0.4 degrees to make a comparison easier with the ‘2 degrees and 1.5 degrees preindustrial’ Paris targets
        See eg

      • I agree with Javier – warmists better get their excuses ready. They will have to acknowledge the global multidecadal oscillation and that most (or at least some) of the late 20th century warming is non-anthropogenic. This will happen relatively soon (2020s).
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/mean:192/mean:144/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/mean:288/mean:216/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:480/mean:384/mean:288/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:1980

        The cyan is the prediction.

      • Oh my gawd, more 60-year oscillation nonsense. There is no camshaft. There is no pacemaker. There is no timing belt. There may not be a negative phase of the AMO before the end of this century,

        And nobody is actually talking about what the negative phase of the AMO may look like other than in the context of mid-century cooling. It could be multiple decades before the negative phase of the AMO looks like that.

        The negative phase of the AMO may have already happened. We could be at the end of the negative phase of the AMO.

      • JCH, is this nonsense too?
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        AGW will end up being nonsense.

      • Yes, it’s nonsense. The equivalent of reading tea leaves.

      • JCH, stay tuned. The AGW hypothesis is so bad, it will be beaten by reading tea leaves.

      • Stay tuned. Right around the coroner. Could be happening right now. But the ice? But the snow?

        Lol.

        I have heard this tune since 2007.

        The level of atmospheric CO2 is the primary control knob of the climate, which is why the PDO and the AMO add up to around zero in the instrument record. When the anthropogenic component was small, it could get pushed around. Take a look. It’s been a long time since any puny oscillation has stunned the gorilla.

      • Now, that is nonsense! AMO is already detrended. If you detrend the GMO, you get the same.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.87/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12

      • Of course you do. Since around 1960, the AMO is the slave of the GMST.

      • Oceans are the great heat engine of the planet – and heat in oceans is modulated by – inter alia – SW changes over the upwelling regions of the eastern Pacific. Shown below in a correlation between cumulative MEI and surface temperature.

        There is a longer comment below that includes some discussion from – inter alia – this Sergei Kravtsov et al study. Sergei’s gravitas eclipses that of JCH by an elephant to a pissant.

        https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2037436895_Sergey_Kravtsov

      • I’ll hold my powder until the Arctic Sea Ice begins to recover. Even now there is a little glimmer of SST cooling. In the meantime. Tick tock. Tick Tock.

      • Which oscillation looks like it may have caused mid-century cooling?

        Which oscillation looks like it may have caused the pause in warming in the 21st century.

        Answer – the PDO: the blue one.

        What is the great 60-year AMO doing to the GMST. It crashes; the GMST doesn’t even notice. The GMST shoots up around 1970; the great and powerful AMO slavishly follows. What choice does it have? None. The North Atlantic is too small for it to be a global bully.

      • Bully is a little strong.

      • And the AMO and AMOC are – btw – slave to the Atlantic expression of the Arctic Oscillation.

        Over the longer term – more negative as the sun dims.

      • Maybe not a bully but at least a bullyette, at least according to Moore et al

        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40861

      • You thinks AMO has pronounced influence across the globe.
        https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/PDF/Lyu-and-Yu.GRL.2017.pdf

      • The Central Role of Ocean Dynamics in Connecting the North Atlantic Oscillation to the Extratropical Component of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0358.1

        SST in the north Atlantic have an impact on global hydrology – but it may be the broader globally coupled climate system that modulates Earth energy dynamics. And if you look at JCH’s wood for dimwits graph – compared with the tea leaves below – you can see bits of the global stadium wave.

      • Re: “Instead of trying to deny what the records show clearly, they should be making excuses for what is happening.”

        I wonder how many debunked, contrarian mistakes you can offer in one blogpost.

        Cherry-picking just HadCRUT4.
        Check.

        Not accounting for errors in forcing.
        Check.

        Not accounting for the difference between using sea surface temperatures vs. air temperature above the sea.
        Check.

        Cherry-picking 1998 and 2016 as start-points for trend discussion.
        Check.

        Fortunately, there are numerous published papers that avoid your trite mistakes. That includes the paper you’re responding to:


        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/meta

      • I wonder how many debunked, contrarian mistakes you can offer in one blogpost.

        The problem for your thesis is that nothing of that mattered for the 1950-2000 period when it can be seen very clearly that models match the chosen observation. There is no reason why they should suddenly matter a lot for the 2000-2018 period to the point of accounting for the huge discrepancy observed.

        Bad behaving models. Faulty science.

      • Look at what the all powerful Oz of ocean oscillations, the AMO, did to influence the global mean surface temperature anomaly during the infamous mid-century cooling. It plays no apparent role in the precipitous fall in the GMST at the end of the WW2. The drop in the PDO precedes the drop in the GMST. When the AMO finally goes negative, there is no apparent influence on the GMST.

        And that was when ACO2 was fairly low.

        And then the PDO starts going back up, just before the GMST starts going back up.

        So the next negative phase of the AMO is going to do more to deflect the GMST than it did last time? Lol.

      • Now there is a list of the usual suspects cited in passing in atompski’s trivial, irrelevant and well rehearsed talking points. The contrived talking point in this paper is the moving target of tuned models reproducing surface temperatures. First is the almost utter irrelevance of surface temperature to global energetics (Loeb et al 2018). Second is the divergence of 1000’s of feasible future projections inevitable in any AOS model from each other (McWilliams 2007, Slingo and Palmer 2011) let alone reality. Third is the missing geophysics of internal variability in models (Hurrell et al 2009, Kravtsov et al 2018). Fourth is the lack of investigation of causative elements (Myers et al 2018, Loeb et al 2018).

        Loeb et al argue that CERES shows energy accumulating in the systems – and if it is not showing up in the quite obviously paused surface temperature record it must be in oceans.


        https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

        But in the longer term – the pause is just starting.

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886344

        I find atomski’s comments empty and worthless – more importantly they are annoyingly twee.

      • Re: “The problem for your thesis is that nothing of that mattered for the 1950-2000 period when it can be seen very clearly that models match the chosen observation. There is no reason why they should suddenly matter a lot for the 2000-2018 period to the point of accounting for the huge discrepancy observed.”

        Do you think that issues with forcings post-2006 would means that forcings from 1950-2000 were at issue? Really?

        I mean, come on. At least actually read and understand the papers you’re discussing before you try to criticize. There have been several papers on issues with forcing, and so on. Your comment shows that you either haven’t read them, or haven’t understood them. They are covered in the paper you were linked to. So actually read the paper.

      • Do you think that issues with forcings post-2006 would means that forcings from 1950-2000 were at issue?

        The worst excuse since “my dog ate my homework.” Issues with forcings post-2006. Exactly when CMIP5 models were initialized and showed they are unable to predict climate.

      • Re: “I agree with Javier – warmists better get their excuses ready.”

        No, it will be people like Curry who will need to explain why they predicted cooling (or no warming), when warming actually continued:

        “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/14/week-in-review-3/

        “A year earlier, Jan 2011, I made it pretty clear that I supported Tsonis’ argument regarding climate shifts and a flat temperature trend for the next few decades”
        https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/the-97-consensus-part-ii/#comment-353668

        “I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade.”
        http://archive.is/JKe8P

        “I understand that 15 years is too short, but the climate model apostles told us not to expect a pause longer than 10 years, then 15 years, then 17 years. Looks like this one might go another two decades.”
        http://archive.is/WFPzL

      • “This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Large reductions in clear-sky SW TOA flux are also found over much of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in the northern hemisphere. These are associated with a reduction in aerosol optical depth consistent with stricter pollution controls in China and North America. A simple energy budget framework is used to show that TOA radiation (particularly in the SW) likely played a dominant role in driving the marked increase in temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

        As opposed to an article comparing tuned chaotic models to short term surface temperature variability? Again a trite, trivial and irrelevant talking point.

      • Oh ffs.

        “Even though the rate of increase in surface temperature slowed during the hiatus, the Earth continued to take up heat [21–23]. Satellite observations point to the possibility that the rate of heat uptake increased by 0.3 Wm−2 between the last 15 years of the 20th century and first 12 years of the 21st century [21], but uncertainties are large owing to differences in the satellite observing systems used before and after 2000 and because of data gaps in the record between 1993 and 1999 [21,24]. Similarly, upper-ocean ocean heating rates from in-situ measurements made prior to 2005 are highly uncertain
        owing to poor sampling and uncertain bias corrections [14,22,25–27]. There have been significant improvements in the satellite observing system since 2000 with the launch of several Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments. Similarly, improvements in ocean heating
        rate observations have occurred with the in-situ network of profiling floats from Argo, which reached near-global coverage after 2005 [28].” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

        And most of that warming is down to SW changes over the upwelling regions of the eastern Pacific. Climate shifted around 1912, 1944, 1976 and 1998 – for which there is oodles of mainstream science. The post 1998 regime is not definitively over yet. So I would wait before deciding that a recent positive Pacific Ocean mediated surface temperature spike means much at all – or indeed post spike cooling.

        But the next climate shift is just around the corner – and this time there will be the instrumentation. Which way will it go?

        “The M-SSA analysis of each of 111 available observed–model-simulated secular SAT differences (representing, as stated above, 111 estimates of internal secular variability in observations) identifies a pronounced pair of M-SSA modes, which stands out of the rest of the spectrum and is altogether absent from the model-simulated internal secular variability (Fig. 3a, Supplementary Figs. 4, 5, Supplementary Table 2) (ref.34). The model-simulated spectra (Fig. 3a, blue curve) are characterised by a much smaller variance compared to the observed spectra (black curve), reflecting a weaker internal secular variability around the forced climate trends in models, and, most importantly, by completely different space–time patterns associated with the leading M-SSA eigenmodes. This is seen from the fact that the projections of the simulated secular signals onto the space–time patterns of the observed M-SSA modes have negligible variance (red curve in Fig. 3a). Most of the M-SSA spectra based on model simulations are also less peaked, in relative sense, than the observed spectrum and decay monotonically, without statistically significant separation between their leading mode(s) and trailing M-SSA modes. The pairs of M-SSA eigenmodes with similar magnitudes and timescales, as seen in the observed spectra, may indicate the presence of a quasi-oscillatory mode29 in the data; in the context of the secular signals, which have timescales comparable to the length of the data record, the periodicity of such a signal cannot be verified, but the propagation of the anomalies in space in the course of the oscillation can still be established with statistical significance.35 Indeed, the reconstruction of this pair of modes for regional climate indices (Fig. 3b, c) manifests as a multidecadal signal propagating across the climate index network (with certain time delays between different indices)—a so-called stadium wave (refs. 20,35,36,37)—which we will refer to as the global stadium wave (GSW) or, when referring to the global-mean temperature, Global Multidecadal Oscillation (GMO), although, once again, the oscillatory character of this phenomenon is impossible to establish due to shortness of the data record. The phasing of indices in the GSW is consistent with earlier work (ref. 20), which analysed a limited subset of the Northern Hemisphere climate indices (Supplementary Fig. 6). The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        We shall see – but it is a stochastically resonant system far from deterministic periodicity. The other thing to note in the context of the AMO and PDO is the GSW. You can lead a daft horse to water…

      • Re: “I find atomski’s comments empty and worthless – more importantly they are annoyingly twee.”

        Tedious nonsense from contrarians allowed by moderation.

        Re: “Climate shifted around 1912, 1944, 1976 and 1998 – for which there is oodles of mainstream science. The post 1998 regime is not definitively over yet. So I would wait before deciding that a recent positive Pacific Ocean mediated surface temperature spike means much at all – or indeed post spike cooling.”

        1998 was an strong El Nino year. Global warming occurred before that year and continued after it, at the near-surface, oceans, lower troposphere, etc. Of course, satellite-based analyses under-estimate the lower tropospheric warming, but whatever.


        [from: “Decadal ocean heat redistribution since the late 1990s and its association with key climate modes”]


        [Page S17 of “State of the Climate in 2017”]

        “We find large systemic differences between surface and lower troposphere warming in MSU/AMSU records compared to radiosondes, reanalysis products, and climate models that suggest possible residual inhomogeneities in satellite records. We further show that no reasonable subset of surface temperature records exhibits as little warming over the last two decades as satellite observations, suggesting that inhomogeneities in the surface record are very likely not responsible for the divergence.”
        http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMGC54C..05H

        Page 7715 of: “A satellite-derived lower-tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”

      • The post 1998 regime is not definitively over yet.

        Says who? Link?

      • re: Tedious nonsense from contrarians allowed by moderation.

        Is empty repetition of simplistic and over rehearsed climate talking points in a supercilious and condescending manner from a complete tool any better? When it is all deconstructed what remains is nothing but extreme verbosity. He has at least refrained from AIDS and smoking metaphors this time. Seriously – boiled down his reply is 1998 was a warm year and satellites are wrong.

        There is so much more being said here that to completely over his head. Zoom – didn’t even notice it passing.

        “The use of a coupled ocean–atmosphere–sea ice model to hindcast (i.e., historical forecast) recent climate variability is described and illustrated for the cases of the 1976/77 and 1998/99 climate shift events in the Pacific. The initialization is achieved by running the coupled model in partially coupled mode whereby global observed wind stress anomalies are used to drive the ocean/sea ice component of the coupled model while maintaining the thermodynamic coupling between the ocean/sea ice and atmosphere components. Here it is shown that hindcast experiments can successfully capture many features associated with the 1976/77 and 1998/99 climate shifts.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1

        There is something happening here but you don’t know what it is – do you Mr Atomski? As for JCH expecting a citation for the end of this 20 to 30 year GSW – that will have to wait until it is definitively over. “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin” Mojib Latif

      • I find atomski’s comments empty and worthless – more importantly they are annoyingly twee.

        I think that is wrong. He is repetitious, but so are most of us. He mistakes “disputation” for “debunking”, when the disputatious comments he quotes are themselves subject to well-grounded evidence-based disputation (such as his oft-repeated comment that “CAGW” is a straw man). He cherry-picks with a bias toward the more extreme view that AGW poses a threat (but almost everyone gives greater weight to some of the evidence, since the whole of the evidence is hard to comprehend), but most of his comments are worth intelligent rebuttal, not mere disparagement.

        It is especially helpful for the people who have not yet made up their minds, if any of those are left.

        Whether “warming” did or did not persist through the “hiatus”, and how much warming or cooling will occur in the next 20 years are not yet known. (The “hiatus” has been well-described in peer-reviewed journals such as Science Magazine and Nature; Science published an article claiming that the hiatus had been predictable even during its early phase when most scientists were denying its existence. I have linked to that article before.) All claims about the future are based on some models or different model about the past, and none of the models can yet be said to have “passed” what are called “tests” or “stringent tests”.

        The 1998-1999 El Nino was followed by a deep drop in global mean temperature; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may be followed by such a deep drop in global mean temperature. Subsequently, the global mean temperature during the hiatus was higher than it had been for an equal duration of time before the 1998-1999 El Nino; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may likewise be followed by such a step increase in global mean temperature. It’s foolish to argue as though the next 20 years is already known.

        Because the climate system is chaotic, the step-wise increases in temperature does not argue against any particular source of the energy that has powered the warming since the late 1800s.

      • Interesting comment, Matthew. It doesn’t bother me that people have the opposite view to mine, or that they arrive to different conclusions from the same evidence. That is science. If anything I find Atomsk dialectic approach more appropriate for humanities argumentation than scientific discussions.

        The 1998-1999 El Nino was followed by a deep drop in global mean temperature; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may be followed by such a deep drop in global mean temperature. Subsequently, the global mean temperature during the hiatus was higher than it had been for an equal duration of time before the 1998-1999 El Nino; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may likewise be followed by such a step increase in global mean temperature. It’s foolish to argue as though the next 20 years is already known.

        I analyzed every temperature drop since 1950 here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/14/the-planet-is-experiencing-an-unexplained-major-cooling-and-scientists-are-ignoring-it/

        The rate, and circumstances of the post-2016 cooling are different from the post-1998 cooling, indicating different drivers. As a result nothing indicates that a rebound in temperatures to a higher baseline should be expected this time.

        The Central Pacific subsurface heat was thoroughly drained by the 2015 Niño and has not been recharged by the very small Niñas afterwards. As a result it is having difficulties to feed a proper El Niño despite SST temperature being sufficient.

        We can predict a La Niña coming when solar activity increases after the minimum with high probability because it is what has happened in the last six solar cycles (past 70 years)

        When that happens the global temperature will fall further.

        So while we cannot know the future, we can predict with a higher probability further cooling in 2-3 years.

        The observed cooling post-2016 is already the fourth largest since 1950 and the largest since 1976. When it is finished it will likely be a record cooling for the past 70 years. Will it be reported as such? So far there is no mention of it. Every warming gets reported, but a cooling that is a 20-year event goes unreported.

        Weather is chaotic. Climate is not because it is externally forced, and as you can see ENSO is under solar control, and solar variability is periodical, and therefore to a certain extent predictable.

      • In other words, your cut-and-paste Frankenstein theory, which is motivated by your hatred of people, says it.

        It’s all too complicated for everybody except RIE. The great one from Australia pours out his tea leaves and everybody is wrong except, golly gee, him.

      • This is what i had in mind as empty and worthless.

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886379

        And the more recent comment boils down as I said to 1998 was hot and satellites are wrong. Utterly irrelevant and well rehearsed. Not even remotely responsive. I noted as well that the Judith Curry statement was in some online disinformer ‘archive’. Ready for serial debunking.

        But in general his comments are in the form of rehearsed climate talking points – hot spots, sea levels, hiatus, paleo ECS, AIDS, smoking and climate consensus denying contrarions – are there any I missed? Empty and pointless from either side. If that floats your boat Matthew. But it is not science it is just partisan games.

      • The period after the end of the 15-16 El Niño is now around 4 reporting periods short of being the same length as the prolonged La Niña event that started in 1998.

        Since the end of 15-16, OHC has reached record levels.

        And, the PDO is in neutral. After 97-98, the PDO went solidly negative.

      • Robert I. Ellison: But in general his comments are in the form of rehearsed climate talking points – hot spots, sea levels, hiatus, paleo ECS, AIDS, smoking and climate consensus denying contrarions – are there any I missed? Empty and pointless from either side. If that floats your boat Matthew.

        I didn’t say anything floats my boat, did I? I said that his comments deserve rebuttal.

      • Interminably – it’s how they get their jollies.

      • Each peak in the PDO index resulted in a record warmest year: 1998; 2005; 2010; 2016, No significant cooling can take place unless the PDO goes solidly negative, and that has not happened. Not the JIASO PDO version or the NOAA PDO version, they are both in neutral territory.

        Without a solidly negative PDO index, the North Pacific is hot:

        2011:

        2018:

      • Re: “I think that is wrong. He is repetitious, but so are most of us. He mistakes “disputation” for “debunking” […]”

        Evidence-free commentary and grand-standing, as usual.

        Re: “Whether “warming” did or did not persist through the “hiatus”, and how much warming or cooling will occur in the next 20 years are not yet known.”

        There is not a statistically significant difference between the warming from from 1979 – 1998 vs. the warming rate from 1998 onwards. That’s been shown in paper after paper. And the troposphere continued to warm, as did the deeper ocean. You’ve been shown evidence on this over and over. The fact that you continue to make your false claims on this subject, despite having being shown evidence on this, is remarkable. Actually, it’s predictable.

        Re: “The “hiatus” has been well-described in peer-reviewed journals”

        A poorly-defined “hiatus” has been mentioned repeatedly. If you don’t give a statistically rigorous definition, then you end up with trivialities where you can claim a hiatus occurred for two years, because 1999 or 2000 were not warmer than 1998 for the surface temperature record. See, for instance, what Javier is doing by cherry-picking 2016 as his start-point for a trend.

        If all a paper wants to do is claim that there was a non-statistically-significant change in the rate of surface warming, and they want to examine the shorter-term factors affect that change, then fine. One could do that for a change lasting 2 years, as in my previous example. But the moment you try to claim that there was a robust, statistically significant change in the rate of warming, then the notion of a “pause” or “hiatus” falls apart.

        The game you, and so many other contrarians, play is that you conflate papers that discuss a “pause” or “hiatus” in a non-statistically-significant non-robust sense, with there being a hiatus in a robust statistically significant sense. As explained by the paper I cited before:

        “Decadal ocean heat redistribution since the late 1990s and its association with key climate modes
        […]
        Among the common definitions of pause/hiatus are: (1) a statistically significant change in the rate of global warming, as measured by changes to the heat balance of the planet; (2) a statistically significant change in the surface temperature record; (3) a non-statistically significant change in the rate of GMST [global mean surface temperature] change; and (4) Divergence between GMST predictions (from climate modes) and actual GMST measurements. Unfortunately, these definitions are often conflated and their separate identities must be maintained.
        So, has there been a pause in global warming? The answer would be mistakenly “yes” only if one defines the “global warming” only by GMST changes (definition 3 above).”

        That fits with the conclusion of paper after paper that applied rigorous statistical analysis to the notion of a “pause” or “hiatus”, while examining different temperature analyses. For instance:

        “A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence”
        “Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls”
        “Debunking the climate hiatus”
        “Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature”
        “Change points of global temperature”
        “The “pause” in global warming: turning a routine fluctuation into a problem for science”
        “The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution?”
        “Has there been a hiatus?”
        “An apparent hiatus in global warming?”
        “A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets”
        “On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming”
        “Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends”

        Re: “All claims about the future are based on some models or different model about the past, and none of the models can yet be said to have “passed” what are called “tests” or “stringent tests”.”

        You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback). But you simply repeat the false claim that there have been no confirmed predictions anyway. It’s clear that no amount of evidence is ever going to change your mind. And there’s a term for that…

      • Re: “The observed cooling post-2016 is already the fourth largest since 1950 and the largest since 1976.”

        Looks like you’re still insisting on cherry-picking a very warm El Nino year (2016) as the start of your short-term fluctuation. OK. I wonder what Judith Curry has said on this. Let’s take a time machine back to the first day of 2018:

        “2018 climate: I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/01/looking-forward-to-2018/
        http://archive.is/WWP98

        (Credit to willard for pointing this out:
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/there-was-no-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-134088)

        There are around 10 days left in the year. Based on how things are looking, 2018 will end up being in the “top five” warmest years for the instrumental record going back to the 1800s. I’d put it at maybe 3rd or 4th, when the year is done; 5th at worst.

        So despite the “cooling post-2016” that you’re talking about, Curry’s prediction will most likely turn out to be wrong. Let’s just add that to her long list of false temperature predictions:

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/#comment-885742
        http://archive.is/8104b

      • Looks like you’re still insisting on cherry-picking a very warm El Nino year (2016) as the start of your short-term fluctuation.

        Actually not. I didn’t pick anything. I analyzed every cooling period since 1950 from start to end. They all obviously start at a high point, but that is the definition of a cooling period, from a relative high to a relative low.

        And I don’t respond for other people’s predictions, just for mine, and this is what I had to say in April:

        “They say 2016 is warmest.
        They say 2017 is top three.
        They say they expect 2018 to be top five.

        That’s a cooling trend, man. Just put in a funny way.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/20/week-in-review-science-edition-80/#comment-870915

        Looks like I was spot on.

      • Javier:

        Can you source the above? I recall a recent hey day where actual temperatures were near the heavy line. Since about 2000, the 13 month average has organized. Nothing happens. It’s a straight line. When it is driven by CO2, what else do we expect? Reality still bops around. The CMIPs tell us to pick a start date and use a straight edge to draw a line. That’s some good money spent on that. It what universe is such a thing paid for? You got your money, you wrote your papers. What did we get?

      • I can source it to myself. I downloaded the latest UK Met HadCRUT4 from here:
        https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

        And the CMIP5 data from KNMI Climate Explorer. It is the TAS data for the 42 models for RCP4.5 as 1961-1990 anomaly. Then a little bit of Excel work to get the 13-month centered averages and determine for every month the 50 and 90% range. Excel also produces the least squares linear regression for HadCRUT.

        We get to pay for everything. When there is an organized scam, the goal is always the same, to transfer the money from the many to the few. And the scam is not that the Earth is warming, which is pretty obvious, but that this makes for a crisis that can be prevented by expending money on it.

      • I might also have a more proper citation in a few months, as obviously this type of information is publishable, and clearly is being ignored again by the usual suspects, as they did with the pause.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback).

        Are you telling us that you do in fact know the next 20 years of the global mean surface temperature trajectory? Based on which model? That model has a good track record?

      • For more on modeling the stratosphere go here:
        http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/7/eaat6025?__utma=109413082.1951065985.1545497851.1545497851.1545497851.1&__utmb=109413082.5.10.1545497851&__utmc=109413082&__utmx=-&__utmz=109413082.1545497851.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=37018400

        Also, no one predicted the recent warming of the lower stratosphere.

        Modelers completely missed the greening of the Sahel.

        As with other aspects of climate modeling, model successes to date do not support the claim that the climate response to CO2 accumulation has been accurately enough modeled to make reliable forecasts of the future.

      • Matt, Atomsk’s statement about models is exceptionally weak and ignores fundamentals of mathematics. He claims that they get the sign of water vapor feedback right. That means little in terms of actual skill. As Nic Lewis points out the data is ambiguous on the water vapor feedback.

        The problem here is that the effects being modeled are very small compared to the overall levels of energy flux in the system. The truncation error of the models is huge compared to these small changes. Most modelers would regard that as showing that any skill must be due to cancellation of errors. The whole tuning activity is really trying to fine tune this cancellation so a few measures are roughly right, such as top of atmosphere radiation balance.

        Also there are plenty of recent negative results about the models, some of which are highlighted by Lewis.

        https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/briefing-note-on-climate-sensitivity-etc_nic-lewis_mar2016.pdf

        Recent papers have documented that these models get the pattern of warming wrong over the historical period, which supposedly accounts for the fact that their TCR’s are higher than the temperature record would seem to justify. Most people would say that lack of skill on a 50 year time scale would REDUCE our confidence in their skill on a 150 year time scale.

      • Re: “For more on modeling the stratosphere go here:”

        You’re dodging again, as expected. So I’m going to give the same response I’ve given on previous occasions you’ve done this: ask you direct questions, and not let you evade them (with your usual red herrings, Gish gallops, quote-mines, etc.).

        1) Did Manabe and Wetherald predict in 1967 that increased CO2 would cause stratospheric cooling that increased with stratospheric height?
        Page 250 of: “Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity”

        2) Did stratospheric cooling that increased with stratospheric height occur?
        3) Does ozone depletion have a relatively large effect on stratospheric cooling in the lower stratosphere than in the upper stratosphere?
        4) Did the Montreal Protocol mitigate ozone deplection?
        5) Did mitigated ozone depletion mitigate cooling lower in the stratosphere, while stratospheric cooling continued higher in the stratosphere?
        Figure 1: “Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends”

        Re: “Also, no one predicted the recent warming of the lower stratosphere.”

        Mitigation of lower stratospheric cooling is a predicted response to mitigated ozone depletion (as per the Montreal Protocol). Cooling continues higher in the stratosphere, where CO2’s impact is relatively larger than that of ozone deplection in comparison to the lower stratosphere.

        I suggest you go read the scientific literature, Matthew, instead of continuing to distort it:

        Re: “As with other aspects of climate modeling, model successes to date do not support the claim that the climate response to CO2 accumulation has been accurately enough modeled to make reliable forecasts of the future.”

        You’re evading and back-tracking again.

        You claimed that the models passed no tests:

        “none of the models can yet be said to have “passed” what are called “tests” or “stringent tests”.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886396

        Now that you’re being debunked on that, you’re moving the goalposts to say that successfully passing tests doesn’t support whatever new goalposts you set up. Sorry, but that’s not going to fly. Address the questions above, instead of trying to dodge the models history of successfully making accurate predictions.

      • Re: “Matt, Atomsk’s statement about models is exceptionally weak and ignores fundamentals of mathematics. He claims that they get the sign of water vapor feedback right. That means little in terms of actual skill. As Nic Lewis points out the data is ambiguous on the water vapor feedback”

        Let me know when you have a shred of actual evidence for the claims you make. Because so far, this is turning out the same way as it did on AndThere’sPhysics: I cite evidence for what I say, while you distort the sources you cite and avoid actually addressing evidence:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/there-was-no-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-134123

        If you don’t cite evidence for your claims, then I’m simply going to dismiss them.

        Water vapor feedback play an important role in amplifying CO2-induced warming, and thus in an important factor for climate sensitivity. If strongly positive water vapor feedback wasn’t important, then contrarians would not have spent so much time denying it. For instance:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/
        https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710
        http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/11/14/climate-change-what-are-the-facts-what-are-the-myths/
        http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/

        The water vapor feedback is clearly positive, as shown in study after study with multiple lines of evidence. As I pointed out to you on AndThere’sPhysics, you should read the scientific literature when it comes to topics like this, instead of coming up with rationalizations for not knowing the evidence. Informed people don’t make up excuses for not reading the published evidence.
        Here’s some material to get you started:

        “Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming”
        “Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements”
        “Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000–10 and comparisons to climate models”
        “Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe”
        “An analysis of tropospheric humidity trends from radiosondes”
        “An assessment of tropospheric water vapor feedback using radiative kernels”
        “An observationally based constraint on the water-vapor feedback”

      • Atomski, Please try to be succinct. No one will bother to read your comments if they are too long. Also, selectively quoting from papers reminds me of scriptural exegesis from an earlier age.

        Matt is pretty much entirely correct about AOGCM’s and their skill. There is a growing body of literature supporting this obvious conclusion. I’m not going to cite it here for you. You can find some of it in the above linked article by Lewis. Cloud, convection, and precipitation models are a particular area of weakness.

      • Atomskiy, You are responding to something I didn’t say. Water vapor feedback is no doubt positive. That is a very weak constraint for a model and says virtually nothing about the model’s skill. Your other measures are equally very weak constraints.

        What you said about the RSS TLT product at ATTP was just wrong and misleading. The RSS TLT product now actually warms faster than GISS or HADCRUT on 40 year time scales. Shorter time scales such as you cite can be biased by things like ENSO. This makes it very unlikely that “measurement error” is making a contribution to the divergence from climate models.

      • Re: “Atomski, Please try to be succinct. No one will bother to read your comments if they are too long.”

        Not everyone has a short attention-span. Other people can read things longer than a few paragraphs, even if you don’t. But I guess that would explain why you’re not familiar with the literature, since most papers are longer than a few paragraphs. Feel free to keep coming up with whatever excuses you need to to dodge evidence.

        Re: “Also, selectively quoting from papers reminds me of scriptural exegesis from an earlier age.”

        You apparently don’t realize that giving the title of a paper (which is what I did) is a common way of citing a paper. Further confirmation that you’re not really familiar with how scientists write, or how scientific evidence is cited. Also, please don’t pretend that citing scientific research in on par with religion. That’s a tedious contrarian tactic.

        Re: “There is a growing body of literature supporting this obvious conclusion. I’m not going to cite it here for you.”

        …because you’ve neither read it nor understood it. But there is a funny irony in your claiming there’s a growing body of literature on a topic, claiming Lewis cited it, and then complaining that my comments are too long because I cite the literature.
        Lulz.

        Let me know when you can actually address what I said, and the evidence I cited.

      • Well, Atomskiy, you can start here with point 21. The deficiencies of climate models are very well documented in the literature.

        https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/briefing-note-on-climate-sensitivity-etc_nic-lewis_mar2016.pdf

        It would be helpful if you stopped the ad hominems and actually responded to the substance. You could start with the above very succinct points with literature references.

      • Re: “Well, Atomskiy, you can start here with point 21. The deficiencies of climate models are very well documented in the literature.”

        Then cite the peer-reviewed literature…

        …Oh wait, you can’t because you don’t read it. And when I cite the literature, you willfully ignore it and make up excuses for dodging it (ex: whining that my citing it makes my posts too long).

        So actually cite the peer-reviewed literature. No, the Nic Lewis blog article you linked is not part of the peer-reviewed literature.

        Re: “It would be helpful if you stopped the ad hominems and actually responded to the substance. You could start with the above very succinct points with literature references.”

        You don’t know what an “ad hominem” is, and I’m not interested in your whining. You’re simply complaining about tone, because you have nothing of substance to say.

        When you finally develop an genuine interest in the science, you can go read up on the evidence on positive feedback from clouds, consistent with climate models:

        “Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record”
        “Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000–10 and comparisons to climate models”
        “Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models”
        “A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011)”
        “Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity”
        “Impact of dataset choice on calculations of the short-term cloud feedback”
        “A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade”
        “Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth”

        (This is the part where you’ll again whine about the length of posts, citation of posts by giving their titles, etc. so you can dodge evidence)

      • Jesus, Sanakan, I did not read your last comment in detail. The reason why is just sound judgment on my part.

        Let me just say that the scientific literature is voluminous. Quoting single sentences or paragraphs from it is just selection and I doubt you are a sound judge of the weight of evidence on complex issues.

        I’ve found that Lewis is good at summarizing and is truthful and provides context.

      • In addition its Christmas Eve. Merry Christmas and may you Sanakan keep its spirit in your heart the whole year.

      • Re: “Let me just say that the scientific literature is voluminous. Quoting single sentences or paragraphs from it is just selection and I doubt you are a sound judge of the weight of evidence on complex issues.
        I’ve found that Lewis is good at summarizing and is truthful and provides context.”

        More evidence-free whining from you. More pretending that the paper’s aren’t being cited by giving their titles.

        It’s clear that you simply have no clue what the scientific literature shows, and just making excuses for the fact that the limit of your knowledge is non-peer-reviewed blog articles written by Nic Lewis. Sad. Let me know when you finally have an honest interest in the scientific literature, and the ability to actually read it.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: “none of the models can yet be said to have “passed” what are called “tests” or “stringent tests”.”

        My fault. I was referring to models of mean surface temperature, but I did not make that clear. Of many predictions of all kinds that have been made, some outcomes conform at least semi-quantitatively to predictions. Is there a model that can be said to accurately forecast the next 20 year record of global mean surface temperature? Or the next 20 years of any large region such as, say, the Congo, Amazon Basin, Indonesia, or the rice-growing region of China? Has that model got a record of success forecasting those regions?

        The recent warming of the lower stratosphere was not predicted. It seems from your writing that you give no weight to unpredicted outcomes or outcomes that have not been accurately predicted.

      • Re: “The recent warming”

        That’s nice.

        You dodged the questions you were asked, as expected. So, once again:

        1) Did Manabe and Wetherald predict in 1967 that increased CO2 would cause stratospheric cooling that increased with stratospheric height?
        2) Did stratospheric cooling that increased with stratospheric height occur?
        3) Does ozone depletion have a relatively large effect on stratospheric cooling in the lower stratosphere than in the upper stratosphere?
        4) Did the Montreal Protocol mitigate ozone depletion?
        5) Did mitigated ozone depletion mitigate cooling lower in the stratosphere, while stratospheric cooling continued higher in the stratosphere?

        Let me know when you can finally honestly answer them.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: Now that you’re being debunked on that, you’re moving the goalposts to say that successfully passing tests doesn’t support whatever new goalposts you set up.

        Where are the goal posts?

        1. Accurately modeling and forecasting global mean surface temperature.

        2. Accurately modeling and forecasting global precipitation.

        3. Accurately modeling and forecasting regional mean surface temperature.

        4. Accurately modeling and forecasting regional rainfall (as Romps et al did for a large section of the US — requires replication, but it is a good start.)

        5. Accurately accounting for the diverse influences: human CO2, deforestation, urbanization, influences independent of human activity (e.g. the drivers of the diverse apparent periodicities.)

        6. Accurately accounting of the energy flows in the climate system, and the changes induced by CO2-induced and other warming.

        7. Assessing the losses and gains from the diverse changes.

        And what have we got? The “fingerprint” of CO2, such as stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming hardly establishes any of those. IPCC was formed and “protocols” and international campaigns begun before 7 was even started. How much energy flow increase is required to raise rainfall 6% has not been studied; Romps et al did not even ask how much increased energy flow into the surface was required to produce the increase in CAPE*RR that they modeled. From the notion that CO2 accumulation in the troposphere causes tropospheric warming to claims about changes at the earth surface the mechanistic account is full of holes, and the quantification is inaccurate.

      • Javier: So while we cannot know the future, we can predict with a higher probability further cooling in 2-3 years.

        We can predict many events, but when we predict them, will they happen? What exactly is your predicted cooling for the next 2 years? I am not saying your are wrong, and I respected your essays on the natural oscillations, but I think it is not wise to claim confidently to know what happens next.

      • We can predict many events, but when we predict them, will they happen?

        Mathew, the future is unknowable, but when we predict or project something we are just making a probabilistic estimation. If somebody falls from a window we can predict that person will hit the ground below. It is not sure, but gravitation places a strong limitation on the probabilities.

        The degree of confidence on a prediction is determined by the number of factors affecting the possible outcomes. You can be 50% sure about your coin toss prediction, but only 2.7% sure about your roulette bet (European).

        The odds that there will be cooling after a strong El Niño are difficult to estimate but very high. I would consider them higher than 50% and therefore a safe bet. The cooling is based on physical principles that are very likely to affect GSAT in the predicted direction. Nobody has been surprised that there was cooling after El Niño.

        The more knowledge of the system, the better you can estimate the probabilities of an outcome.

        The probabilities of solar activity increasing after the solar minimum are close to 100%. The probabilities of a La Niña taking place when solar activity increases rapidly are very, very high. The ENSO correlation with the solar cycle at solar minima has a random chance of much less than 1 in 4000. Thus I estimate that the probability of a La Niña after the solar minimum at ~ 2020-2021 is higher than 90%. Otherwise it would break a pattern of at least 7 decades. And if there is a La Niña the probability that it affects GSAT negatively is about 100%.

        So I am >80% confident that we will see further GSAT cooling before 2023. 2019 should see some warming, and 2020 is difficult to predict as it could fall either way. 2021 should already be cooler than 2018.

        If you can predict ENSO you can predict where temperatures are going in the middle term, and solar activity allows to predict ENSO at certain time windows.

        And if there is a climate-impacting volcanic eruption, that cannot be predicted, we would see more cooling, so it can only go in the direction of the prediction.

        You might think there is no rational basis for this prediction, but the only way to know is to wait and see, isn’t it? I don’t like to make predictions, but sometimes the probabilities look good enough.

      • I too respect Javier’s work but given there are countless variables that could affect the precise timing of the cooling, I’m surprised anyone would try to pin it down to a few years. Even though we might know the oscillations and mechanisms at work, I don’t see climate like a 33 1/3 long playing album that will return to an exact spot after another revolution. The earth of 1000 or 1500 or 1900 AD is not the same as it is today. Why would we expect it to produce the exact climate to the year or two or three. Maybe to a decade…….with a little luck.

      • cerescokid, in this case the timing is given by solar activity. Being so close to the solar minimum, I would say that the maximum error is probably of one year.

        La Niña is very, very likely to come when solar activity increases rapidly after the solar minimum. Prof. Curry should take solar activity in consideration when her company issues ENSO predictions for the next 3 years.

      • Re: “Where are”

        A good example of why serious, honest discussion with you is virtually impossible. You’ll just engage in Gish gallops, moving the goalposts, evasions, etc. to always avoid any evidence that shows you’re wrong. Hence you persistently dodging the questions.

        There’s virtually nothing of value to be learned from you on climate science, matthew. Let me know when you can finally honestly answer the questions you were asked.

        “1) Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved.
        2) Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied upon is inaccurate.”

        http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

      • Matt, What is happening here is that you are basically right about climate model skill and there is plenty of evidence for that in the literature for example on the pattern of warming. The TLT divergence shown by
        RSS is another example. The mismatch between TLT vs. total column water vapor and model expectations is another.

        From first principles we know that there are thousands of possible output functionals. There are a number of parameters, perhaps O(100) to tune to match a few of these functionals like top of atmosphere radiation imbalance. Since the truncation and sub grid model errors are larger than the changes to energy fluxes we care about, there is no expectation that those outputs not used in tuning will be even close to right. The problem here is for CMIP5 for example everything pre-2005 is a hindcast and with tuning being not well documented and modelers being well aware of the surface temperature record, there is probably some tuning for that. Thus, its the other measures that are a better test of skill.

        Further, skill cannot be established by the qualitative things like “is the sign of stratospheric temperature change correct?” Thats a weak test.

        Sanakan is using a classical polemical trick of diverting attention from the obvious truth of your point by focusing on a single issue about the stratosphere where its hard to know if he is right or not. What he’s talking about is largely irrelevant to real measures of model skill.

        And then there is the proof text quoting with no way to know if the quoted text is a fair representation or not. It’s like arguing with a political operative who simply cannot fairly respond on any point. They focus on secondary or irrelevant points and quote their authority sources (selecting the parts they like) to justify themselves.

      • Re: “Further, skill cannot be established by the qualitative things like “is the sign of stratospheric temperature change correct?” Thats a weak test.”

        It’s funny just how little people like you, matthew, etc. know about climate science, and just how little honest interest you have in learning. Sad, but telling.


        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-75140-5_26

      • Javier: You might think there is no rational basis for this prediction, but the only way to know is to wait and see, isn’t it?

        I did not mean to say there was no rational basis for the prediction, only that we should not now be acting as though we already know that the prediction was accurate.

      • You mean like everybody acts as if human emissions will make it inevitable to reach 1.5°C and even 2.0°C, and the warming will persist for centuries to millennia causing further sea level rise?

        Predictions cannot be accurate until they happen. They only provide a basis to judge hypotheses.

        The IPCC predicted +1°C by 2025 in 1990. After 80% of the time, only 30% of the warming has taken place.

        So I agree with you that we should use predictions to judge the goodness of hypotheses and not act upon them as if facts.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: You’ll just engage in Gish gallops, moving the goalposts, evasions, etc. to always avoid any evidence that shows you’re wrong.

        You don’t have evidence that goal posts have been moved. If they have been moved, where do they belong?

        The seven that I listed have been there for decades, at least since James Hansen forecast dire consequences in his Senate testimony..

      • Sanakan, Your response is totally off point and shows ignorance of the modeling point I was making about skill. I’ve actually had some experience with weather models in my days at NCAR and in CFD since then.

        Bottom Line: Matt is right about model skill and you wasted a lot of time on a secondary point.

      • Re: “You don’t”

        That’s nice, matthew. Let me know when you can finally honestly answer the questions you were asked, instead of continuing to evasively dodge them. Your Gish gallops are of no interest to me, nor are your persistent goal-post moves.

        Re: “Sanakan, Your response is totally off point”

        Really not interested in the whining. Stratospheric cooling is well-established, confirmed model-based prediction, and important for causal attribution. The excuses you and matthew make up for not addressing it are your problem. I await when the day when either of you are honestly interested enough in the science to address the topic. Until then, you’ll continue to be way behind the mainstream climate science community in understanding what’s being discussed.

      • Stratospheric cooling is well-established, confirmed model-based prediction, and important for causal attribution.

        That is not correct. It is very easy to see that stratospheric temperature change is inversely correlated to tropospheric temperature change, and therefore it confirms nothing. Whatever causes the warming of the troposphere, causes the cooling of the stratosphere. If it was CO2, Stratospheric temperature could only go down, as CO2 has only gone up, but that has not been the case.

        Stratospheric cooling only confirms planetary warming, not the cause. You need a prediction that is CO2 tied, not temperature tied. And it should be easy because CO2 has only increased. The fact that it is not easy to find indicates the effect of CO2 on temperature is small at best and negligible at worst.

      • Sanakan, Reading comprehension is another of your problems.

        I addressed the stratosphere issue. The stratosphere cooled. The point is that one output functional can fortuitously have the same sign as the data and its scientifically not meaningful. That’s known to every fluids modeler.

        And you are in this way mischaracterizing what matt said. On the broader point he is right.

      • So what was the point?

        Models and stratospheric cooling?

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886653

        Clouds?

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886616

        How wrong satellite tropospheric temps are but how right satellite stratospheric temps are?

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886518

        How good models are at forecasting?

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886450

        Does that prove the greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, changes in atmospheric circulation, solar variability or clouds have an influence on the temperature structure of the atmosphere? Do we need to? It does show the need to continue to refine observations and to improve model structures (Slingo and Palmer 2011).

        But all the empty posturing by people with an Idée fixe and presenting as massive tools is as far from science as it get’s.

      • Re: “I addressed the stratosphere issue. The stratosphere cooled. The point is that one output functional can fortuitously have the same sign as the data and its scientifically not meaningful.”

        No, you didn’t adequately address it, because you have no clue what it means. Hence your claim that “its scientifically not meaningful”. This is basic climatology, dpy. It’s not that hard. Go do some reading on causal attribution:


        [Table 1 on page 5: “Executive Summary: Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere – Understanding and reconciling differences”]

        Re: “And you are in this way mischaracterizing what matt said. On the broader point he is right.”

        I’m trying to hand-hold you and matthew through collegiate-level causal attribution in climate science. It’s difficult since neither of you actually engage the evidence.

      • Does that prove the greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, changes in atmospheric circulation, solar variability or clouds have an influence on the temperature structure of the atmosphere? Do we need to? It does show the need to continue to refine observations and to improve model structures (Slingo and Palmer 2011).

        And the guy still comes across as a massive tool. Yawn.

      • Re: “And then there is the proof text quoting with no way to know if the quoted text is a fair representation or not. It’s like arguing with a political operative who simply cannot fairly respond on any point. They focus on secondary or irrelevant points and quote their authority sources (selecting the parts they like) to justify themselves.”

        …says the person citing non-peer-reviewed blog articles from Nic Lewis, in order to dodge what the peer-reviewed literature shows. Priceless.

        Re: “Sanakan is using a classical polemical trick of diverting attention from the obvious truth of your point by focusing on a single issue about the stratosphere where its hard to know if he is right or not.”

        It’s not hard to figure out whether I’m right about the topic, for anyone who actually reads and understand the published literature. This issue has largely been clears since the 1960s and 1970s. Given that, I understand why it’s hard for you to figure it out, since Nic Lewis probably hasn’t told you yet what to think in the non-peer-reviewed articles of his you cite without having understood.

      • Re: “The IPCC predicted +1°C by 2025 in 1990. After 80% of the time, only 30% of the warming has taken place.”

        From folks who are much more forthright in their representation of the scientific evidence than you are:


        https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

      • From folks who are much more forthright in their representation of the scientific evidence than you are:

        Haha, that is a good one.

        IPCC FAR:
        under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century.”

        1°C in 35 years is 0.285°C/per decade. And you defend that it is close to the warming observed. You just showed that your arguments are simple dialectic argumentation without regard for facts. That graph is a gross manipulation as it does not show what FAR predicted. Carbonbrief cannot be trusted. IPCC FAR prediction had a higher rate of warming than CMIP5 as everybody knows, including you.

        Here is how FAR prediction looks now:

        1°C from 1990 value (linear regression) to 2025. It is already off by more than 0.4°C, so it predicted more than double the warming observed. IPCC hypothesis has failed the test of being able to predict the future. It is therefore a failed hypothesis. Reducing its predicted warming at every report and moving its predictions to 2100 when every adult now will be dead will not change that it is a failed hypothesis.

      • Hello!!! I have read, quoted and analysed the literature whose titles he listed. I occasionally audit the lists he provides. Quite often they are at odds and far more nuanced than his singular obsession with fingerprints. Do we still need to prove that greenhouse gases influence the temperature profile of the atmosphere? Shouldn’t of thought so. Beyond that is a deep ignorance of clouds, atmospheric and ocean circulation chaos as sources of perpetual climate change, the core sensitive dependence and structural instability behaviors of climate models – without which it is all just thrashing about on the surface of Earth system science. Sometimes he is so far off track that I wonder if he has done more than read the title and assume it is relevant.

        Then there is the constant and tedious posturing about contrarions that comprise the bulk of his largely unreadable comments. Yawn again.

      • Yes Robert, Sanakan is impossible to have an honest discussion with. He uses personal insults, he quotes very selectively from the literature, and simply will not discuss the important issues.

        When Matt introduced the issue of model skill, Sanakan brings up stratospheric cooling. It’s largely irrelevant to model skill since he has no quantification of how much cooling there was and whether models got that quantification right. In any case a complex issue becomes a little tantrum for him to repeat talking points. In virtually every important way, Matt is right and Sanakan wrong.

      • The 1990 FAR included forcing growth for the gasses that would greatly be reduced by the Montreal Protocol.

        Annual growth in GHG forcing:

        From a link graciously provided above:

      • The 1990 FAR included forcing growth for the gasses that would greatly be reduced by the Montreal Protocol.

        Which just means they got wrong multiple things. And there is zero guaranties that they aren’t still wrong, as judging by the overheating of more recent models (CMIP5).

      • Re: “1°C in 35 years is 0.285°C/per decade. And you defend that it is close to the warming observed. You just showed that your arguments are simple dialectic argumentation without regard for facts. That graph is a gross manipulation as it does not show what FAR predicted. Carbonbrief cannot be trusted. IPCC FAR prediction had a higher rate of warming than CMIP5 as everybody knows, including you.”

        Ahaha. CarbonBrief is much more credible than you, especially since you willfully leave out the uncertainty range for FAR’s estimates, unlike CarbonBrief. And they actually looked at multiple observational analyses, instead of cherry-picking just one,unliike you. And they properly baselined their analyses for comparison. CarbonBrief’s analysis actually matches publications on this subject, such as:

        “Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change”

        Let me know when you actually read the published literature, Javier.

        Re: “1°C from 1990 value (linear regression) to 2025. It is already off by more than 0.4°C, so it predicted more than double the warming observed”

        My goodness, you don’t even know how to do a proper baseline for a comparison. Ask CarbonBrief to help you with making a temperature baseline for comparing projections and observational analyses, Or read the paper I cited for you above.

        Re: “Yes Robert, Sanakan is impossible to have an honest discussion with. He uses personal insults, he quotes very selectively from the literature, and simply will not discuss the important issues.
        When Matt introduced the issue of model skill, Sanakan brings up stratospheric cooling. It’s largely irrelevant to model skill since he has no quantification of how much cooling there was and whether models got that quantification right. In any case a complex issue becomes a little tantrum for him to repeat talking points. In virtually every important way, Matt is right and Sanakan wrong.”

        And now you’re whining about insults that don’t exist, while throwing around terms like “tantrum”. How telling. You were already cited publications quantifying stratospheric cooling both in observational analyses and model-based projections. You won’t address them, because you don’t bother to read the peer-reviewed literature, and start complaining when it’s cited to you. Let me know when you’re actually capable of reading peer-reviewed sources, and understanding stratospheric cooling.

      • instead of cherry-picking just one,unliike you

        More false argumentation. Those are the exact words from IPCC FAR Summary for Policymakers, so they did the cherrypicking. Just read it again, as you appear not to have to.

        One degree is one degree whichever way you slice it, and present temperature in a 1990 publication is 1990 temperature. Quite simple, except for Carbonbrief. Why should I trust them? They are activists devoid of the necessary neutrality. They are manipulating that graph because it does not show a one degree increase between 1990 and 2025 as IPCC FAR clearly predicted.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback).

        Those have been ordinal, not quantitative. I was referring to the lack of demonstrably accurate predictions of global (and regional) mean surface temperature changes and rainfall changes.
        This brings us back to goals. When did the goal become prediction of qualitative changes of the stratosphere instead of quantitative predictions of surface temperature (and rainfall) changes? Who said in Congressional testimony that we had to act to prevent a decrease in stratospheric temperature? The urgency has always been directed toward surface changes such as crop failures and killing heat waves.

        Already more than a century ago Arrhenius predicted that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause atmospheric warming (and consequences. So what? 97% of scientists agree that warming has occurred and that human activities are major contributors. what are the other contributors, and how influential are they? I agree as well as does the noted skeptic Monckton of Brenchley. Of the skeptics here at Climate Etc who dispute that CO2 has any warming effect, most have been in turn disputed by me and others. But the goals now are to the provided accurate quantitative answers to these questions: of the human activities such as deforestation, urbanization and other land use changes, and CO2 emissions, what is the quantitative effect of each of those; what are the other contributors, and how influential are they? What climate change could be prevented by reducing anthropogenic CO2?

        And referring again to my goal #7 which was the raison detre’ of the IPCC, what are the costs and benefits of all the changes?

        If you think that the goals are something else, let us know what they are. I have not changed the goals.

        As to the “pause”, it has been both disputed and accepted in the peer-reviewed literature. Here is a portion of the debate just in Science Magazine: the hiatus was predictable; the hiatus didn’t matter; the hiatus didn’t occur. it was only a surface warming hiatus, etc.
        https://search.sciencemag.org/?searchTerm=global%20warming%20hiatus&order=tfidf&limit=textFields&pageSize=10&&

        Now that the 2015-2016 El Nino seems to be marking the end of the hiatus, it will be interesting (as I wrote elsewhere) to see how much of a rebound like the rebound from the 2018-2019 El Nino will occur. Predictions from diverse models are all over the place.

      • Atomski imagines that there is a denial that greenhouse gases – inter alia – affect the temperature profile of the atmosphere. He imagines a science that is far less nuanced than it is in reality – and a reality that is far less dynamically complex than it is.

        His comments are largely reiterations of rehearsed complaints about contrarions sprinkled with lists of papers he has a superficial grasp of at best. And I do discuss some more recent ‘citations’ elsewhere here – in comments that he doesn’t respond to. A citation btw supports an argument and is not merely a list of study titles.

        He is a quixotic type battling windmills of the mind.

      • Re: “One degree is one degree whichever way you slice it”

        Still ignoring uncertainty estimates and confidence intervals, along with the usual mistakes from you.

        Re: “Those have been ordinal, not quantitative”

        Nope, they’ve been quantitative as well, as shown in the very papers cited to you. Please come up with a better rationalization for evading the questions, moving the goalposts, etc. The rest of your Gish gallop is a red herring.

      • Still ignoring uncertainty estimates and confidence intervals

        Not me. The IPCC in its FAR Summary for Policymakers. They said one degree by 2025 and it ain’t happening. Carbonbrief is just lying about it by not showing the promised degree between 1990 and 2025.

        Your carbon religion is fake, and only cares about the money. What a surprise.

      • Atomski, Matt’s last comment states very well the issue here.

        Model skill is quantitative and NOT ordinal.

        Your entire long string of comments here is just distracting from this central point.

        There are many recent papers documenting lack of skill regarding patterns of warming, i.e., the current climate.

        Andrews, T, Gregory, J M and Webb, M J, 2015. The dependence of radiative forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in climate models. J. Climate 28, 1630–1648

      • “Why are there discrepancies between observations and simulations and
        between different simulations?
        • Intrinsic variability of simulations and nature
        [dynamical sensitive dependence ⇒ predictability limits & sampling errors]
        • Model bias and/or phenomenological deficiency
        [model design ⇒ e.g., multi-scale computations]
        • Irreducible imprecision of simulations
        [dynamical structural instability ⇒ model families and solution ensembles]” http://research.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Jerusalem_slides.pdf

        LMFTFY –
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=irreducible+imprecision+in+climate+models

      • Re: “Model skill is quantitative and NOT ordinal.”

        Which is not an actual principle in model evaluation; it’s just another goal-post move the two of you have invented in order to dodge the evidence. And even if it were a principle, the two of you would have still messed up, since you’re evading evidence on quantitative estimates of stratospheric cooling.

        Re: “Your entire long string of comments here is just distracting from this central point.”

        Not a distraction; you just lack the ability to address them.

        Re: “There are many recent papers documenting lack of skill regarding patterns of warming, i.e., the current climate.”

        The irony here is amazing. When I cite papers, you complain about the very ideas, and do everything you can to dodge the research. When you cite papers (which you clearly haven’t read), then that’s fine with you. How telling. And no, the paper you cited doesn’t support what you claimed. Please actually read the papers you cite, before distorting them.

        The pattern of warming is what one would expect with increased CO2: warming of the troposphere and near-surface, with cooling of the stratosphere (that increases with increasing height), and cooling of the mesosphere and thermosphere. The regional pattern of CO2-induced warming is also present. Go do some reading:

        “For example, the aerosol fingerprint shows a spatial and temporal pattern of near-surface temperature changes that varies between hemispheres and over time (see Hegerl et al. 2007, Section 9.4.1.5).
        […]
        These patterns make the response to solar and aerosol forcing distinguishable (with uncertainties) from that due to greenhouse gas forcing.”

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1

      • 1. Aerosols from a 2007 argumentative response to a meta-analysis?


        “Time-course evolution of BC aerosol composition, light absorption (where EMAC-BC is the enhancement because of coatings), and associated climate effects (as DRF).”
        https://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4243

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50171

        Black carbon warming is underestimated by a factor of 3 in AR5 forcings – and sulfate cooling overestimated in mixed species emissions from fossil fuels.

        2. ‘Expert assessment’ of attribution in the AR4 was clearly wrong at the time.

        “In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fl uxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fl uxes 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.”

        Confirmed as real many times since.

        “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.” Clement et al 2009

        3, “The high likelihood of the imprecise “most”
        seems rather meaningless”: We disagree. The
        likelihood describes the assessed probability that
        “most” (i.e., more than 50%), of the warming is
        due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This
        statement has a clear meaning and an associated
        uncertainty, although explicitly listing “>50%” in
        the text to ensure that no misunderstandings are
        possible could be helpful in future work.

        Really? Who cares?

        4. And we know without a doubt that internal variability is missing in climate models.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: moving the goalposts

        So tell us all about the goal posts. That isn’t a red herring. Did somebody decide that the real goal was to predict the stratospheric response to CO2, and that predicting the Earth surface responses was irrelevant?

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: You’ve been repeatedly cited evidence on confirmed climate model predictions (ex: cooling of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere; positive water vapor feedback).

        A metaphor: long ago I saw what looked from a distance like a bowl. Upon closer inspection, it turned out to be full of holes — it was indeed a sieve, and would not hold water. I mentioned a few of the holes I found, and others writing here have described others. Your argument is that we should all ignore the holes, and ignore the fact that the sieve has not been shown to carry water.

        How about that positive water vapor feedback? How much increase in water vapor will be caused by a 1C increase in global mean surface temperature? How much of the hypothesized 4 W/m^2 increase in downwelling LWIR will be invested in the latent heat to evaporate that much more water? How fast will the water vapor rise to the cloud condensation layer (you don’t think it all just sits there in the atmosphere without rising, do you?), condense, and fall again as rain? How will that change in the rate of the hydrological cycle affect the estimate of the energy flow in “evapotranspiration” given by Fasullo and Trenberth and Stephens, et al? In the O’Gorman review article an empirical estimate is that the rainfall rate will increase 6% for every 1C increase in surface temperature; can a 4W/m^2 incease in downwelling LWIR power such a large increase in rainfall? Romps et al calculated an 11% increase per C in an energy flow of which a tiny constant fraction of the energy is converted to lightning; can a 4W/m^2 power such a large increase in CAPE*RR? Holes, as in Swiss cheese, also called “cavities” as in tooth decay.

        It may be that the sieve is shiny and made of high quality brass, or maybe of lesser stuff, but it is full of holes and hasn’t been shown to carry water.

      • Matt, I really like your bowl/seive analogy.

        Your second paragraph about precipitation is indeed one of the very weak points of climate models. However, its a critical process to get right because its linked to vertical temperature gradients, relative humidity responses to warming, cloud feedbacks, etc.

        What is surreal about this whole series of comments from Sanakan is that very few scientists (outside the SKS world of political spin) when pressed will argue with the obvious lack of skill of climate models. That’s why he can’t come up with anything quantitative.

      • Re: “Your carbon religion is fake, and only cares about the money. What a surprise.”

        What an incredibly rational and non-paranoid response from you. You’ve truly blown me away.
        [/sarcasm]

        Anyway, you’re still sticking to your usual distortions (which CarbonBrief avoided) including:

        1) Overlooking the fact that IPCC FAR over-estimated post-1990 CO2 levels. You need to account for this when looking at FAR’s temperature projection. Instead, you obscure this fact by claiming that CO2 emissions match FAR projections.

        2) You treat the FAR’s GHG-induced warming trend as being linear, when it actually increases with time. That would be fine if you were just comparing the projection’s average linear trend over a specific period time with the trend in observational analyses over that same period of time. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re instead comparing the projection’s average linear trend over an entire century with observational trends that are less than a third of a century. That makes no sense:

        “1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.”
        http://archive.vn/O52h9#selection-541.0-547.10

        I’ve put up a Twitter thread on what you’re doing, so folks can learn from how ludicrous it is:

      • Like I give a hoot. Only 6 years to 2025. Where is the promised degree? What a joke.

  29. On Twitter, Judith seemed to endorse this article.
    Either a change of view, or she did not read to it the end. It says academics can be activists when there is an emergency, one example given being climate change, another where economists may weigh in on how to handle a recession.
    https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2018/12/academics-should-not-be-activists.html

    • “Imagine placing a $10,000 bet of your own money on whether global warming is real or not.” A weak argument. How many extremists are there as a percentage? They’re arguing against the weakest opponent. The question is one of policy. Money. Place the same bet on what the GMST will be for 2030. Or the annual precipitation average for 2025 to 2030 in Minnesota. My 2nd question is better. And policy is better served by my 2nd question than the writer’s.

      • It’s a case of an emergency and a government not listening to the scientists but to the likes of Exxon (through political funding and proxy advocacy) instead. Imagine if the scientists were saying a chemical is dangerous, but the industry lobby prevented the government from regulating it. The scientists who know about the subject need to speak up, and some would call them activists for doing so. This is where it is warranted.

    • Yet scientists who speak out are pilloried for not singing from the endorsed hymnbook.

      • Who pillories the scientists who speak out about the need to do something?

      • The ones who point out that the scientists views on the action are non-sense.
        Take your insistence on bringing up Exxon. Most of the debate has been around electricity generation. The only role Exxon-Mobile plays in that debate is they drastically reduced the price and increased the availability of natural gas. Every renewable advocate is counting on that gas (and counting on it being cheap and available) to make wind and solar almost viable. Meanwhile, the switch from coal to gas is reducing emissions now (which you guys sometimes say is what you want).
        Oil? Is Exxon preventing Tesla or any of the major automakers from building electric cars? There are more electric cars in California than in all of France despite the much high gas and diesel taxes in the latter. Does Exxon rule France in your opinion?
        Can you move modern western nations to all-electric transportation without a functional electricity grid that produces more power than today? Is Exxon more vocal against nuclear than Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists?
        People who are actually serious about emissions reductions know that it’s more important to develop functional alternatives to coal and gasoline than it is to play political games and virtue signal over Exxon.

      • And the ones who don’t sing from the endorsed hymnbook. Duh….

      • RIE, when you say “speak out” apparently you don’t mean speak out on the risks of climate change, but something else. Perhaps the ones you refer to speak out on other subjects that are against the mainstream science. Read the article. That is not what it is about. It is about the exception being the need to speak up when there is an emergency, climate change being an example. Both Judith and Willis have endorsed this article (although I suspect they skimmed it).

      • I suspect that #jiminy is being obtuse – whether deliberately or from a native talent I can’t say.

      • See if you agree with Judith and Willis when they tweeted that they endorse the article. Maybe they didn’t read past the title?
        https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2018/12/academics-should-not-be-activists.html

      • Yes we have heard the catawauling too often and for too long. It is #jiminy’s version of mainstream science – scientifically limited and ultimately just wrong and with implicit and impractical policy. The Copenhagen consensus is wrong and the UN is all knowing.

      • You mean yes you would not have endorsed what that article was saying.

      • Science is not reducible to memes. Has climate science been corrupted by the actions of activists? It seems so. The ‘warnings’ become more shrill with time and 30 years later succeed only in frightening children, small animals and pissant progressives. Certainty increases while science discovers new sources of uncertainty. Climate is perpetual change against a backdrop of a fixed activist mindset. #jiminy is part of the problem…

      • So the article says that it is OK to be an activist in the case of an emergency for which your expertise matches the knowledge needed. Do you agree with that part at least?

      • There are opinions that the caterwaulings are a trifle overwrought. Do you agree with that at least?

      • If it sounds dangerous to you, it should because that is what it is. If it didn’t, they’re saying it wrong.

      • Having been a catastrophist for a long time I don’t frighten easily. The risk of greenhouse gas induced tipping points is low and we are much more likely to see natural and more or less extreme abrupt climate shifts. The pragmatic response is to build prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes.

        Historically, the soil carbon pool has been the major source of atmospheric carbon dioxide with as much as 500 GtC lost from grazing and cropping lands over the Holocene. The transfer of soil carbon to the atmosphere has created a carbon deficit in agricultural soils. Soils now contain a lower organic content than before conversion to agriculture. In many regions it has led to a spiral of decline to desertification. The rich ecology of living soils – fungi, insects, bacteria, vegetation – in a highly productive symbiosis gives way to bare earth. Plants create sugars from carbon and sunlight and they feed organisms in the soil with exudate from the roots. Organisms which in turn create environments that break down parent rock and release nutrients – bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen. It is a living system that can become unbalanced and lose organic matter. The water holding capacity of soils is reduced. Infiltration of rainwater declines, runoff and erosion increase with more flash flooding. Groundwater stores decline, vegetation is more drought stressed, there is less dry weather flow in waterways. The spiral of soil and ecological decline continues. Elsewhere the productivity of cropping soils is sustained only by larger inputs of increasingly expensive fertilisers and poisons – which in themselves destabilise living soil and have impacts on broader environments.

        This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The total potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years.

        Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.

        Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology. Many countries have committed to increasing soil carbon by 0.4% per year. As a global objective and given the highest priority it is a solution to critical problems of biodiversity loss, development, food security and resilience to drought and flood.

        I am not a child, small animal or pissant progressive. What’s to be frightened of?

      • Don’t know about the soil stuff, but gradually changing the energy system away from fossil fuels over the next few decades makes a bigger and faster dent.
        There is a tendency here to single out and attack anyone who even hints at risk or danger from BAU. It really is a case of attack the messenger while paradoxically claiming they don’t have any problem with mainstream scientists. Risk and danger or no risk and danger, that is the question.

      • It is the energy monomania that is objectionable. The pragmatic response there is cost competitive energy innovation. But there are other things. Ongoing improvements in efficiency, reductions in black carbon, sulfate, CFC and ozone emissions – and restoration of soils and ecosystems. It sums to practical measures that have justifications that do not rely on the prognostications of catastrophe. Claims that have been over egged and that result in perverse policy.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50171

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50171

        Economically the world is locked into a growth cycle – despite any and all reservations and interventions.  A high growth planet brings resources to solve people and environment problems.  The clearest way to economic growth is markets – and the biggest risk is market mismanagement.

      • What do you do when you realize that the markets are the problem and not the solution? This has happened before. The answer is always regulation.

      • Regulation fails when dealing with multidimensional human and environmental problems.

        The Australian Productivity Commission reported on regulatory regimes in respect of vegetation but the findings apply equally well to other environmental legislation. The Commission found that there are “several key underlying factors limiting their efficiency and effectiveness in promoting the delivery of the community’s native vegetation and biodiversity goals on private land.

        1. Regulation of native vegetation clearing prescribes the means of achieving a range of environmental goals across different regions. However:

        (a) there are likely to be other means of achieving at least some desired environmental outcomes at less cost (for example, well-managed pastures may also reduce soil erosion). Moreover, because the costs of regulation are largely borne by landholders, the cost benefit trade-off is obscured.

        (b) environmental problems are complex, dynamic and geographically heterogeneous and will require innovative and adaptive solutions drawing on local as well as scientific knowledge. Across-the-board requirements for retention of native vegetation are rigid and preclude innovation. Indeed, retention of native vegetation in some areas perversely appears to be exacerbating some environmental problems; and

        (c) ongoing management of native vegetation is essential to ensure its health and regeneration, but regulation of clearing focuses only on preventing its deliberate removal.” In addition to point (a) above, there are likely to be ways of producing better environmental outcomes in more flexible and cooperative regimes.

        The Commission recommended empowering regional bodies to pursue integrated environmental, social and economic outcomes.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/05/01/changing-our-approach-to-the-environment/

        But with this comment from #jiminy we get get to the crux of the clash of values of values for which AGW climate catastrophe is a proxy.

      • There are many examples where the markets don’t drive good behavior and can trigger crises instead.

      • Make no mistake – there is a clash of values. The urban doofus hipster vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.

        For me it starts with democracy and the rule of law – the hard won freedoms of the enlightenment. To quote from Hayek if I may. For a classic liberal there is a commitment to ‘political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force.’ The outcome is a social contract – the rule of law – that is compromise arrived at in the cut and thrust of politics. It may be obvious that democracy is the foundation for social progress – but it is always worth restating.

        One critical freedom is economic freedom. Markets need fair, transparent and accessible laws – including on open and equal markets, labour laws, environmental conservation, consumer protection and whatever else is arrived at in the political arena. Optimal tax take is some 23% of GDP and government budgets are balanced. Interest rates are best managed through the overnight cash market to restrain inflation to a 2% to 3% target. These nuts and bolts of market management are mainstream market theory and keep economies on a stable – as far as is possible – growth trajectory. The critical project for development is opening up markets for agricultural products. The Copenhagen Consensus found that a deal on the DOHA round of trade talks would make the world richer by $11-trillion by 2030.

  30. A polar vortex may yet again bring 2018/19 winter snow storms to the N.E., despite global warming alarmist predictions that the children of Leftists would by now, never again know what snow is. Since global warming has been a Left v. right issue and not fake news and phony science, we now see that the children of conservative parents apparently were raised with a better understanding appreciation for nature and are more prepared for life in the real world.

  31. “Abstract: This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm^−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases
    in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Large reductions in clear-sky SW TOA flux are also found over much of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in the northern hemisphere. These are associated with a reduction in aerosol optical depth consistent with stricter pollution controls in China and North America. A simple energy budget framework is used to show that TOA radiation (particularly in
    the SW) likely played a dominant role in driving the marked increase in temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

    Hiatus is entirely the wrong idea for what were climate shifts around 1912, 1944, 1976 and 1998. The next one is due soon – if it is not happening now. What are the chances of a shift to a cooler Pacific decadal mode and more cloud?

  32. My favorite equation. This is my Cosmological Equation:

    a = C1 – G m/(L R^2) – (C2/L) R = 0

    Where: a is cosmic acceleration, C1 and C2 are constants, G is gravitational constant, m is mass of ordinary matter in the universe, L is Lorentz factor, R is radius of universe. The fundamental theorem of algebra states that any n-degree polynomial has n roots. My Cosmological Equation has two roots of polynomial. The first root is the radius when the universe collapses into a black hole. The second root is the radius when gravity overcomes dark energy and acceleration of space expansion reverses into deceleration.

    This is from my Dark Force theory. It’s inevitable. The universe will collapse into a black hole. It will be one of the most important equations in physics. Hopefully before our universe collapses into a black hole :-0

  33. DCV is decadal climate variability – it caused most early century warming, all mid century cooling and at least half of late century warming. Some 0.3C over the last 40 years in this study.

    “Irrespective of exact methodology used to infer the internal component of the observed DCV, it appears that climate model simulations tend to underestimate its magnitude and fall short of faithfully replicating its spatial patterns.15,16,18,20,21,22,23 These deficiencies may have substantially contributed to climate models’ apparent lack of skill in reproducing recent decadal slowdown, or “hiatus” in the near-surface global warming of the Earth, although multiple factors could be at play. 22,23,24,25,26,27 Similar decadal discrepancies between modelled and observed decadal climate trends are ubiquitous throughout the twentieth century. 14,15,16,17,18,19,20 In this paper, we use an objective filtering method to succinctly characterise such observed-vs.-modelled decadal and longer time scale climate differences over the entirety of the twentieth century and show that these differences are dominated by a pronounced global multidecadal signal with a distinctive spatiotemporal structure absent from any of the model simulations considered.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

    The global signal translates through the system with some 40-50% of Arctic sea ice loss in the satellite era due to the global stadium wave in this study.

    “Here, through analysis of large ensembles of fully coupled climate model simulations with historical radiative forcing, we present an important internal mechanism arising from low-frequency Arctic atmospheric variability in models that can cause substantial summer sea ice melting in addition to that due to anthropogenic forcing. This simulated internal variability shows a strong similarity to the observed Arctic atmospheric change in the past 37 years. Through a fingerprint pattern matching method, we estimate that this internal variability contributes to about 40–50% of observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8?WT.feed_name=subjects_cryospheric-science

    The global energetics emerge largely from SW changes in the upwelling regions of the Pacific Ocean in this study.

    “Here we show that the subtropical signature of this warming, off Baja California, was associated with a record deficit in the spatial coverage of co‐located marine boundary layer clouds. This deficit coincided with a large increase in downwelling solar radiation that dominated the anomalous energy budget of the upper ocean, resulting in record‐breaking warm sea surface temperature anomalies. Our observation‐based analysis suggests that a positive cloud‐surface temperature feedback was key to the extreme intensity of the heatwave. The results demonstrate the extent to which boundary layer clouds can contribute to regional variations in climate.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078242

    And in this.

    “This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy
    System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2
    reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

    This “pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation” has reversed but short term changes in systems with large intrinsic interannual variance are not informative. But these recent studies are based on decades of patient scientific observation and analysis. It is no surprise – it has been known – but much of climate science has locked onto a paradigm with far too little explanatory power.

    The longer term evolution of the Pacific subsystem shows a 20th century peak in the intensity and frequency of Pacific warm states – likely modulated by solar variability. The natural element of modern era warming – manifesting as internal climate deterministically chaotic regime shifts – will be lost this century. The ‘hiatus’ is only just starting.

    • You can’t call it a “pause” while the heat content is growing relentlessly as Loeb showed.

      And there is no reason for it to stop while the forcing rises at 0.3 W/m2 per decade from increasing CO2. There is a positive imbalance because even after all this warming, the surface temperature lags the rising equilibrium level. The growing heat content may surprise you, but it doesn’t surprise anyone who sees what the CO2 is doing.

    • As i have shown previously. And in the context of the Loeb et al 2018 study – one of those of quoted above on SW dominance of post hiatus warming over the upwelling regions of the Pacific. As they say – if it is not in the atmosphere it must be in the oceans.

      The greenhouse gas imbalance relies on ultra slow diapycnal diffusion in models based on consideration of the collapse of gravity waves at the surface and the creation of small regions of turbulent dispersion to depth. The theory is of course that greenhouse gases slow the release of ocean heat to the atmosphere resulting in warming oceans. Some of that heat is then transported to depth resulting in accumulation of the tiny instantaneous increase – some 10^-9 W/m2 – in greenhouse gas forcing that sums in this simple conceptual model to the total average warming rate of oceans – some 0.8 W/m2 currently.

      But what happens if heat transport to depths through mesoscale eddies basin wide and 1000’s of meters deep is much faster? The variation of solar input on an annual basis of +/- 10 W/m2 as a result of current orbital eccentricity provides a way of tracing heat transfer through ocean layers in Argo data.

      The other direction heat moves is from the bottom from internal planetary heat by convection – at a rate of some 0.06 W/m2. Greenhouse gases slow ocean cooling rather than warming them.

      There is no 3000 years of heat in the pipeline. There are as well other questions to be answered about how and by how much internal variability is involved. The how is by dynamical complexity – and by how much was addressed very recently by Kravtsov et al 2018. Also quoted above. Most early 20th century warming was the result of reduced cloud over a warm Pacific, all mid century cooling was natural – offsetting AGW in the cool regime as Kravtsov et al say is possible – and some half of recent warming. Losing 20th century natural warming in the 21st will put a different complexion on things. And as Loeb et al also say – there is great uncertainty on how the rate of warming changed between climate regimes. But the next one is due within a decade if it is not happening now – and the instrumentation will be in place this time. The hiatus is just hitting its stride.

      #jiminy has his memes but very little curiosity as to the mechanics of climate. He says thermal inertia and calls it physics for instance – but the name for something is very different to the geophysical dynamics of specific systems. And still he insinuates that we have somehow forgotten about CO2. That is quite simply disingenuous. But I give him points for attempting a reply to a substantive comment – even if it is just memes on a loop.

    • The trajectory of surface warming has breakpoints around 1912, 1944, 1976 and 1998. Ignoring this obvious reality seems arbitrary denial.

      • The others, yes, 1998, not so much. That was in the middle of the ongoing warming trend.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/from:1988/trend

      • It is related to the Pacific state – as has been obvious for decades.


        Source: Kevin Tremberth

        As associated cloud changes modulate ocean energy content.

      • Maybe the reason it doesn’t show up globally is because it is just in the Pacific and the land is now warming at 0.3 C per decade, so it gets rather drowned out by what else is going on at the same time.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/from:1988/trend

      • The same wood for dimwits? And more garbled memes? Give it a break. How much proof does he need that this dominates warming in recent years (Loeb et al 2018, Myers et al 2018) and global cloud variability (Clements et al 2009).

      • According to you the warming should have stopped in 1998 (your breakpoint diagram, remember?). It didn’t even pause in the 30-year temperature, so now you have to go back to the drawing board and find out why it continued to warm at the same rate through now. The hiatus wasn’t one.

      • Again your 30 year trend is not regimes and is so irrelevant. Is this latest regime over yet – or are we about to get another big La Nina? Toss a coin.

      • It’s climate. If it doesn’t show up in a 30-year average, it is not climate and I am not interested.

      • It shows up in the tropics.

      • Not in the global average heat content either, see Loeb.

      • See Argo. Which is right and where is it going?

        I’d opt for Argo given the early century cool Pacific surface and more cloud.

        “Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

        But do you understand that this is all a blink of God’s eye?

      • “We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” Loeb et al 2018

        And he doesn’t read any of the literature cited – simply adapts the headlines to his memes.

      • Again, it doesn’t show up in 30-year data, so it is not climate. If you want to talk about self-canceling oscillations, fine. I’m not interested. This is about long-term trends. Look for the hiatus in this. It is insignificant.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

      • Warming from reduced cloud cover over the upwelling regions of the Pacific doesn’t show up in recent warming? That’s not what science says.

      • You will find that is a sub-30-year trend when you look at the Loeb paper because they only seem to consider 20 years total. Besides that is a feedback several models predicted (see emergent constraints studies).

      • They examine mechanisms revealed by CERES and MODIS – and that doesn’t require averages or trends. These haven’t emerged in the past week but operate at millennial scales.

        e.g. – warming by increased absorption of SW – and the majority of that has a revealing spatial signature.

        blob:https://wordpress.com/9dc66edd-ffaf-4bb0-82c2-6b98c73be911

        But it is far from a new idea.

        For an interesting account of the geophysics see Koren 2017.

        “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” blob:https://wordpress.com/9dc66edd-ffaf-4bb0-82c2-6b98c73be911

        And while there may be some positive modeled cloud feedback – see below – the spatial signature is very different (e.g. Zhu et al 2007) and even at the highest estimate cannot account for the amount of cloud change.

        Something is very fishy with #jiminy’s meme.

      • The planetary heat uptake did not pause and is a better measure of climate change than the surface temperature that has these variations on sub-30-year time scales. The net effect is that it became warmer and clouds had less albedo, a positive feedback effect also seen in models, and certainly these observations kills any skeptical wish for a negative cloud feedback during warming. And again, spot the hiatus if you can.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/best/from:1988/trend

      • It is a strange and desperate obsession to constantly make exactly the same comment. And the same odd and irrelevant claim about skeptics and cloud feedback.

        How much atmospheric warming was there and how much AGW cloud feedback? Do the math. Trivial when compared to observed SW warming.

        blob:https://wordpress.com/7f73a99a-ec18-4d4f-b3a4-70fb84210334

        Sea surface temperature on decadal to millennial scales is dominated by changes in the Pacific state and associated cloud cover – and planetary energetics – is confirmed by observation and theory as I have shown.

      • Why are you using models to make your case? If you are invoking a positive cloud feedback, adding in positive feedbacks for water vapor and surface snow/ice albedo, your TCR ends up in the 2 C range like I said, with ECS near 3 C. To get TCR, let alone ECS down to anything like 1.5 C, one of those three positive feedbacks needs to be large negative. Which one would you choose?

      • The Planck feedback – that you always neglect – is -3.2 W/m2 per K.

        I have discussed this with you before and the lack of progress is now more than a little tedious.

        And why would you imagine that a hydrodynamic modeler has anything but an appreciation of the uses and limitations of models?

      • The Planck Response is also known as the no-feedback response and sits between positive and negative feedback systems. Calling it a feedback instead of a response just confuses you when people talk about positive and negative feedbacks in the conventional way used for climate change.

      • The IPCC calls it a feedback – and it is simply an increase in IR emissions – to the 4th power – as the planet warms. For any reason. It is the fundamental climate feedback.

        This narrative gobbledygook from #jiminy goes beyond confusion.

      • When you heat something it warms. That is a response not a feedback. It does not feed back to anything. This is why you are so confused.

      • When it warms it emits more IR – that’s the feedback. Feedbacks are all about emissions – and the Planck feedback is the most certain and powerful.

      • It is not feeding back to anything. The sun warms something. The response doesn’t affect the sun. The feedback is to the response, and without something being defined as the no-feedback response, it would make no sense. It either amplifies or suppresses the no-feedback response. This is the common meaning used in climate science. Feedback is often visualized as an added loop to a direct response arrow.
        You are fast reaching Moncktonian levels of misunderstanding the meaning of feedbacks. I can’t help you.

      • The Planck feedback – named as such by the IPCC btw – is not a no feedback response by any stretch of the imagination – apart from #jiminy’s.

        It is a fundamental of physics defined for a blackbody by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

        I think he must imagine that the Earth warms for whatever reason but this doesn’t result in exponentially higher IR emissions at the warmer temperature.

      • It’s sloppy language. You have to be able to distinguish the no-feedback response from the feedback itself to understand what feedback is, otherwise you get very confused.

      • The planet will respond to warming by emitting exponentially more IR in a large negative feedback. Very basic physics. The process is and a core climate concept. And this way beyond tedious. Try to comprehend Stefan-Boltzman.

      • Define a positive feedback then. That also is a case of warming which you would also call a negative feedback. The only thing you would call a positive feedback is runaway warming or maybe that is extremely negative in your terms because it is even more warming than the Planck Response. Think about it. You see what a mess your definition is.

      • What utter nonsense.

        The Planck response is not 1.2 C – it is -3.1 W.m^-2.K^-1

      • OK, so you don’t even define the response in terms of how much warming it goes with. This may be why you can’t define a positive feedback. For you any amount of warming is a negative feedback, the more warming the more negative. Opposite to common sense.

      • Positive and negative feedbacks have +ve and -ve signs in front of them. It is explicit in the IPCC graphic. What’s your freakin point?

      • The Planck response is -3.2 W/m2/K. If the actual response is -1 W/m2/K that is still a negative feedback to you, but a strong positive feedback in climate terms because it would be 3.7 K per doubling instead of 1.2. See how opposite to reality your definition is?

      • The Planck feedback is -3.2 m-2 K^-1. The Plaqnck response is 1.2 K. Confusing? Not really.

      • So what is a positive feedback to you? Your definition has any warming at all as a negative feedback. The more warming the more negative. Doesn’t make sense.

      • The less negative the net feedback – the more the warming. Makes perfect sense.

        ΔTs=−(R/λ)

        For doubling of CO2 – with only the Planck feedback.

        ΔTs=−(4 W/m2 / -3.2 W m^2 K^-1) = 1.2 K

        Everything you don’t know is here. Pay particular attention to the derivation if you can.

        http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

      • That’s a confused definition. He defines the difference from the Planck Response as a positive or negative feedback, while also defining the Planck Response as a negative feedback itself when the difference from itself is zero implying zero feedback. Muddled. Two different contradictory negative feedback definitions. A mess you wouldn’t get into if you defined it as the Planck Response, not a feedback itself.

      • Well no – the Planck response to doubling of CO2 (1.2 K) is calculated – in the EBM – in terms of the Planck feedback (λ = -3.1 W m^-2 K^-1). λ can be relatively accurately determined which allows calculation of ΔTs.

        Where R is 4 W/m2.

        ΔTs=−(R/λ)

        Plugging in the sum of very uncertain IPCC estimates of feedbacks gives ECS.

        So I am of course Monktonian, the IPCC is sloppy and the post graduate climate modelling course notes are muddled? Is that about right?

      • If you’re defining the Planck response as a negative feedback, so is a conventional positive feedback because λ is still negative for that.

      • Huh? The Planck response (1.2K) is calculated from the Planck feedback (-3.2 W m^2 K^-1). . They are related but different. Stop mangling the ideas.

      • Conventionally a positive feedback amplifies a response and a negative feedback mutes it. This is how it is defined in climate and other fields.

      • B is less than A – but additive – or the system is unstable. These are the IPCC feedbacks. Nor am I guaranteeing their veracity – as Judith suggests in the link you attempted to divert with. But the Planck negative feedback exponentially increases with temperature and tends to drive the world towards transient energy balances.


        It is as simple as it gets. No wonder you don’t get the harder and more interesting stkuff.

      • Do you agree that an amplified response is a sign of a net positive feedback or not? It’s not a trick question.

      • No – the IPCC feedbacks can be summed – it’s not a trick answer.

        It is about forcing and response. The greater the negative net feedback the smaller the response. And the less negative the greater the response. But net feedback is negative – primarily because of the Planck feedback.

      • You say a net amplified response is not a positive feedback.

      • Less negative feedback leads to a larger response to the forcing. Simples to some but not to you.

      • Most people call an amplified response a positive feedback. That will help you to understand climate papers about sensitivity where you get 3 C per doubling instead of 1.2 C because of a net positive feedback. Your Albany reference explains this terminology towards the end there.

      • They calculate net feedbacks using the central model estimate of 4K as -1.3 W m^2 K^-1. If you sum the IPCC feedbacks it is -1.5 W m^-2 K^-1 for 2.6 K ECS with wide uncertainties.

        So all the world’s best climate scientists and their sloppy thinking v little #jiminy and his habitual prevarications?

      • … central model estimate of… 3K

      • You are hung up on the idea that warming is 1.2 K and this is amplified by feedbacks. Physics says that the forcing may or may not be some 4 W/m2 – see I am a skeptic – and the response depends on feedbacks – including the Planck feedback.

      • The Planck Response to 3.7 W/m2 (a CO2 doubling) is 1.2 K, and anything larger means there is a positive feedback, for example an ECS of 3 K or a TCR of 2 K per CO2 doubling show a net positive feedback.

      • “The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.”

        You continue to confuse the Planck feedback with the Planck response – the latter being purely theoretical. The planetary response to some 4 W/m2 forcing with a net negative feedback of -1.5 W m^-2 K^-1 is some 2.6 K. With considerable uncertainty.

        This analysis uses relative humidity as the state variable and calculates temperature (Planck), water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks.


        “Fig. 1. Temperature, lapse-rate, and water vapor feedback strengths in CMIP3 models from the traditional perspective with specific humidity as the state variable and from the alternative perspective with relative humidity as the state variable. (right three columns) The temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed specific humidity and the specific humidity feedback (red); (left three columns) the temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed relative humidity and the relative humidity feedback (blue). (central column) The sum of the three feedbacks, which is independent of the choice of decomposition (black). Each model result is indicated by a dot.”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1

        And there are other feedbacks in cloud, ice, CO2 sequestration and vegetation greening that are less amenable to precise or even approximate quantification.

        Take this as a Christmas present – your faux precision and intransigent certainty is unwarranted.

      • The Planck feedback is negative because a warmer planet emits more IR. The Planck response is the equilibrium warming without other feedbacks. So no I am not defining the Planck response as negative.

      • Almost. The Planck response is the warming without feedbacks.

      • The Planck response is based on forcing and the Planck feedback.

        I showed you the formula whose derivation involves differentiation of the Steffan-Boltzman equation.

        We have a forcing calculated at some 4 W/m2 – and the temperature increase – the Planck response – needed to cancel out that forcing is determined by the Planck feedback. That is and must be negative and is the most fundamental feedback. How do you imagine that a tendency to maximum entropy and a transient energy equilibrium works?

      • By your definition all feedbacks are negative including what everyone else calls positive ones.

      • By the IPCC graphics – that I have just posted yet again – some feedbacks are positive and some negative. The clue is the sign of the feedback on the left hanf axis.

      • What do you consider a net positive feedback to look like? Check your Albany reference if you’re not sure. Clue: it still has a negative lambda.

      • Water vapor is positive – clouds are presumptively positive. You can tell because they are above the zero.

        “We have defined things here such that λ>0 for a positive feedback, λ<0 for a negative feedback. That’s convenient!"

      • Using the 4 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 and IPCC feedbacks – with the simple formula in the link I provided earlier – you get an ECS of 2.6 K – depending largely on clouds. LOL.

        But that is really a quite pointless exercise. Much like this. You confuse the Planck response with the Planck feedback and piffle on with your usual snark. That is contrary to common sense.

      • Is an ECS of 2.6 K a positive or negative feedback to you?

      • Net feedbacks are always negative or the formula loses all physical meaning.

        ΔTs = -(R/λ)

        Plug in R for a CO2 doubling an net λ – in quadrature ideally to account for uncertainties.

        How accurate or useful is any of it? Not very – especially if you murder the basics. . .

      • You have your own definition then, because in climate, any sensitivity larger than 1.2 C per doubling signals a positive feedback, but a positive feedback is impossible under your definition just using a sign. You would be very confused by people talking about positive feedbacks if you really believe your definition of it.

      • 1.2 K is the response using only the Planck feedback – do you understand now why it is called the Planck response?

        But there are positive feedbacks shown in the IPCC graphics. The sum is also shown – and clouds may be positive if uncertain.

        The sum – is what you do with feedbacks – is less negative than the Planck feedback by itself and the response is greater.

        Are you not capable of understanding the link provided? Or are you simply arguing nonsense now for climate partisan reasons?

        http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

      • I am saying you have two different definitions of negative feedback in that article. Better to stick with sign of the difference from the Planck response, which is therefore the no-feedback response. See here, for example.
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity-part-ii/

      • The Planck feedback is given by the IPCC as -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1. The Planck response based on the Planck feedback is 1.2 K.

        You are mangling these different but related ideas.

      • This is a better link, just to get you on the same page with those who read this site.
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

      • So the no feedback sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 1 K. And we calculate that how?

        The Planck feedback can be calculated by CGM or a tuned EBM.

        “It means that, for every W m −2 of excess energy we put into our system, our model predicts that the surface temperature must increase by −1/λ=0.3 K in order to re-establish planetary energy balance.”

        The IPCC show the Planck feedback.

      • OK, so now what you call no-feedback is also the Planck Response. You have progressed. Your confusion arises because you don’t distinguish a feedback from a response. 1 C is the Planck Response. Positive feedbacks amplify this to give a larger response. They are multipliers because they are proportional to the response. If there was no response, there would be nothing for the feedback to act on.

      • The planetary response is to the forcing. This depends on feedbacks – including the temperature feedback.

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886599

      • You define the net feedback as negative whether it amplifies or suppresses the response. Not a useful definition. There’s the no-feedback response (just the well-defined passive response), and the feedback is defined relative to that.

      • There is the Planck response based on the temperature (Planck) feedback. Then there are other feedbacks defined by the IPCC, Isaac Held and anyone else who knows what they are talking about and don’t just repeat the same nonsense endlessly.

      • Yes, feedbacks are by definition proportional to the response.

      • The response is the temperature change such that:

        d(R)/dt = energy in – energy our = 0

        i.e energy equilibrium

        In the simple zero dimensional model described:

        ECS = F/λ

        where λ is the net negative sum of feedbacks – as defined in this instance by the IPCC and Isaac Held.

        So you can take your whatever this most recent refusal to admit error and confusion is with you on that theoretical – like the rest of this – flying leap.

      • You can read all what I said again. There is a no-feedback response and that is the Planck response. This means that with the Planck response by itself, there is no feedback. The concept of a Planck feedback, that you keep using, is an oxymoron by the conventional definition of a feedback. If you insist on having a Planck feedback, you are using a different definition from normal and just confusing yourself with two definitions of feedback.

      • The IPCC call it the Planck feedback – Isaac Held the temperature feedback. It is simply that a warmer planet emits exponentially more IR.

        It is getting creepy now Jimbo.

      • Feeding back to what exactly? It’s not the kind you get in the feedback loop circuit for sure because it doesn’t affect the source.

      • The negative lapse rate feedback increases IR losses to space on a warmer planet. So does the temperature feedback. That should be obvious.

      • The temperature does not feed back. The temperature responds. The IR does not feed back. It is emitted as a response. This is a loose use of the word. This is not called a no-feedback response for nothing.

      • You can’t see how increased IR emissions from a warmer planet is a negative feedback? You are on your own there #jimbo. Don’t have a meltdown.

      • Your definition of a negative feedback also includes a standard positive feedback. It’s your problem.

      • It is not my definition but the IPCC and Isaac Held – and everyone else but the blog you got this meme from. The state variable is forcing and the planetary response is to cancel it out. The temperature feedback increases IR losses exponentially from a warming planet (negative feedback) – clouds in a warming world may increase SW warming (positive feedbback). It is clear that in imaging that I, the IPCC and Isaac Held have conflated positive and negative feedbacks that you don’t have the slightest freakin’ clue.

      • Despite all your words, I think you know what people mean by a positive feedback being defined as amplifying the Planck Response, and a negative feedback reducing it.

      • By people I take it you mean the blog you got the meme from. 😎

      • OK, we have established that you don’t know the normal definition of a positive feedback or believe in such a thing as a no-feedback response. This comes from one of your own references.
        “We will call amplifying feedbacks positive and damping feedbacks negative.”

      • Temperature, lapse and water vapor feedbacks using the RH decomposition method – compared to the earlier method using specific humidity as the state variable.


        “Fig. 1. Temperature, lapse-rate, and water vapor feedback strengths in CMIP3 models from the traditional perspective with specific humidity as the state variable and from the alternative perspective with relative humidity as the state variable. (right three columns) The temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed specific humidity and the specific humidity feedback (red); (left three columns) the temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed relative humidity and the relative humidity feedback (blue). (central column) The sum of the three feedbacks, which is independent of the choice of decomposition (black). Each model result is indicated by a dot.”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1

        Here positive feedbacks amplify the planetary response to forcing and negative feedbacks reduce equilibrium warming at a restored energy equilibrium at TOA.

        Although the real world energy balance at any time is dynamic and is determined largely by chaotic patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation. And there are other feedbacks to forcing changes in cloud, ice, CO2 sequestration and vegetation greening that are less amenable to precise or even approximate quantification.

        As explained a dozen times at least the Planck response is the temperature change needed to cancel a forcing imbalance at TOA considering only the temperature (Planck) feedback.

        It can’t be put more simply or with more authoritative sources.

      • Yes, you are using a second definition of feedback, when most people use the other one that is more useful because it contains the concept of a positive feedback too. And I am not sure you know what the other one is. In the other one, the concept of a no-feedback response makes sense, while in yours it is a self-contradiction. Just say what’s wrong with this article. This definition is nothing new, but apparently it is to you.
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

      • Which people would these be? Not the IPCC, not Isaac Held, not the graduate course notes #jiminy keeps misapplying. The IPCC and Held feedbacks have been shown several times – and the closest $jiminy comes to acknowledging this is calling it sloppy thinking. Positive and negative feedbaxks are shown. Positive feedbcks make the net less negative and the ECS higher.

        “The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.”

        Does Judith Curry understand this?

        “Determination of the no feedback sensitivity has two parts:

        – calculation of the direct radiative forcing associated with doubling CO2
        – determination of the equilibrium change of global mean surface temperature in response to the CO2 forcing”

        Easy enough to calculate:

        ECS = -F/λ = -3.7 W m^-2 / -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1
        = 1.2 K

        where -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1 is the temperature (Planck) feedback. Positive feedbacks make net λ less negative and ECS is higher.

        So nothing wrong with the definition – but the terminology has confused #jiminy. It is more precise to call it the Planck response than the no-feedback response – as he does interchangeably. It is the same thing. There are not two definitions except in #jiminy’s confused refusal to accept that increased emissions in a warmer world is a negative feedback that proceeds until forcing is negated. There is only one way to make sense of this – despite what #jiminys unnamed ‘people’ might think.

        This is such a simple and obvious thing that it illuminates a vexing dynamic. I have wondered at the reason for their aberrantly tenacious reiteration of error – almost inevitably spiced with disparagement or outright invective. Is it personality? Are they just those sort of people? Is it groupthink? Can they not admit error or uncertainty because it undermines the progressive – always with these AGW tragics – culture creating cognitive dissonance? Is it just that the group construct relies on being more moral and smarter than outsiders? Any concession to fallibility is the thin edge of the wedge? Is it all of the above?

      • This is the kind of confusion you get into with two definitions in your head that you can’t distinguish from each other. Do you even know what the definition using the feedback loop and amplification factor is? I’m asking. Clue: It is in your Albany reference towards the end where they introduce positive feedbacks with an equation.
        Who are these people who talk about net positive feedbacks, you ask? Pretty much everyone.
        Who says a net positive feedback is actually a negative feedback? Just you.

      • Sum the IPCC feedbacks. Oh wait – they do it for you.

      • “We will call amplifying feedbacks positive and damping feedbacks negative.”
        Agree? Do you see the difference from the definition that just uses λ?
        Definition 1: Based on the sign of λ. Net positive feedback impossible.
        Definition 2: Based on the amplification λ/λo. Net positive feedback possible. Feedback loop definition.
        Do you see that there are two separate definitions yet? Do you see that I have been telling you this all along?

      • ECS = ERF/ total feedback – see AR5 figure 9.43

        for a net downward ERF and net negative feedbacks ECS is positive.

        “Things to note:

        The models all agree strongly on the Planck feedback.
        The Planck feedback is about λ0=−3.3 W m−2 K−1 just like our above estimate.

        The water vapor feedback is strongly positive in every model.

        The lapse rate feedback is something we will study later. It is slightly negative.

        For reasons we will discuss later, the best way to measure the water vapor feedback is to combine it with lapse rate feedback.

        Models agree strongly on the combined water vapor plus lapse rate feedback.

        The albedo feedback is slightly positive but rather small globally.

        By far the largest spread across the models occurs in the cloud feedback.

        Global cloud feedback ranges from slighly negative to strongly positive across the models.

        Most of the spread in the total feedback is due to the spread in the cloud feedback.

        Therefore, most of the spread in the ECS across the models is due to the spread in the cloud feedback.

        Our estimate of +2.0 W m−2 K−1 for all the missing processes is consistent with the GCM ensemble.”

        The ‘missing processes’ are everything but the Planck feedback. All are simply additive and your definitions either spring from abject confusion or are intended to deceive and confuse.

      • The quote I gave about amplification comes from that same reference. He uses both definitions, but you weren’t able to tell them apart. That article can confuse the unwitting which is why I called it sloppy.

      • It has one simple meaning – consistent with the IPCC and Isaac Held you also called sloppy. Feedback is given in terms of W m^2 K^-1 – all of them. It may be either positive or negative – but is net negative except during glacial/interglacial transitions. The former is obvious the latter is something I have learned from the University of Albany – ATM 623: Climate Modeling lecture notes.

        Amplifying and damping can be seen in the simple formula for ECS.

        ECS = ERF/total feedback

        Gives an ECS of 2.5 K using the median values of Held/IPCC feedbacks. Positive feedbacks increase ECS and negative reduce it. Amplifying and damping.

        But these estimates are so uncertain and so incomplete that it remains a trivial exercise. One that $jiminy refuses to comprehend – or pretends not to.

      • We have established many times already that you don’t know the feedback loop definition that defines the Planck Response as a no-feedback response, and defines a net positive feedback as an amplification of the Planck Response.

      • What is demonstrated is that you still don’t understand what it is that is being fed back into. Positive feedbacks amplify TOA radiant imbalances and negative damp them. Net feedbacks are negative – thus no runaway global change. Except at glacial/interglacial transitions.

      • Do you consider a TCR around 2 C as having a positive feedback or a “less negative” feedback? Convention calls it the former.

      • ECS is the temperature increase when increased forcing is compensated for by increased losses at TOA – from primarily the negative temperature feedback – as these things are ‘conventionally’ understood.

        TCRE is a more powerful idea – and it is at the low end of the IPCC 0.8 to 1.8 K range.

      • I keep responding to your leading questions. Is there an end to this aberrant tenacity in sight?

      • I think we have established that you don’t understand what an amplifying feedback is.

      • An amplifying feedback such as water vapor feedbacks into a larger positive TOA net radiant imbalance. Duh.

      • What does it amplify? It amplifies the response. Also known as a positive feedback.

      • It amplifies radiant imbalances at TOA that are the origin of warming or cooling. But net feedbacks necessarily reduce radiant imbalances to zero at energy equilibrium.

      • It’s the response that reduces the imbalance when you think about it. You don’t need a feedback, just the Planck Response. Confused yet?

      • Here’s the IPCC figure they introduce.

        “Legend:

        P: Planck feedback
        WV: Water vapor feedback
        LR: Lapse rate feedback
        WV+LR: combined water vapor plus lapse rate feedback
        C: cloud feedback
        A: surface albedo feedback
        ALL: sum of all feedback except Plank, i.e. ALL = WV+LR+C+A”

        Feedbacks are net negative – except when there are runaway ice sheet feedbacks. Is what they actually say.

      • Definition 1. Net positive feedback impossible. You keep saying this as though you have never heard of Definition 2 or the feedback loop concept.

      • Definition 2 you imagine and then give a fake math for – and the temperature feedback is the basis of black body physics.

      • Yes, you don’t know this definition. I keep telling you that and you keep telling me that.

      • This is no non radiative definition of feedback. Temperature changes toa radiant flux with net negative feedbacks until the forcing is negated. There is no other meaning. .

      • I, and most people, use the feedback loop definition of a feedback, which has a direct (no-feedback) response and may have a feedback proportional to that response.

      • Feedbacks are to TOA radiant energy. Warming without increasing radiant losses at TOA is profoundly unphysical.

      • All your feedbacks are negative when defined as just warming. No distinction between amplifying and suppressing the Planck Response which is the main interest in climate science.

      • Some feedbacks are given by the IPCC, Held and Shell 2012, etc. They are positive and negative. And really all that matters in this simplified aspect of Earth system science is the forcing and the response mediated by feedbacks.

      • If you can define a net positive feedback, do so. It doesn’t happen under your very limited definition. And I don’t mean individual positive feedbacks, I mean net total.

      • n this cartoon universe we have a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 and feedbacks of – 3.7 W/m2 at a specific temperature.

        ECS = ERF/total feedbacks

        So yes – net feedbacls are negative. Always – except perhaps in glacial/interglacial transitions.

      • Yes, because you don’t understand the conventional circuit definition where there can be a net positive feedback (see feedback loop).

      • Forcing causes changes in the system that feedback into energy imbalances at toa. That’s the ‘conventional’ understanding.

      • The system responds to forcing.

      • “The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.

        As we will see, our estimate of λ0=−3.3 W m−2 K−1 is essentially the same as the Planck feedback diagnosed from complex GCMs. Unlike our simple zero-dimensional model, however, most other climate models (and the real climate system) have other radiative processes, such that λ≠λ0 .”

        You show the schematic of an electronic circuit – and neglect the rest?

      • Under the diagram it says “We will call amplifying feedbacks positive and damping feedbacks negative.
        We can think of the “process” here as the entire climate system, which contains many examples of both positive and negative feedback.”

      • These feedbacks are to TOA radiant energy.

      • How do you interpret a positive feedback as an amplification of that? It is an amplification of the Planck Response, of course.

      • I think you will have to work out for yourself how processes quantified as +/- W m^2 K^-1 are related to TOA power flux.

      • That’s a response, not a feedback. There’s a difference. Feedback determines the size of the response.

      • They are called feedbacks by the IPCC and Isaac Held and everyone else for a reason. And the sum of feedbacks in relation to forcing determines the temperature response.

      • Compete circle. It is loose language that confuses you. You have one word for feedback and response and therefore can’t distinguish them. The size of the response depends on the net feedback.

      • No it is not ‘loose language – it is how feedbacks to forcing work. ECS is the temperature at which 3.7 W/m2 is negated.

        ECS = ERF/total feedbacks – at an energy equilibrium at TOA.

        This is beyond a joke even for me.

      • You have one word for two completely different things. You can have a response without a feedback and that reduces the imbalance too.

      • Not even close – you can’t have a forcing without it causing a temperature change – and multiple feedbacks from the response cancels out the forcing at a specific temperature..

      • The concept of a no-feedback response makes your head explode, but for others it has been normal. No one complained here when it was talked about in detail, but you would have had a conniption at this posting.
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

      • The Planck response is the temperature increase considering only the temperature (Plank) feedback. In reality of course all feedbacks happen concurrently.

        ECS(Planck response) = ERF/Planck feedback = 3.7 Wm^-2 / 3.2 W m^-2 k^-1 = 1.2 K

        Consistent with the IPCC, Isaac Held, the University of Albany post graduate climate modelling course notes and the Judith Curry blog post. You are the odd one out #jiminy and it is all because the temperature (Planck) feedback doesn’t seem to be real for you. A very odd oversight that you cling to with aberrant tenacity.

        Do you have a different mathematical model? Any other standard means of calculating the Planck response for the forcing and the Planck feedback?

      • You know what the Planck Response is (dF/λo), and maybe you know what the actual response is (dF/λ), where F is the forcing, and maybe you even understand that when the actual response is larger than the Planck Response, there has been a positive feedback (λ < λo), and when it is less there is a negative feedback, and when it is the same, there has been no feedback (λ=λo). This is not a difficult thing to understand. Which part do you have trouble with?

      • λo is the temperature (Planck) feedback: -3.2 W^-2 K^-1

        λ=λ0+λ1+λ2+… < 0 in current day conditions. Not difficult to verify. Just add up the estimates in any of the sources given.

        http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html#Decomposing-the-feedback-into-additive-components

        "QUESTION: what is the sign of λ?

        Could there be energy balance for a planet with a positive λ? Think about your experiences timestepping the energy budget equation."

      • This will confuse you even more. λ is often defined positive as in
        dF = λ dT
        Positive forcing leads to positive warming. The more general situation is when there is an imbalance you get (H is the heat content)
        dF = dH/dt + λ dT
        In a steady state, the forcing change is balanced by a warming. λ depends on feedbacks and gets smaller for positive feedbacks.

      • “Given sufficient time, the system will reach its new equilibrium temperature, at which point

        dΔTs/dt=0

        And the perturbation budget is thus

        0=R+λΔTs

        or

        ΔTs=−R/ λ

        where R is the forcing in W m^−2 and λ is the feedback in W m^−2 K^−1 .”

        λ is always negative – ΔTs approaches infinity as λ approaches zero. Net positive feedbacks (to TOA radiant energy) would lead to instability.

      • Having a negatively defined λ is the other odd thing about those equations. More often you will see that a positive forcing is proportional to a positive dT with a positive λ.

      • The form of the equation emerges from the derivation as shown – the sign of the net feedbacks emerges from summing the individual components. If λ were net positive – we wouldn’t be arguing about it.

      • Everyone else uses a positive λ. Just saying. It makes more sense because positive forcing leads to warming and it is closely related to the climate sensitivity that is also positive.

      • ECS = -R/ λ = -3.7/-1.5 = 2.5 K – with a large uncertainty – perfect mathematical logic. But you can do what you like with the signs as long as it makes physical sense.

        -1.5 W m^-2 K&-1 being about the sum of IPCC feedbacks.

      • And to you that is not a positive feedback.

      • Forcing creates warming which creates positive and negative feedbacks – with the negative temperature feedback dominating and driving the planet to energy equilibrium at TOA. These are simple physical realities.

      • Your conflation of responses with feedbacks leads to this kind of confusion. When you finally really there is such a thing as a no-feedback response, you’ll see the light. What you’re doing is like saying the water boiling on the stove is feeding back to the stove. No, it is responding to the stove.

      • Argument by analogy is lost on me. “Planck’s radiation law, a mathematical relationship formulated in 1900 by German physicist Max Planck to explain the spectral-energy distribution of radiation emitted by a blackbody (a hypothetical body that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it, reaches some equilibrium temperature, and then reemits that energy as quickly as it absorbs it). Planck assumed that the sources of radiation are atoms in a state of oscillation and that the vibrational energy of each oscillator may have any of a series of discrete values but never any value between. Planck further assumed that when an oscillator changes from a state of energy E1 to a state of lower energy E2, the discrete amount of energy E1 − E2, or quantum of radiation, is equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation, symbolized by the Greek letter ν and a constant h, now called Planck’s constant, that he determined from blackbody radiation data; i.e., E1 − E2 = hν.” https://www.britannica.com/science/Plancks-radiation-law

        Bold mine. The idea that the planet can warm without reradiating exponentially more energy – proportional to the 1st differential of the Steffan-Boltzman equation – is abysmal nonsense. The comment itself is merely words laced with the habitual disparagement of ‘skeptics’ and repeated with aberrant tenacity.

      • Clearly you have not understood that I am agreeing warming causes more emission.

      • So now we have come full circle and you are instructing me in what I have said all along? Forcing causes warming and a warming planet emits exponentially more energy – a negative feedback to forcing at at toa where it counts – until an equilibrium temperature is reached and energy in is equal to energy out. And still I don’t understand?

      • It’s what you’re calling it. Does a chicken feed back when you put it in the oven to cook?

      • Are you calling me a chicken? Actually it is what the IPCC, Isaac Held, Brian Rose and everyone else calls it. As I said in the beginning. Sloppy thinking was your explanation. I’m fixing to put a chicken on for dinner – so I’ll let you know. But I’m pretty that an an equilibrium temperature can be reached. But unless you are doing ultra slow cooking the outside will be burnt long before the interior reaches that point.

      • All those people know the difference between a response and a feedback and you can tell by what they have written on the subject of defining a net positive feedback as an amplified response that you prefer to ignore even when it is in the same article. For you a net positive feedback is an impossible thing as is a no-feedback response. For them it is not, because they understand those concepts in terms of a feedback loop.

      • “The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.

        As we will see, our estimate of λ0=−3.3 W m−2 K−1 is essentially the same as the Planck feedback diagnosed from complex GCMs. Unlike our simple zero-dimensional model, however, most other climate models (and the real climate system) have other radiative processes, such that λ≠λ0 .” http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

        You are well beyond the pale #jiminy.

      • You said that, but still don’t have an answer to this. It’s common knowledge (except you). Are they all wrong or what?
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/


      • “Fig. 1. Diagram showing forcing–feedback concepts for global temperature and methods of diagnosing them. (a) Full system, with shortwave albedo effects in the top part and longwave in the bottom part. Traditionally defined forcing occurs via green arrow (in the case of solar forcing) or red arrows (other forcings) from perturbation to the TOA energy imbalance . Adjustments also occur via red arrows. Feedbacks occur via blue arrows, with the Planck response shown by the direct arrow from to . Feedbacks and adjustments can be diagnosed simultaneously by the regression method. (b) Traditional view of the Planck system with no adjustments (nor feedbacks). (c),(d) Reduced atmosphere-only system with fixed SST. Adjustments can be diagnosed by observing change in after applying a perturbation with SST fixed (c); feedbacks can be diagnosed by observing changes in after changing the SST with no (other) perturbation (d).” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1

        (a) is the relevant circuit. Feedbacks are in blue – and here it is called the Planck response. It is not the equilibrium temperature change but the increased IR emission at a higher temperature. Always given as some -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1. A negative feedback that the IPCC, and Rose call the Planck feedback and Held and Spell called the temperature feedback. What Judith called the no-feedback response is the temperature change for 3.7 W/m2 forcing with a temperature feedback of -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1. That is – a feedback that at the warmer temperature is equal to the forcing. Some 1.2 K.

        It seems more precise to distinguish the Planck response – 1.2 K from the temperature feedback – -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1.

        Now you may call it whatever you like but if it is not accounted for you are missing a fundamental climate dynamic. Then you end up pontificating in your inimitable and interminable way about positive feedbacks amplifying the purely theoretical Planck (temperature) response.

        Positive and negative feedbacks act to increase or decrease – amplify or damp in the language of Rose – respectively – radiant energy imbalances at toa thus influencing ECS. Feedbacks act concurrently and they are additive. Add then up.


        Last time – promise. The EBM math is not ambigous at all. A shame you don’t have any.

      • Yes, it certainly is important to distinguish the Planck Response from the actual temperature response because that ratio tells you whether you have a positive feedback or not.

      • What says that there is a net negative feedback is summing the feedbacks. Try it sometime.

      • That’s because of your definition of a feedback that doesn’t allow for such a thing as a no-feedback response or a net positive feedback. It’s what happens when you don’t use the feedback loop definition that you have not yet even shown a dim light of understanding.

      • Does a warmer planet emit exponentially more IR or not?

      • Yes, the IR emission responds to warming but the proportionality (λ) depends on feedbacks. Without feedbacks, it is λo.

      • “This is called the Planck feedback because it is fundamentally due to the Planck blackbody radiation law (warmer temperatures = higher emission).”

      • Known more precisely as the Planck Response to avoid confusion with actual feedbacks that act in proportion to it, and are quite different things. A feedback can’t exist without a response, but a response can exist without a feedback.

      • A warming from forcing can’t exist without feeding back into energy dynamics at toa – known as the Planck feedback. It is distinguished from the Planck response – which is a temperature response considering only the temperature (Planck) feedback. The Planck response lacks any physical meaning – the Planck feedback is the fundamental energy dynamic driving the planet to a transient TOA energy equilibrium at maximum entropy. Not understanding this is to not understand Earth geophysics at all.

      • The Planck Response is the default response of a passive body to forcing, about 1 K for each 3.3 W/m2 added forcing. Note this is positive because you get warming for a positive forcing. The Earth doesn’t have the Planck Response because it also has feedbacks, so it ends up being about 1 K for only 1.5 W/m2, a positive feedback because it warms more than a Planck body for a given forcing which is only possible because of a feedback loop that modifies the original response.

      • words words words…

        The Planck response is this unphysical notion of warming from forcing that negates the forcing with the temperature feedback alone. When you actually sum the listed feedbacks – some of which are positive – there is a more realistic warming estimate – depending of course on how realistic the forcing and feedback estimates are.

      • It doesn’t negate the forcing – it responds to the forcing by warming. The forcing is still there (raised CO2 levels, the sun, whatever the cause). The only thing negated is the imbalance.

      • Anyone else recognise that the radiative imbalance is the forcing?

        “Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive”
        Sir Walter Scott

      • A change in forcing causes a temporary imbalance. The response removes that.

      • reply in moderation – could take a while

      • Correction…

        ECS = -F/λ

      • Does he imagine that the Planck response is simply a warmer body – and then you get cloud, lapse and water vapor feedbacks? That would be error at a very basic level.

      • The Planck Response is defined as the warming you get with no feedbacks. There’s the Forcing and the Response, and also potentially Feedbacks to the Response that amplify or suppress it. The Planck Response to doubling CO2 is about 1.2 C. Larger responses come from a positive feedback and smaller ones from a negative feedback. The response is the warming and the Planck Response is a special case.

      • “The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.

        As we will see, our estimate of λ0=−3.3 W m^−2 K^−1 is essentially the same as the Planck feedback diagnosed from complex GCMs. Unlike our simple zero-dimensional model, however, most other climate models (and the real climate system) have other radiative processes, such that λ≠λ0 .”
        http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20–%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

      • A ‘blob’ turned up in WP again.

      • First reply in moderation. Basically they show that a positive cloud feedback occurs in warming conditions as it does in the more sensitive models that emergent constraints tend to back up. Not good for the last great hope of skeptics who wanted a low sensitivity from a negative cloud feedback, right?

      • The modeled cloud feedbacks are shown below. And models are discussed. This is just narrative clutching at straws from #jiminy.

        The surface observations linked, the geophysics quoted and the satellite data cited all say something different.

      • The observations show the cloud albedo reducing over sea-surface warming, a positive feedback. A negative feedback would have had the albedo responding in the opposite direction as the surface warms.

      • The upwelling region of the eastern Pacific is where sea surface temperature changes most over a large portion of the oceanic tropics and subtropics. This doesn’t happen? And this pattern of stochastically forced charge/discharge doesn’t evolve chaotically over decades to millennia? As in the quote from Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer above?

      • In what world is this chaotic? At 0.995 correlation since 1968, it is about the most ordered response you can expect from observational data.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.005/mean:80/offset:-0.6/mean:40/plot/best/from:1988/trend

      • In the world of scientific realists the Earth system is chaotic. This was covered in the discussion of modest and transient AGW superimposed on a world of perpetual chaotic change.

      • Some can’t understand the forcing and response overlaid in this way. They’re still trying to figure it out. Big forcing = big response. Drowns out chaos too. Signal over noise.

      • And again with his silly little correlation that says nothing about this other thing happening in climate that caused at least half the warming in the last 40 years – including most of the recent spike.

      • When you find “this other thing” that has also steadily increased by 1 W/m2 over the last 40 years to mimic the CO2 increase, let us know.

      • “With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, −2.1, and 1.4 W m^−2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5 W m^−2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.”

        You might note that -0.2 C warming in the 1990’s times 0.25 0.2 W/m2/K is O.5 W.m2 feedback.

        The pattern is confirmed in CERES. The next climate shift is due within the decade – if it is not happening now – and this time we will definitively have the instrumentation in place. Tick tock.

      • correction … You might note that 0.2 K warming in the 1990’s times 0.5 W per m2 per K is O.1 W/m2 feedback…

      • And no one mentioned negative cloud feedback but #jiminy. The Pacific state turbo charges the process feeding into planetary energy content.

        To ignore this is simply blind stupidity,

      • If you want ECS to be in the 1.5 C range including water vapor feedback, you need another negative feedback too. They pinned their hopes on clouds. But the clouds are thinning while it is warming. Oh, well.
        Anyway with an effective TCR ~2 C, that kind of ECS is a non-starter just numerically because with a positive imbalance, ECS > TCR.

      • You do understand that TCR and ECS are not expected to anticipate climate change (Knutti et al 2017 – https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/47047908/knutti17nat_public.pdf)

        But as net feedbacks are negative – I expect ECS to be less that 1.2 C.

        But by far the more relevant metric is the current rate of warming.

        Do they imagine it to be higher than this?

      • I agree with Knutti that the relevant metric for policy is TCRE. I have a TCRE of 1.8 C per 1000 GtC (within their range), or I usually have stated it as 1 C per 2000 GtCO2, where for my number the emissions are those up to 2100. Given about a 6000 GtCO2 range based on policy through 2100, that is about a 3 C range in consequences.

      • “The arguably most powerful recent new insight for mitigation decision is that transient warming is nearly proportional to the total emitted carbon. This concept is captured in a parameter called the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE), and is another central emerging
        climate system property. It is defined as the global temperature change for 1000 GtC of carbon emissions. The TCRE is estimated by IPCC to ‘likely’ (>66% probability) be in the range 0.8-2.5°C per 1000 GtC (1 GtC = 10^15 grams of carbon = 3.67 GtCO2) for emissions up to about 2000 GtC and until temperatures peak (see Methods). Even though the limits of the TCRE concept remain to be fully understood, TRCE relates climate targets more directly to emission reductions needed than ECS 114: any temperature target implies a limit on the cumulative emission budget. To ‘likely’ remain below 2°C, about two thirds of the total ‘permitted’ emissions have been emitted already 7,115.”

        Total post 1944 cumulative CO2 emissions (to 2010) is some 500 GtC – for a temperature rise of 0.4 C. It suggests a TCRE at the low end of IPCC projections. And a near term maximum rate of surface temperature increase of 0.1 K/decade.

        The start date is based on internal decadal climate modes of course.

      • If you want to compute it for the past, which it isn’t used for, it is 1 C from nearly 2000 GtCO2, which is similar to my number of 1.8C per 1000 GtC for the future. Adding each 2000 GtCO2 more adds another degree C. Note that adding only 2000 GtCO2 through 2100 requires a significant amount of mitigation.

      • It is based on cumulative historical emissions and the temperature response – so I have had enough of your motivated BS,

        The TRCE is at the bottom end of the IPCC range – 0.8 K/1000 GtC as I said.

      • We have had 1 C of warming and 500 GtC emitted. Do the numbers.

      • We have had some 500 GtC cumulative emissions from 1944 to 2010 – and some 0.4 K net warming. QED.

      • With realistic assessment of internal – that is a #jiminy fail.

      • Find a paper that allocates 0.4 C over the last 70 years to anything else. That’s a whole stadium wave cycle, so net zero there for Kravtsov who has a net decline since 1980 anyway. What else have you got? Lewis and Curry allocate it all to anthropogenic forcing. The sun has declined since 1950. You’re making a case that no one agrees with.

      • There was some cooling from 1944 and warming since. And I have quoted below from Wong et al 2006 inter alia below – try responding to that.

        “In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and
        tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated
        by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability
        of the climate system.” IPCC AR4 3.4.4.1

        It is very real SW warming of the Earth and confirmed by later satellite ans surface observation. And to claim yet again that climate shifts are periodic on the scale of decades is beyond tedious. Nor did

        And he has of course misunderstood the nature of the global stadium wave. The timing depends on location.


        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

      • If you look, he has a global one that he calls GMO and it has been downwards since about 1980. Does that destroy your stadium wave argument for the last 40 years of warming?

      • That seems to be a normalized index of differences between rescaled models and observations. It should not be viewed in isolation.

        “To compare the observed and model-simulated secular signals, we first rescaled the latter signals (at each grid point throughout the globe) via linear regression to best match the observed signal.14,15,20 This procedure is standard and designed to correct for biases in the models’ transient climate response; note that it minimises, by construction, the differences between models and observations. These differences, however, still turn out to be large enough to be able to modify and reverse regional, as well as global climate trends on multidecadal timescales of 30–50 years (Fig. 2).”

        See Figure 2. And we have other information on what was physically happening in the Earth system.

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886513

      • It requires no mitigation at all in this first order estimation. There are other pragmatic considerations that I have discussed endlessly – and pointlessly where you are concerned.

      • You have the wrong numbers, that’s why.

      • No #jiminy – you and your motivated numbers are very silly.

      • It does show up in oceans – and it does show up at TOA. That’s the point of data.

      • Get one single scientist writing the papers you are quoting to agree that the 1/2 of the warming since 1980 is natural.

        They won’t.

        Try 1/3rd.

        They won’t.

        Try 1/4th.

        They won’t.

        Try 1/8th.

        They likely will not agree to that.

      • “The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        Taking the trend over the period of increasing forcing post war – there is some nullifying and doubling in there – gives a trend of some 0.1 C/decade. Can AGW be worse that that? Although its adherents mightily are.

        But for 20 to 30 year periodicities you need not 30 years of data but hundreds at least – and that shows a cool Pacific state prior to the 20th century, a cooler sun and a cooler planet. They may be correlated. And we may be headed that way again.

      • Warmists, Activists, Totally Committed, et al

        I wonder if all those links, graphs and pretty pictures are redeemable for insurance premiums for grief counseling once the Arctic Sea Ice recovers and the inexhaustible supply of excuses is running on empty. Won’t be a pretty picture given the very self esteem of millions depend on continuation of the AGW narrative. But, there will always be a recycled Malthusian bandwagon, if nothing else.

      • Robert, Am I correct that your feedback factor chart shows that cloud feedbacks are much less positive in CMIP5 than in CMIP3? In fact it looks to me like CMIP5 is pretty close to zero. It also looks to me as if the total of all feedbacks has also come down significantly.

      • I’d take the grey one in Fig 7.10 – with a grain of salt.

        https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~amfiore/ar5/Keren_Ch7.pdf

      • Robert, Thanks for that link. It gives me a good idea of the uncertainties.

    • Blanket denial of whole swathes of mainstream science – and entrenched agnotology from progressive AGW fanatics. Did I expect anything different?

      The longer term evolution of the Pacific subsystem shows a 20th century peak in the intensity and frequency of Pacific warm states – likely modulated by solar variability. The natural element of modern era warming – manifesting as internal deterministically chaotic climate regime shifts – energetically manifesting in cloud variability – will be lost this century. The ‘hiatus’ is only just starting.

      Tick tock.

  34. Uncertainty:

    When listening to this section, think of the certainty around the whole debate. And how arguments are boiled down. It is certain that, 97% believe this. It’s easy. Next subject. While there are methane emissions, CO2 stands in for everything. And mitigation stands in for everything, to point the of having to hammer at adaptation to overcome a perception that is must be some trick to bamboozle the masses. And we can’t trust Lomborg. The certainty that fossil fuels are bad. It’s so simplified. Once they are anchored in certainty, they can go after others not agreeing. With enthusiasm. They keep finding their bible is true. They fall over themselves proving it is true. Their salvation may be in narrowing the ECS. They keep chasing away false gods.

  35. ‘PewDiePie’s Battle for the Soul of the Internet’
    This article is kind of related. Control and value. Where is the IPCC or peer reviewed papers in the midst of all this? The stone age. The message, whatever it is, might be on youtube. A guy like Joe Rogan may have as much reach as CNN. He put a video up yesterday. Over a million views. A two hour video.

  36. Another interminable talking point about models and feedbacks above sans much in way of data. Here are the AR5 ‘forcings’. Note the uncertainties – that will be important in modelling outcomes. The warming potential of black carbon – btw – seems underestimated by a factor of three given findings of up to date atmospheric chemistry.

    Most of these emerge from CGM in one way or another. Feedbacks emerge from models. Note that they are always net negative even given the vagaries of cloud modelling.


    Uncertainties become important in models as sources of sensitive dependence to initial condition.

    “In 1963, Lorenz published his seminal paper on ‘Deterministic non-periodic flow’, which was to change the course of weather and climate prediction profoundly over the following decades and to embed the theory of chaos at the heart of meteorology. Indeed, it could be said that his view of the atmosphere (and subsequently also the oceans) as a chaotic system has coloured our thinking of the predictability of weather and subsequently climate from thereon.

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


    Schematic of ensemble prediction system on seasonal to decadal time scales based on figure 1, showing (a) the impact of model biases and (b) a changing climate. The uncertainty in the model forecasts arises from both initial condition uncertainty and model uncertainty.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

    The evolution of plausible GCM solutions from sensitive dependence on initial conditions results in a degree of irreducible imprecision in model forecasts that is neglected in CMIP opportunistic ensembles. Divergence of models and weather and climate derives from both model sensitive dependence and an incomplete knowledge of Earth geophysics.

  37. Geoff Sherrington

    JimD
    You have fairly rigid ideas about global surface temperature variability.
    Would you consider learning from an essay that contains this passage?

    “On present knowledge, three dominant processes affect global surface air temperature estimates.
    1. Natural variation
    2. Greenhouse gases
    3. Measurement inaccuracy, including UHI.

    The relative proportions of these are not yet known. In particular, the uncertainty of estimated climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is large and unchanged by 30 years of intensive research. The UHI effect has the capacity to be as large as the others, but its magnitude is again poorly understood.”

    The essay is here –
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/UHI FINAL DRAFT.docx

    Geoff

    • When you add UHI to that, do you realize that the fastest warming areas of the globe are not urban but unpopulated high latitude continents? Also ponder this diagram linked. The recent upswing of global temperatures to unprecedented levels is only correlated to one thing, and very solidly. On top of that, the effective sensitivity derived from this fit is 2.3 C per doubling which is in line with mainstream science, so no one is surprised except for the skeptics.
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.005/mean:80/offset:-0.6/mean:40/from:1850/plot/best/from:1988/trend

    • Natural variation in a comment in moderation for some reason. The mechanism has been observed both from the surface and from satellites, the geophysics defined and the correlation made.

      “With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, −2.1, and 1.4 W m^−2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5 W m^−2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.”

      You might note that 0.2 K warming in the 1990’s times 0.5 W/m2/K is O.1 W/m2 feedback.

      The pattern is confirmed in CERES. The next climate shift is due within the decade – if it is not happening now – and this time we will definitively have the instrumentation in place. Tick tock.

    • Regarding natural variation. The imbalance is positive meaning that natural variation is negative. This is seen as a lag of the global surface temperature behind the (still rising) equilibrium temperature. This lag is largely because of the ocean’s thermal inertia so the surface temperature can’t keep up with the forcing rate of change because energy is also going into warming the deep ocean.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      JimD writes “I’ve seen it all before, and it is less than convincing”
      Strange, because this is the first time it has been seen by other than the author.
      Where, exactly, did you read it all before?
      Geoff

      • For example, when you talk about UHI, it is not very promising. What do you have to say about that that the previous lot missed?

      • Geoff Sherrington

        JimD,
        You find that out when you read it. There is new info there. Geoff

      • No sale.

      • Was anyone planning on telling him that the link gives a 404 error? Or didn’t anyone try it.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE writes “Was anyone planning on telling him that the link gives a 404 error?”

        In recent days either WordPress or my web host have been shortening parts of my URLs so that they work fine when I test them before posting, but do not work at all afterwards. You might notice that not all of the above URL is in hyperlink blue. Probably I have missed some aged convention on file nomenclature.

        But yes, it does reveal a little about the veracity of some written assertions by JimD. No problem, he can be ignored. Geoff.

        http://www.geoffstuff.com/uhi2018.docx

  38. JCH,
    Where does this year look like coming in, 3rd to 6th in terms of warming and which data sets?
    Secondly is the El Nino going to form more or stop?
    Either way have a happy XMas and the same to everyone else here on the blog.

  39. 40 years of satellite atmospheric temperature data – providing when they work a theoretically improved record than the drought, heat island, land use, vegetation, elevation and poor coverage adjusted where possible surface record.

  40. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    Christmas is a time when Alarmists gather together, roast chestnuts, and share memories.

    – They tell their children how there used to be a cold white substance, called snow.

    – They reassure their children that Santa really does exist, and that he delivers presents to all of the good children (the ones who believe in global warming).

    – And they give thanks for the 97% consensus (that global warming is real, that it is caused by humans, and that there was no recent slowdown).

    In keeping with the true Christmas spirit, Alarmists have just published 2 new papers, which (they say) demonstrate convincingly that the recent slowdown wasn’t a real phenomenon.

    It is a pity that they didn’t read my article first. They could have saved themselves a lot of time, and millions of dollars (of your money)!!!

    The article is called “Alarmist thinking on the recent slowdown is one dimensional”
    https://agree-to-disagree.com/alarmist-thinking-on-the-slowdown

    Warning – this article contains undeniable proof, that the recent slowdown WAS a real phenomenon.

    So if you want to continue believing that the recent slowdown doesn’t exist, then don’t read this article.

  41. Looks like attribution of extreme events to climate change is about to boom as an industry. Under the new Paris Agreement rules each country can annually report all loss and damage due to climate change. See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/12/20/cop-24-dangerous-rules-added-to-paris-climate-accord/.

    Compensation claims against the developed countries will no doubt follow. The dollar numbers should be huge.

    (I seem to be breaking this story since most of the press on Katowice is a snore. But then I read UN-speak.)

    • Or the developing countries may simply attribute all bad weather to human caused climate change. That is much simpler and it gives even bigger loss and damage numbers. In either case, perhaps the IPCC will want to take the lead here..This is going to be quite a show. Attribution ho!

  42. Thanks for these lists. Always a great place for an adventure.

  43. I bring this down here to highlight the partisan nonsense yet again.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886612

    “Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models”

    “Are the observed cloud changes solely a manifestation of natural internal variability or are they also a response to external radiative forcing of the climate system? We addressed this question by examining simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase
    5 (CMIP5) multi-model dataset17. Historical simulations included anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, ozone, land-use changes, anthropogenic aerosols, volcanic aerosols, and solar output and thus represent our best estimate of the climate response to recent
    external radiative forcing (Extended Data Table 1).”

    But it is known that observed cloud changes are a manifestation of internal variation ( e.g. Loeb et al 2018, IPCC 2007, Myer et al 2019, Burgman et al 2017) – with global variation dominated by low level marine strato-cumulus in the eastern Pacific (Clements et al 2009). Physics involve Raleigh-Benard convection with open and closed cell cloud (Koren 2017). And we know that models miss internal variability – and really only react with sensitive dependence on initial conditions to forced changes.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886450

    Like most of these ill informed fanatics – it seems all or nothing with atomski.

    “A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011)”

    Well yes – it is associated with low frequency internal climate variability (IPCC 2007, Wong et al 2006, Loeb et al 2018).

    “Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity”

    “The large spread of model equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is mainly caused by the differences in the simulated marine boundary layer cloud (MBLC) radiative feedback. We examine the variations of MBLC fraction in response to the changes of sea surface temperature (SST) at seasonal and centennial time scales for 27 climate models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 and phase 5. We find that the intermodel spread in the seasonal variation of MBLC fraction with SST is strongly correlated with the intermodel spread in the centennial MBLC fraction change per degree of SST warming and that both are well correlated with ECS. Seven models that are consistent with the observed seasonal variation of MBLC fraction with SST at a rate −1.28 ± 0.56%/K all have ECS higher than the multimodel mean of 3.3 K yielding an ensemble‐mean ECS of 3.9 K and a standard deviation of 0.45 K.”

    Decadal change in sst are dominated by decadal changes in upwelling on the western margin of continents – especially the Pacific.

    “A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade”

    “Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive.”

    The cloud ‘feedback’ is largely due to variable sst in the in the decadal to millennially variable Pacific state.

    “Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth”

    “Dessler [2010, 2013] noted that the short record is dominated by ENSO variations and used clear‐sky versus all‐sky radiation in reanalyses to estimate cloud radiation forcing involving several assumptions and a model. These papers build upon earlier studies that show the importance of ENSO and how convection, clouds, and upper tropospheric water vapor play key roles in feedbacks [Soden and Fu, 1995; Bony et al., 1997; Inamdar et al., 2004]. In Dessler [2013], computations were made of many components related to radiative feedbacks, from surface and atmospheric temperatures, water vapor, cloud, and surface albedo anomalies, converted using a “radiative kernel” to a TOA radiation anomaly.”

    c.f. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

    I have bookmarked this – but while I am more than happy to slowly read in detail – it’s not clear what atomski thinks the point is. About nearly anything really. It is clear than quoting titles of studies he seems less than familiar with – in what seems like a complete ignorance of the topic – and colored with a great deal of empty posturing about contrarions means very little indeed.

  44. “OK, so now what you call no-feedback is also the Planck Response. You have progressed. Your confusion arises because you don’t distinguish a feedback from a response.” #jiminy

    The Planck response is calculated using only the temperature (Planck) feedback – it is of course purely theoretical as the planet responds in complex ways to forcing, warming, CO2 greening…

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/15/week-in-review-science-edition-91/#comment-886599

    But there is a cultural meme here – reiterated with a strange and desperate obsession – along with the habitual and misplaced supercilious disparagement of ‘skeptics’.

    “I’ve spent a fair bit of time hanging out with some of the hardcore climate deniers. And I think they’re very open about the fact that what brought them to this issue is not that they discovered a problem with climate science. It’s that they look at what the science is saying and they realize that if the science is true, it would upend their ideological project—because their ideological project calls for deregulation, austerity cuts, privatization of the public sphere, deregulated free trade. And if you just glance at the kinds of policies we would need in order to take the science seriously, it would mean strong regulations of the corporate sector; it would mean big investments in the public sphere to prepare ourselves for heavy weather and to lower our emissions rapidly. It would also mean transfers of wealth, which they’re not very big fans of.

    So they’re faced with the problem that either the science is true and their ideology is in deep trouble, or the science must be a vast conspiracy and there ideology is fine. And they’ve chosen the latter for obvious reasons. But I do believe they understand that if we were to take the science seriously it would require upending the neoliberal consensus.” Naomi Klein

    Their problem is that the science of the complex dynamical Earth system is not as simple, certain or monolithic as they need it to be. Not much in Earth system is falsifiable in the traditional sense. But climate will shift again within the decade – if it is not happening now. This time the instrumentation is in place and it will unfold on prime time TV – like a slow motion train wreck of ambitions of social and economic transformation. They are hoping – those who have intimations of this multi-decadal variability – for the return of warming ‘with a vengeance’. With solar modulated shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation it cannot be strictly periodic at the decadal scale – and a centennial cooling phase in these natural systems is on the cards.

    Climate shifts bring catastrophe – in the sense of Rene Thom. But even then the pragmatic response remains the same as when I read the First Assessment Report as a relatively young hydrologist and environmental scientist. Energy innovation, energy efficiency, reduction of black carbon, surface ozone, sulfate, methane and CFC’s and restoration of soils and ecosystems.

    Their other problem is that economically the world is locked into a growth cycle – despite any and all reservations and interventions.  A high growth planet brings resources to solve people and environment problems.  The clearest way to economic growth is markets – and the biggest risk is market mismanagement.

    The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit classic liberal principles for effective economic governance of free markets. To be defended in a clash of values for which the climate war is a proxy.

    • Klein here commits one of the top alarmist fallacies: “I’ve spent a fair bit of time hanging out with some of the hardcore climate deniers. And I think they’re very open about the fact that what brought them to this issue is not that they discovered a problem with climate science. It’s that they look at what the science is saying and they realize that if the science is true, it would upend their ideological project—because their ideological project calls for deregulation, austerity cuts, privatization of the public sphere, deregulated free trade.”

      She equates the alarmist scientific arguments with climate science per se, which is very false. Skeptics are not saying that climate science is wrong, we are saying that the alarmist arguments are wrong and providing detailed scientific arguments in support of our position(s). This is not “a problem with climate science.” It is a problem with alarmism.

      Climate science per se includes both side’s arguments. In short, debate is the present state of climate science.

      • It is however true that many of us are here because of the policy implications of the alarmist arguments. Drastic action based on faulty argument is very bad policy.

      • “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.” NAS 2002

        Climate is the record of abrupt and more or less extreme change since before humans came to dominate the planet in the present interglacial. To deal with that requires building prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes. Doing that requires returning some of the 500 GtC lost from soils and terrestrial ecosystems since the advent of settled human communities (Rattan Lal).

        Along with energy innovation and efficiency and the reduction of black carbon, sulfate, surface ozone, methane, CFC’s and other pollutants in the context of free markets and economic growth. Only rich economies can afford environments.

      • The faulty policy argument is thus: “if we do nothing we will end up with RCP8.5 thermageddon!”

        We won’t: RCP 8.5 is stagnation science fiction, it will never happen.

      • The skeptics are free to talk about no-mitigation scenarios of 600-900 ppm in glowing terms, but they don’t and thus miss any kind of rebuttal to the “alarmist ” case. With only one case seen in the scientific publications for those CO2 levels, no wonder the skeptics have been sidelined. I think they don’t want to talk about 600-900 ppm in a positive way because they know it isn’t. So they resort to attacking “alarmists” as though there is something wrong with being alarmed about those levels without making an opposite case.

      • Jim under a business as usual scenario we won’t even cross 600 ppm.

      • Hans, 600 ppm is a scenario with about 3 C warming, while at the same time requiring more efficient energy use (or fossil fuel replacement) as the world’s population grows and develops. It would represent a failure to mitigate effectively while it does represent a weak attempt at it.

      • Eh – 1000 GtC cumulative emissions is some 0.8 K warming – and with intrinsic centennial cooling kicking in through solar modulated wavy polar annular modes in the north and south – the real world response seems likely to be less.

        e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034004/meta

      • We have had 1 degree C with about half that 1000 GtC, and a remaining positive imbalance meaning more to come from same.

      • Across 2 complete climate regimes in the last half of the 20th century – warming is negligible.

      • It makes very little difference – with more emitted CO2 – even with the natural spike at the end.

        blob:https://wordpress.com/0e2d78cc-cabe-4489-ba01-ae04013586a1

      • Jim 600 ppm is two degrees

      • Hans 600 ppm is more than a doubling, so central estimate would be 3 C at equilibrium.

      • Jim in 2100 we are still far from equilibruim, so for 2100 temperatures the use of the transient value of 1,33 is more appropriate. An equilibruim sensitivity first needs an equilibrium level, and an ECS of 3.0 is also way to high.

      • The transient value is more like 2.3 C per doubling when you fit the lines over the last 60 years, and the ECS is mostly achieved only a few decades later, or even sooner for land.

    • “What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty… which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. . .” F. A. Hayek

      I have wondered for a considerable time what a truly liberal programme would look like. Something that is not merely a reaction to progressive social engineering ambitions. Something that can engage the imagination by addressing concerns of the populace more generally.

      Top 10 non-economic concerns – Gallup Nov 2018

      Immigration/Illegal aliens
      Dissatisfaction with government/Poor leadership
      Healthcare
      Unifying the country
      Race relations/Racism
      Lack of respect for each other Ethics/moral/religious/family decline
      Education
      Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness
      Environment/Pollution

      Economics trumps these as an issue of concern by a wide margin. But ideally we can bring everything together in a broad understanding that social progress, economic growth and environmental restoration conservation are not merely compatible but interdependent. Economic growth creates resources to solve a wide range of health, education and environmental problems. What we continue to lack is any sort of a programme for reclaiming this principle – of economic progress and truly sustainable development – back from increasingly strident anti-democratic and anti-capitalist voices. Nor do we have much in the way of a philosophical underpinning – the foundations on which a sound future and political success is built.

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

      It is possible to return most of the atmospheric carbon increase to vegetation and soils in ways that improve agricultural productivity, enhance food security, conserve biodiversity and create more flood and drought tolerant food production systems. While buying time for the development of 21st century energy systems to supply cheap and abundant energy for the essential needs of humanity.

  45. “In summary, chemistry-climate models forced with observed changes in GHGs and ODSs, and which include other drivers of stratospheric temperature variability (e.g., solar variability), simulate long-term stratospherictemperature trends since 1979 that are in good quantitative agreement with updated and extended satellite temperature records both globally and in their latitudinal structure.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018GL078035

    The fundamental properties of climate models are sensitive dependence on initial conditions and structural instability (McWilliams 2007, Slingo ande paqlmer 2007). The basis for judging the veracity of models is the completeness of the model physics – and the similarity of the output to the observed variable of interest. In this case stratospheric temperature trends. Where the models neglect critical processes and coupling – and the observations are not consistent – there is an evident problem in both.

    Recently revised SSU and MSU data now appear to show reduced inconsistency. Models show a broad range of outcomes despite being constrained to prescribed inputs and having a presumed tuning bias. The latter as a result of the rejection of atypical or unexpected results.

    Does that prove the greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, changes in atmospheric circulation, solar variability or clouds have an influence on the temperature structure of the atmosphere? Do we need to? It does show the need to continue to refine observations and to improve model structures (Slingo and Palmer 2011).

  46. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/discovery-recent-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-raises-fears-new-global-flood

    “More certainty is on the way. Next month, the International Ocean Discovery Program’s JOIDES Resolution research ship will begin a 3-month voyage to drill at least five marine cores off West Antarctica. “That’s going to be a great test,” Carlson says. Meanwhile, he hopes to get his own study published in time to be included in the next United Nations climate report. In the 2001 and 2007 reports, West Antarctic collapse was not even considered in estimates of future sea level; only in 2013 did authors start to talk about an Antarctic surprise, he says. Research is due by December 2019. “We gotta beat that deadline.” ”

    https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/03/post-normal-science-deadlines/#comments

    • More data is always better of course so this is very good news. I am more skeptical that more data will really help us model and predict these ice sheet dynamics which is a very hard problem.

      I continue to be amazed at the ice age cycles. They are a classical case of subtle feedback responses to ZERO change in total forcing but a big change in the distribution of forcing. That’s why climate models that miss the “pattern of warming” from historical data may not be very useful at some of these things.

    • If the next IPCC report includes all of the recent findings on the level of geothermal activity, not just on land but that affecting adjacent waters off West Antarctica, then it will demonstrate they are interested in legitimate science. They can ignore it but they can’t hide it. It’s there to be dealt with.

    • You quote the last paragraph of the reference. Here is the first paragraph:
      “Some 125,000 years ago, during the last brief warm period between ice ages, Earth was awash. Temperatures during this time, called the Eemian, were barely higher than in today’s greenhouse-warmed world. Yet proxy records show sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher than they are today, drowning huge swaths of what is now dry land.”

      It sounds more religious than scientific.

      • “Some 125,000 years ago, —– “. Meaningless but not religious. It is too far in the past. Sink and rebound is faster than that. It is evident in the Med from the last 8000 yrs because tell-tales of human origin make that clear. What happened in the Med happened elsewhere too ( eg see Dogger-land)

        What is more important is that the events were not long-time occurring but abrupt (again as per evidence), which makes hog-wash of some studies that ignore evident facts.

      • Temperatures during this time, called the Eemian, were barely higher than in today’s greenhouse-warmed world.

        That shows the problem of accepting bad science as truthful. Marcott et al., 2013 falsely proclaimed that temperatures now are much higher than during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. If you swallow that lie uncritically, then nothing makes sense in paleoclimatology, including sea levels during the much warmer Eemian. So they set up their scientific quest not to see what the evidence supports, but to look for ways to explain away an anomaly between evidence and hypothesis, violating the scientific method. They know if they can concoct an excuse to support the failed hypothesis, it will be very well received, published and included in IPCC report. They shouldn’t call themselves scientists.

    • OMG – we are all doomed. Even science that hasn’t been done yet is predicting catastrophe.

    • There has been earlier work to suggest the WAIS is not stable in current conditions.
      https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-climate-change/

      • “Rising eustatic sea levels and temperatures were major climate- related drivers of ice-sheet retreat during and after the last glacial ter-mination. By contrast, it appears that climate-independent lithospheric rebound and ice-shelf grounding were the main drivers of grounding- line re-advance during the Holocene. The impact of rebound on the ice sheet depends sensitively on bedrock topography and mantle viscosity (seeMethods). Accurate mapping of potential grounding points and improved parameterization of uplift are needed to forecast the direction and rate of future grounding-line migration in West Antarctica.”

        Yes I have read the original article – and I quite like Earth system science – but I am a little bored with speculative climate porn. Come back with something better founded.

        And it makes absolutely no difference to rational social, economic or environmental policy.

    • It should be obvious the Ice Sheet is inherently unstable, something that has been repeated in numerous papers. When water is lapping at the ice 24/7 and subglacial conditions are warmed by the ground, things get a little sloppy.
      Just curious, does the establishment offer classes to novice climate scientists on how to do interviews? I’ve noticed every article includes phrases such as “it’s worse than we thought “ and “we were really shocked “ or “we were surprised “. Don’t they have a clue? Or is it part of the public relations effort to get the public all ginned up and ready to run for the hills, hopefully at a higher elevation.
      It gets a little tedious after reading the same narrative a couple of hundreds of times. Especially after having read it from 30 or 40 years ago and having the predictions fall flat on their faces. But, it’s a new generation and the level of gullibility seems to be inexhaustible.

      • The WAIS is worse than they thought, and worse than the skeptics still think. Thoughts evolve on climate change effects, and not so often for the better. We’ll also be saying this about sea levels soon because the IPCC has been severely cautious about factoring these effects in.

      • And your definition of soon is?

      • If you say so, Jim. Yes, thoughts do evolve, such as a newly released paper that identified VLM having such a dominant effect on varying SLR rates along the East Coast. Duh! But they notched up another research paper and again were able to say they were “ surprised “. This scientifically illiterate retired budget director wasn’t surprised, having read the same conclusions from numerous sources years ago.
        The big enchiladas for me the next couple of years will be whether the AMO flips, thereby affecting the Arctic Sea Ice extent, and whether the IPCC displays some old fashioned Tom Mix bravado and addresses head on the effects of geothermal activity on the Ice Sheets.
        Regarding your comment about sea levels soon. Here is what I do when I read those kinds of comments. I go back and read all those articles predicting the apocalypse from 30 or 40 or 100 years ago and then sit down, have a Manhattan, put a wet wash cloth on my forehead and sleep like a baby.

  47. And so it is Christmas! My Christmas day opened with rainfall, about an inch since midnight, and now presents warm dry weather for planting Columbines.

    Here is my favorite Christmas song, which I think you may be able to enjoy even if you are not a devout Christian:

    I hope that you are enjoying Merry Christmases at your homes (or vacations), and that you have a Happy New Year in 2019.

  48. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    I believe that the slowdown/pause would be a dead subject, if Alarmists didn’t keep bringing it up.

    They have recently published 2 scientific papers which claim to show that the slowdown wasn’t a real phenomenon.

    This morning, I found an article about one of these scientific papers, at TheConversation website:
    https://theconversation.com/global-warming-hiatus-is-the-climate-change-myth-that-refuses-to-die-108524

    It is also featured at the SkepticalScience website:
    https://skepticalscience.com

    It was dated the 20th December 2018, and was by Kevin Cowtan, and Stephan Lewandowsky.

    Just reading the first 2 paragraphs made me annoyed. They used the word “denier” in the first sentence, and the phrase “science-denying” in the second paragraph.

    But the third paragraph really made me sit up, and take notice.

    They repeated a common Alarmist lie about the slowdown, which I talked about in my recent article.

    They said, “But, more importantly, these claims use the same kind of misdirection as was used a few years ago about a supposed “pause” in warming lasting from roughly 1998 to 2013.”

    They talk about “misdirection”, and then misdirect people to a false weak slowdown (1998 to 2013). This is part of an Alarmist lie, that claims that the recent slowdown only exists because of the 1998 super El Nino.

    In my article, I said:

    – The strongest slowdown (the one with the lowest warming rate), went from 2002 to 2012, and had a warming rate of +0.14 degrees Celsius per century. Because it went from 2002 to 2012, it had nothing to do with the 1998 super El Nino.

    – The strongest slowdown WHICH INCLUDED THE YEAR 1998 (the one with the lowest warming rate), went from 1998 to 2013, and had a warming rate of +0.96 degrees Celsius per century.

    [note that this one is the exact same slowdown interval that Cowtan and Lewandowsky use]

    – So the false Alarmist slowdown (1998 to 2013), had a warming rate which was 6.9 times greater than the warming rate of the real slowdown (2002 to 2012).

    If the real slowdown (2002 to 2012) was a car that was traveling at 50 km/h, then the false Alarmist slowdown (1998 to 2013), would be a car that was traveling at 345 km/h.

    – Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Alarmists don’t believe that there was a slowdown. They are not looking at the real slowdown.

    I don’t like to see such blatant lies go unchallenged. I have the evidence to expose these false statements:
    https://agree-to-disagree.com/alarmist-thinking-on-the-slowdown
    and
    https://agree-to-disagree.com/was-the-slowdown-caused-by-1998

    If you are a person who values the truth, I urge you to consider the evidence in my articles about the slowdown.

    I don’t mind if you disagree with me. I am willing to listen to your opinion, and your evidence.

    Hope you are having a good Christmas.

    Regards,

    Sheldon Walker
    http://www.agree-to-disagree.com

    • 10 year cherry picks are not interesting at all. Still warming, still primarily CO2, and not the sun.

      • The rate of warming is what is not alarming.

      • To the people who study this, the rate of warming is what is most alarming. To the people who finally and grudgingly admitted that the earth is warming, they now pretend the rate is not alarming at all.

        Who you going to believe? I choose to listen to the scientists who study climate.

      • Scott, it sounds like you choose to listen to the ones who agree with you, as though there were no scientific debate, which is clearly false. You say “…still primarily CO2…” This shows that you do not understand the debate, despite being here at debate-central.

      • David:
        “Scott, it sounds like you choose to listen to the ones who agree with you, as though there were no scientific debate”

        “…still primarily CO2”

        Yes it is primarily CO2.
        The ultimate cause of the long-term rise in GMST.
        There is NO debate on that – except on sceptic blogs, which some mistakenly think is a scientific debate.
        Blogs are not in anyway influential to the debate, except in that it gives naysayers the false perception that they have an argument that is worth listening to and that there are many out there that agree.
        The illusion of the Internet.
        Where every agenda has it’s sounding platform and inflating it to some sort of meaning because of that.

        Listening to a consensus of experts on any subject is entirely pragmatic and sensible.
        The day any credible science is offered by “the ones we don’t agree with” will be the day they are “listened to”.

        There is a debate about the amount of warming that will materialise.
        It is being carried out by climate scientists.
        Anything outside of that is politics driven by ideological bias (left or right).
        Yes, and the left (as a separate entity) has hijacked the extreme end of the “debate”, which naysayers have dubbed “CAGW”.
        And it is the right who have assumed that that is the science.
        Coming from leftist scientists.
        That is a convenient strawman for you.

      • Internal variability in surface temp is related to Pacific ocean regimes as has been known for decades.


        Source: Kevin Tremberth

        The atmosphere has about 1% of the global energy content – the surface record much less than that due to the changing balance between latent and sensible heat at the surface. Oceans are the great heat store of course. Although ocean heat will show up in the atmosphere – modulated by the vagaries of ocean and atmospheric circulation.

        Loeb et al 2018 (a) – https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62 – suggest that if the heat – cumulative CERES shows energy accumulation – is not in the atmosphere it must be in oceans.

        But what does Argo say?

        Inconsistency perhaps?

        Argo does seem more consistent with low level cloud feedbacks over the Pacific Ocean.

        e.g. Norman G. Loeb 1,*, Tyler J. Thorsen 1 , Joel R. Norris 2, Hailan Wang 3 and Wenying Su 1, 2018, Changes in Earth’s Energy Budget during and after the “Pause” in Global Warming: An Observational Perspective

        So what did happen in surface temperature since the end of the early century warm regime – and in the period of strong emissions growth?

        Blog science is ideally about review and synthesis. Very different to the arguments that assume a quixotic authority for whatever simple memes they have in mind.

      • “You say “…still primarily CO2…” This shows that you do not understand the debate, despite being here at debate-central.”

        And here I thought I would receive a reply that had at least some science facts. This isn’t debate central if the people writing responses deny basic science like your post indicates.

    • Sheldon, I also read both papers (Lewa, Mann) and I was not amused. They criticise about 200 papers ( also some kind of consensus about the “pause”), most of them were written with the knowledge of the data up to 2014. When one looks with the eyes of the bullied scientists at this time it gives this:

      IMO there was every reason to make thoughts about the source(s) of this behaviour. This is how science works.
      To write something about statistics with the knowledge of 2018 and making such strong statements about the impact of the “pause research” on policy ( “it took the momentum…”) is far from science IMO.

  49. Another morning when the “Recent Comments” section lists only two commenters: Jim D and Robert I. Ellison.

    Why don’t you two exchange e-mail addresses and leave the rest of us alone?

    • All technical and in a single thread. I try generally to include relevant references, pointed analysis and to not indulge in empty chatter.

      The topic was feedbacks and sensitivity – and I learned something from it. Although not from #jiminy.

    • rovingbroker: Another morning when the “Recent Comments” section lists only two commenters: Jim D and Robert I. Ellison.

      Personally, I find most of their interchanges worth reading.

    • Ellison for me always provides interesting documentation. The IPCC feedback chart comparing CMIP5 and CMIP3 was very interesting for me.

    • I also keep track of what is going on on Twitter with conversations that include curryja and that is much worse than this one. You get people there like Eddy Kurrents who are complete trolls with no scientific argument, just insults for anyone who dares to mention any climate science.

  50. from Natural Ocean Fluctuations: “It’s intriguing to wonder whether this is what happened in 2016 when Antarctic sea ice suddenly dropped to record lows, but more work would be needed to state whether that was actually the case, or just due to an atmospheric anomaly.”

    • Especially interesting given Antarctica sea ice was at a “record “ high 2 years previous. Whether using 4 Billion years or the Holocene as a baseline, the whole mentality of discussing any kind of “record” for any kind of climate marker is beyond fruitcake territory. Or to say it another way in this environment, par for the course.

  51. Isaac Held has a new essay on

    Very Good. 66 pp and downloadable.

  52. “Abrupt shifts in the Earth’s past, present and future climate which can be accompanied by extreme temperature anomalies have been discussed in numerous studies (e.g., Rahmstorf 2002; Clement and Peterson 2008; Lenton et al. 2008; Drijfhout et al. 2015; Kleppin et al. 2015; Jackson et al. 2016; Schulz et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2014). The potential to switch between multiple stable states has been recognized in several parts of the Earth’s climate system (Alley et al. 2003, and references therein; Scheffer et al. 1993, 2001; Jongma et al. 2007). In particular, modeling studies suggested that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) has multiple equilibrium states with, with reduced or even without North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer
    1999; Rahmstorf 1995; Prange et al. 2003). The risk of a collapsing AMOC after reaching a tipping point would affect the climate system on a regional or even larger scale (Kuhlbrodt et al. 2007; Srokosz et al. 2012; Sévellec and Fedorov 2013; Jackson et al. 2016). The cause of these shifts and the underlying mechanisms are topic of ongoing research (Bestelmeyer et al. 2011; Kleppin et al. 2015) and have been discussed in several studies (e.g., Crowley 2000; Alley et al. 2005). External forcing such as solar forcing (Jiang et al. 2005; Steinhilber et al. 2009; Gray et al. 2010), volcanic activity (Sigl et al. 2015), and the input of freshwater (Broecker et al. 1990; Hawkins et al. 2011; Rahmstorf 1996) as well as internal variability (Hall and Stouffer 2001; Drijfhout et al. 2013; Kleppin et al. 2015), sea ice transport (Wanner et al. 2008, and references therein) and sea-ice-atmosphere interactions (Li et al. 2005; Li and Bitz 2010) could drive the climate system towards a tipping point, leading to an abrupt climate shift.” Klus, A., Prange, M., Varma, V. et al. Clim Dyn (2018). Spatial analysis of early-warning signals for a North Atlantic climate transition in a coupled GCM

    Vasilis Dakos (6) has been pursuing an increase in auto correlation as an early warning sing of abrupt climate transitions since at least 2008. So how close are we to a tipping point, would we know and how much is natural? Empirical evidence (4) shows a decline in AMOC – associated with temperature and ocean surface elevation. The latter enable extrapolation beyond the limited record of the 26 degree north array. In an earlier study of data from the Atlantic monitoring array a critical link was made between the NAO and AMOC (7). The NAO is in turn linked to solar intensity (8, 9, 10). The study quoted above suggests a 33% downturn in AMOC is enough to initiate a tipping point.


    Figure 1: Solutions of an energy-balance model (EBM), showing the global-mean temperature (T) vs. the fractional change of insolation (μ) at the top of the atmosphere. (Source: Ghil, 2013)

    Ghil’s model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society.

    Risk goes well beyond warming of 2 degrees C (2) – whether that is dominantly anthropogenic or not. Largely not in my “Frankenstein” hypothesis – where global warming is largely low level cloud feedbacks over the upwelling regions of the central and eastern Pacific (e.g. 12, 13, 14). Nor is it confined to ice sheet feedbacks in glacial/interglacial transitions (e.g 11). And it goes as well to social, environmental and economic risk from either natural or intrinsic climate change that rightfully dominate pragmatic policy responses.

    (1) Klus, A., Prange, M., Varma, V., Tremblay, L. B., and Schulz, M.: Abrupt cold events in the North Atlantic Ocean in a transient Holocene simulation, Clim. Past, 14, 1165-1178,

    (2) Hansen J, Sato M, Hearty P, Ruedy R, Kelley M, Masson-Delmotte V, Russell G, Tselioudis G, Cao J, Rignot E, Velicogna I, Tormey B, Donovan B, Kandiano E, von Schuckmann K, Pushker K, Legrande A, Bauer M, Lo K-W (2016) Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous. Atmos Chem Phys 16:3761–3812.

    (3) Lenton TM, Dakos V, Bathiany S, and Scheffer M (2017) Observed trends in the magnitude and persistence of monthly temperature variability. Nature 7:5940.

    (4) D. A. Smeed S. A. Josey C. Beaulieu W. E. Johns B. I. Moat E. Frajka‐Williams D. Rayner C. S. Meinen M. O. Baringer H. L. Bryden G. D. McCarthy, 2018, The North Atlantic Ocean Is in a State of Reduced Overturning

    (5) Who M. Kim Stephen G. Yeager Gokhan Danabasoglu, 2018, Key Role of Internal Ocean Dynamics in Atlantic Multidecadal Variability During the Last Half Centurt

    (6) Vasilis Dakos, Marten Scheffer, Egbert H. van Nes, Victor Brovkin, Vladimir Petoukhov, and Hermann Held, 2008, Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change

    (7) Smeed, D. A., McCarthy, G. D., Cunningham, S. A., Frajka-Williams, E., Rayner, D., Johns, W. E., Meinen, C. S., Baringer, M. O., Moat, B. I., Duchez, A., and Bryden, H. L.: 2014, Observed decline of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation 2004–2012, Ocean Sci., 10, 29-38

    (8) M Lockwood1,2, R G Harrison1, M J Owens1, L Barnard1, T Woollings1 and F Steinhilber3, 2011, The solar influence on the probability of relatively cold UK winters in the future

    (9) G Chiodo1,8, R García-Herrera1,2, N Calvo1, J M Vaquero3, J A Añel4,5, D Barriopedro1,2 and K Matthes6,7, 2016, The impact of a future solar minimum on climate change projections in the Northern Hemisphere

    (10) Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood, 2015. Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

    (11) Toby R. Aulta, Scott St. Georgeb, Jason E. Smerdonc, Sloan Coatsd, Justin S. Mankinc,e,f, Carlos M. Carrilloa, Benjamin I. Cooke,c, and Samantha Stevensong, 2018, A Robust Null Hypothesis for the Potential Causes of Megadrought in Western North America

    (12) Ruediger Stein Kirsten Fahl Inka Schade Adelina Manerung Saskia Wassmuth Frank Niessen Seung‐Il Nam, 2017, Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific‐Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)

    (13) S. Kravtsov, C. Grimm & S. Gu , 2018, Global-scale multidecadal variability missing in state-of-the-art climate models

    (14) Norman G. Loeb 1,*, Tyler J. Thorsen 1
    , Joel R. Norris 2 ID , Hailan Wang 3 and Wenying Su 1, 2018, Changes in Earth’s Energy Budget during and after
    the “Pause” in Global Warming: An Observational
    Perspective

    (15) Timothy A. Myers Carlos R. Mechoso Gregory V. Cesana Michael J. DeFlorio Duane E. Waliser, 2018, Cloud Feedback Key to Marine Heatwave off Baja California

  53. The piece on land degradation effects on carbon sequestration is interesting to me, which is a fairly complex issue, let alone a quantitative assessment of the magnitude of degradation-induced loss of carbon sequestration capacity.

    more intriguing to me is that developing a model that can really predict the capacity loss of storing carbon in soils under different scenarios of climate, economic development, and other social sectors isolatedly and in combination would be really important and helpful for policy makers.

Leave a Reply to edimbukvarevic 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