by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Was Common ra glacier expansion in the Arctic Atlantic region triggered by unforced atmospheric cooling? [link]
The amplitude and origin of sea level variability during the Pliocene epoch [link]
Ghil and Lucarini: The physics of climate variability and change [link] A long, but worthwhile read.
Roy Spencer: Record Antarctic stratospheric warming causes Sept. 2019 global temperature update confusion [link]
Revised historical solar irradiance forcing [link]
The U.S. corn belt is making its own weather [link] Cooler temperatures and more rain
Amplification of the North America dust bowl drought through human-induced land degradation [link]
“Does Rapid Urbanization Trigger Significant Increase of Cumulative Heavy Rains in China?” [link] Answer in paper is yes.
Droughts in far off places are contributing to the amount of heat transported to regions experiencing heat waves [link]
No increase in global temperature variability despite changing regional patterns [link]
The North American hydrologic cycle through the last deglaciation eartharxiv.org/8q5kz/
Evolution of sea surface conditions near northwestern Greenland margin during the mid-Holocene [link]
Advances in extreme value analysis and applications to natural hazards [link]
A paper in Nature reports that Earth’s vegetation may not be able to continue to absorb human carbon dioxide emissions at current rates, which could accelerate climate change and exacerbate its effects. [link]
The climate theory casting new light on the history of Chinese civilization [link]
Policy & technologies
The role of nonfarm influences in estimates of climate change impacts on agriculture [link]
New Michael Moore documentary tackles alternative energy [link]
Biomass burning not sustainable, scientists say subsidies must stop [link]
Democratic candidates undervalue farm productivity and R&D [link]
Is eating beef healthy? [link]
Essay by Reto Knutti: Closing the kowledge-action gap in climate change [link]
How the U.S. power grid is evolving to handle solar and wind ensia.com/features/us-po
Granger Morgan Opinion: Climate change needs more than ‘muddling through’ [link]
Declining CO2 paths [link]
We need to talk about how we adapt to climate change [link]
Energy use and height in office buildings [link]
New route to carbon neutral fuels from carbon dioxide [link]
Pielke Jr: Net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 requires a new nuclear power plant every day [link]
Pielke Jr: t’s Time To Get Real About The Extreme Scenario Used To Generate Climate Porn [link]
The future of nuclear power in the US: beyond Yucca mountain [link]
Utilities big promises on CO2 reductions questioned [link]
Harnessing new technologies to prevent hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico [link]
NASA is getting serious about protecting Earth from killer asteroids. [link]
About science and scientists
Heterodox Academy: Seizing the means of knowledge production [link]
Highlight negative results to improve science [link]
The accuracy of German citizens’ confidence in their climate change knowledge go.nature.com/2mZxbc0
Political Disparities in the Academy: It’s More Than Self-Selection One reason for the extreme political skew of the academy? Initially Republican profs convert to Democrats. But why? [link]
Turkish scientists gets 15 month jail sentence for publishing environmental study [link]
Has reductionism run its course? [link]
Confessions of a climate scientist [link]
Here’s @AliceDreger‘s story of what happened to the great Napoleon Chagnon, the pioneering anthropologist who suffered one of the worst academic witch-hunts in history link.springer.com/article/10.100
Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, [link]
Democracy requires discomfort [link]
Cambridge scientist sacked for ‘racist’ research is suing university [link]
Study: Science denial is found on both sides of the political aisle journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117
Are politically diverse teams more effective? [link]
Nir Shaviv: How climate pseudo science came to be publicly accepted [link]
Book defending free speech has been cancelled by the publisher [link]
Behind the energy and climate hypocrisy in all of us [link]
Dueling weathermen of the 1800s [link]
Climate scientist or activist – where’s the line? [link]
Water vapor increase, accurately measured worldwide only since Jan, 1988, has produced 36+ times more warming at ground level than CO2 increase. Added cooling by CO2 well above the tropopause effectively cancels the tiny added warming from CO2 at ground level. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
According to alarmists, water vapor increase depends only on temperature increase of the liquid surface water and has increased an average of 0.88% per decade. Actual measurements show the global average WV increase to be about 1.47% per decade. This proves WV, not CO2, has contributed to temperature increase.
CO2 increase 1988 to 2018 = 407 – 347 = 60 ppmv
Water vapor increase from TPW graph trend = 1.47 % per decade
Average global WV = 10,000 ppmv
WV increase in 3 decades = .0147 * 10,000 * 3 = 441 ppmv
Per calculations from Hitran, each WV molecule is 5+ times more effective at
absorbing energy from radiated heat than a CO2 molecule.
Therefore, WV has been 441/60 * 5 = 36+ times more effective at increasing ground
level temperature as CO2.
The increased cooling by more CO2 well above the tropopause counters the added
warming of CO2 at ground level.
Accounting for the WV increase, ocean surface temperature cycles and the solar
effect quantified by the sunspot number anomaly time-integral
matches 5-year smoothed HadCRUT4 measured temperatures
96+ % 1895-2018.
Water vapour has both GHG warming (which declines logarithmically according to beer lambert law) and convective cooling (which increases exponentially with temp) Net result is a U shaped buffering system on the earths climate. The GHG effect will resist cooling and the convection will resist warming. Increased convection is probably responsible for the decrease in humidity in the upper troposphere, either by increase efficiency of precipitation or due to dry/cold air pushing down from the stratosphere the resultant high pressure cells or in the downdraft itself.
The major driver of warming is decreases in cloud cover (5% during sat era, resulting in a 2w/m2 increase in OLR) The driver of cloud cover is likely stratospheric chemistry driving zonal or meridional regimes via jet stream patterns. More airmass mixing, more clouds.
Ice ages are times when ice extent is more.
Warm times are times when ice extent is less.
There is more evaporation and snowfall in warm times when polar oceans are thawed. There is less evaporation and snowfall in cold times when polar oceans are frozen. More snowfall increases ice volume and the ice piles up and advances and causes the colder. Less snowfall allows ice volume to deplete and less ice retreats and allows the warmer.
It is a natural, self correcting cycle, and we did not cause it.
Greetings,
This is my first comment here.
I noticed in Dan Pangburn’s comment above (first response in the thread) that he confirmed my understanding the global average water vapor concentration being 10,000 ppm. That represents about 50% RH at the global average temp (the 50% figure I had seen before). The saturation mixing ratio there is about 10-11 g/kg looking at the skew-t. That would equate to a concentration of about 20,000 ppm (thanks to water vapor being a light molecule in comparison to Nitrogen or Oxygen). I want to go in a different direction than he did.
We measure water vapor by measuring RH with a resolution of 1%. At the global average temp that resolution is about 200 ppm per 1%RH. Referencing someone else Dan mentions water vapor is 5 times as effective than CO2. So that 200 ppm of water vapor is worth about 1000 ppm of CO2.
The logical conclusion is you lose the total effect of CO2 in the measurement error of water vapor at anything above pretty chilly temps like near freezing. (The resolution gets more fine at cooler temps.) How can we even consider trying to figure CO2’s component to climate change (warm or cold) until we can measure water vapor at a fine enough resolution not to lose CO2’s?
Is Google News legally liable for bias against conservatives?
My latest article.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/10/05/is-google-news-legally-liable-for-bias-against-conservatives/
Some excerpts:
I recently wrote that Google News should be sued for bias against conservative sources, not regulated. Regulating Internet news aggregators is the last thing we want, but Google News is clearly doing something wrong, that needs to be corrected.
To further this line of thought, here is a specific legal argument for the Courts to order Google News to stop discriminating. The Courts might even impose penalties for past discrimination. The Federal Trade Commission could bring such a suit, as could the users of Google News. Mind you I am not an expert on this stuff, hence the question mark in the title.
We are looking for new law so should look at first principles. I posit a variation on the product liability principle called the implied warrant of merchantability. This says the product should work. It is a fundamental principle of product liability law.
The possible parallel is that while Google News has no explicit contract with its users, because they do not pay anything, this may not be the end of the legal story. Google News users do not pay, but Google derives a monetary benefit from them, namely advertising revenues, which are based on usage. This creates an implicit financial relationship.
No users, no income. Few users, a little income. In the case of Google news, there are a huge number of users, so Google gets a huge income from advertising. In fact Google News dominates the online news aggregation field, almost to the point of monopoly.
Given this huge monetary benefit, Google therefore has a reciprocal obligation to return a benefit to its users, namely good news coverage. That is the implied product — good coverage.
Politically biased coverage is not good coverage, especially given that roughly half of the users are conservatives. The users are not receiving the benefit that is owed them, in return for their usage. They are being deprived of vast swaths of news and opinion.
By failing to provide good coverage, Google News is wrongfully damaging its users. The product does not work. This is a wrong the Courts can address.
More in the article.
Yes David the internet knows you better than you know yourself. Someday everyone will have to be biologically linked to their digital identity and this freedom of anonymity will seem like the good old days.
Looking forward to Michael Moore new anti-renewable documentary. Too bad it couldn’t be released during the UN Climate summit where it could have caused maximum blow-back. I bought in to the solar panel fad back in 2011 and installed 28 panels. I can’t complain about my own experience since my panels have paid for themselves and my electric utility provider owes me almost $1,900 via net metering. But I am the exception not the rule and most residential roof mounted solar arrays do not make engineering sense (mine are ground mounted). As to Moore’s point about renewables it’s just another way of saying we can’t grow our way out of environmental degradation with more resource extraction and unlimited consumer consumption on a finite planet.
How much of the cost of your solar power was/is subsidized
$1,900 via net metering
That clearly is good for you.
Are your utility providers and the other customers better or worse due to this? You indicated it is generally worse.
dollars and cents question. assuming a constant annual KWh demand, buy a 20+ year supply of electricity at the current 2011 rate vs. the prevailing 20yr treasury bond rate. Took the 30% tax credit but several years later and defiantly made the payoff faster. I get way more federal tax breaks on my rental property but I also pay huge local school and property taxes.
“Took the 30% tax credit but several years later and defiantly made the payoff faster.”
Slightly off topic for a science blog – However since you mentioned the tax credit – FWIW, most of the tax credit gets rebated back to the seller via a higher sales price. The tax credit creates a secondary artificial supply and demand curve. Comparing the natural supply /demand curve vs the artificial supply and demand curves shows the benefit goes mostly to the seller.
Hi Joe,
I have no objection to the way you describe how tax credits work. In general tax credits tend to favor the upper income segment of the population so I prefer other ways to stimulate consumption. One of the things that piss me off is electric providers who offer a below market KWh price of $0.06/KWh but the fine print requires you must use over 2,000KWh /month or the price reverts to $0.11MWh. Rewarding people to overuse/waste electricity.
I designed and specified all the components of my system. 100% american made panels, microinverters, wiring, racking. My installer and his crew were Iraq war vets. I actually tried hard to make this a Made in USA project.
My brother in law installed panels on their garage. The projected payback was reasonable, although less than if you invested it into an index fund, and I think it has worked out as expected. I don’t know if the installation or payment for electricity generated is subsidized but I guess most of the benefit is your own reduced bills.
Hear’s something that caught my eye. The Niskanen Center has published a response to Mark Mills report on the new energy economy being magical thinking:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/renewables-do-not-rely-on-magical-thinking-they-are-winning-on-price/
Mark Mills’ original Manhattan Institute report:
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible
Javier/Frank/Tony B,
Further to our “debate” in the previous edition of “Week in review”, it may interest you to know that the PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume numbers have just been released:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-october-2019/#Oct-05
What do you make of this linear trend?
The M in PIOMAS is from modeling, so you should take that graph from the facts-about-the-arctic category. A model output ain’t a fact.
Mornin’ Javier,
So at the risk of repeating myself yet again, what do you make of this fact filled video revealing plummeting Arctic sea ice age?
If a picture is worth a thousand words an animation must be worth at least a million?
Jim, thanks for publishing the latest piomas data. When you ask what to make of the (linear) trend, the answer is easy: The arctic sea ice volume is shrinking, pronounced since the mid 90s. It’s what one can await from the arctic amplification of every forced warming. However, the linear trend says nothing about a possible participation of some internal variability. Perhaps it could help to look at some nonlinear trend, I would suggest the application of a 10 years LOESS as I did it in the previous edidtion. As I could not get the official data on the website of piomas up to now I can’t do this. Hopefully they publish the data soon.
Hi Frank,
I think you will find that Wipneus’ Arctic wide calculations based on the already published gridded thickness numbers will be remarkably close to the official PSC numbers when they are made publicly available.
The linear trend suggests a physical mechanism, it is not, it is just a line.
What does a second order polynomial fit give as result?
Why to you take volume and not area?
Hi Hans,
Because many moons ago I studied physics. I’m even qualified to teach it!
In a physics lesson, the “amount” of a substance is generally taken to be its volume or mass, is it not?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsg6qhv/revision/1
Hi Hans and Jim, indeed piomas published the monthly data but not the daily set. If it will be released I can make an overwiew over the whole melting saison in relation to the previous saisons. However, I recalculated the figure posted by Jim:
with some additional informations, also a 10 years loess smooth. IMO it’s clear that there was some kind of internal variability between 2006 and 2014 leading to a pushed melting. Thereafter we see some kind of stabilizing.
The slope of the linear trend ( IF one extrapolates it) suggests a “total death” (zero volume) in 2033. But this is “climate science by extraplation” IMO. Let me point to a paper which was released in 2018: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL079223 .
They find a “mighty negative feedback” from simple physics: thinner ice grows faster than thicker ice. The authors compared the sea ice volume gain Oct.-April with the sea ice volume in October. They also used piomas data and I recalculated it:
The trend is highly significant. As more ice melts to october in a given saison as more rapid the volume increases to the following April.
Coming back to your question Jim: The figure with the linear trend for the Septembers 1979…2019 says that the volume decreased with a slope of -0.323 t km³/year, very likely due to the antropgenic forcing with some internal variability as additional component. The predictive power is very …limited. The real world is much more complicated than a linear trend.
best Frank
Good afternoon Frank (UTC),
Perhaps Alek, Marika, David and Nathan are avid readers of the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, where the concept of the “The Slow Transition” has been under discussion since 2014?
As you rightly point out “simple physics” beats “a second order polynomial fit”, or indeed “the slope of the linear trend”, any day of the week.
Perhaps I might direct Javier’s, Tony’s and your attention once again to this animation?
https://judithcurry.com/2019/10/05/week-in-review-science-edition-110/#comment-901077
Hi Jim once more… I also was a reader (silent) in the ASIF but in the melting saison 2018 I stopped it because some members wrote to much boring stuff ( “Waiting for the cliff during the next 20 days” or so). So I maybe oversaw the more interesting dicussion. It’s always the danger when the audience is so big : The design of a “noise filter” is to time demanding. :-)
However, it’s my impression that we do not disagree in some key facts, i.e. the antropogenic forcing as the main contributor to the Arctic sea ice decline since 1979 with some natural contributions. But when you ask me: “What happens next saison?” I would answer: I don’t know albeit great increase or the “cliff”.
Thanks for the insightful und politely discussion. I wish there would be more!!
best Frank
Hi Frank,
Yes, the signal to noise ratio in the main ASIF melting/freezing season threads has undoubtedly reduced over the years.
It seems wherever you go on the internet there are always plenty of people overly fond of the sound of their own voices!
Jim, so what, your appeal to authority does not impress me much, I studied geophysics and I also did teach it.
Hans,
Here’s some recent exciting geological news from over here for you:
https://www.businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-industry/manufacturing-in-cornwall/2019/09/staggeringly-good-lithium-exploration-results/
Why are MetAmpere drilling holes and digging trenches if all that matters is the area of their alleged lithium deposits?
Three comments,
Firstly as to “So at the risk of repeating myself yet again, what do you make of this fact filled video revealing plummeting Arctic sea ice age?”.
This is a very misleading statistic chart to use for a record of only near 40 years starting with a larger ice area/ volume going to lower ice area/volume.
Arctic Sea Ice (ASI) age is totally dependent on the amount of ice left in September when new ice starts to reform. When it is low and has a good year of regrowth you actually could get a good regrowth year (high first year ice) showing as a falling (plummeting in your words) ASI.
Without taking into account the dynamics of starting point and end point the actual graph does not reflect whether more or less ice is being formed over a few years.
Plummeting levels for say the last 3 years could actually be a feature, from a low base, of rapidly increasing sea ice, not that it is.
Angech – The longer sea ice hangs around the thicker it gets. A bit from thermodynamics, plus a lot more from ridging/rafting.
Not so very long ago ice could circle around the Beaufort Gyre for 10 years or more. These days hardly any survives for 4 or more years.
“Angech – The longer sea ice hangs around the thicker it gets. A bit from thermodynamics, plus a lot more from ridging/rafting.”
The beauty of language is that you can say things that are true but meaningless and also things that sound as if they are true for the point you wish to push, but in fact may have no relevance.
10 year old ice is marginally thicker than one year old ice in density, perhaps. Sounds odd but it may have to do with a change in salt content.
We are talking more about thickness as in volume, with ridging and rafting?
In this case the ice thickness depends more on where it is being formed or moved to than its age. 10 year ice that has moved to a periphery is quite thin, first year ice moving centrally can become quite thick.
The thickness, in volume, is purely related to the area it is on, not its age.
As I pointed out sea ice age is dependent purely on the starting point and end point each year and when sea ice volume makes a yearly increase in the current clime the sea ice age appears to fall. Thus a completely misleading statistic to quote or use.
Angech,
This “debate” is going around in circles like the Beaufort Gyre in centuries past.
See Gordon’s comment on “colliding ice masses [that] push up and over each other to displace ice vertically up to 50 feet” and my response.
Sea ice thickness doesn’t grow thermodynamically by 50 feet in a year!
*Since 1979*
I would only be interested in seeing a graph starting ~1900, although generally it’s no surprise to me that with about 1 degree of warming since the end of the little ice age we would see reduced arctic ice.
It was also supposed to result in reduced Antarctic ice but I’ve heard what melting there is is localized and even that ice extent has increased, I think the source for that was Climate Etc.
Robbie,
Whatever source may have given you that impression, it is sadly out of date. Please see:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-october-2019/#Oct-06
I notice one of the Antarctic graphs there is also since 1979. It is not necessarily indicative that the past 3 years have been lower than average, although interesting.
On Wikipedia it states that “…sea ice around Antarctica has been expanding as of 2013.”
It also says “Satellite measurements by NASA indicate a still increasing sheet thickness above the continent, outweighing the losses at the edge.”
So it appears that in recent years there has been less sea ice, yet still outweighed by the overall mass increase, and apparently not enough to change the overall trend.
Personally I always thought that PIPS was better/more reliable than PIOMAS.. wasnt such a linear nor catastrophic output and was favoured by various militaries who tend to want accurate estimates (if there is such a thing in climate science these days). If I’m risking lives and billions of dollars worth of equipment I’d like to be informed without bias.
Many a stranded/journey interrupted enviromentalist might agree, shame that their own narratives sometimes get in the way.
Good morning BB (UTC),
Are you aware that PIPS was succeeded by ACNFS which was then pensioned off by the US Navy in favour of GOFS?
So Jim, what do you make of the trend over the last ten years? Any chance that trend will continue? Has volume reached a ‘pause’. I certainly hope so for your sake – it will cause some science to be done to explain, vs. the endless cries of doom.
Taylor – Frank and I discussed “The Slow Transition” upthread.
Frank even provided a relevant academic reference.
The descent into darkness article by Alice Dreger is of utmost interest. It shows how the false genocide accusations on anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and physician James Neel were conferred credibility to the eyes of the American Anthropological Association by Terence Turner, an anthropologist activist. Here is his obituary:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/terence-turner-anthropologist-and-human-rights-advocate-indigenous-people-1935-2015
As usual what we see is that activism allows the abandonment of scientific neutrality and the committing of despicable acts justified through a noble corruption. Being an activist in a discipline related to the field of work should be incompatible with being a scientist in that field. It really casts doubt on the work being contaminated by the activism. It looks to me it constitutes a strong conflict of interest.
“As usual what we see is that activism allows the abandonment of scientific neutrality and the committing of despicable acts justified through a noble corruption.”
WOW, beautiful – that one statement sums up the shenanigans of the whole leftist world at this moment in time. JWK
Four plus four makes five.
Ignorance is Strength
George Orwell, “1984” [+35]
I passed by this article, being lazy to copy and paste the url. Thanks for drawing me back to it. If this isn’t an elucidation of the play book for alarmists I don’t know what is. The parallels to Russiagate are sobering. A fantastic report.
Robots in precision agriculture feeding billions on billions in the world into the far future. Many billions of artificial eyes keeping an eye on land, ocean and sky.
I have made my personal FB timeline public to 100’s of friend requests. Is this a thing? 😃
Forget using land, try cellular scale up using precision fermentation https://www.rethinkx.com/food-and-agriculture
But it is precisely land and water management – using grazers and modern hydro engineering methods mainly.
Perhaps you didn’t understand, claimed land use down 60% and water 75% by 2035 by no longer using grazers.
The game is nutrient export to oceans from agriculture – and the candle is livestock in large part. Large herds driven across landscapes accumulating carbon in a rich and productive system. Cattles is critical to human nutrition.
Thank you again for shining a light on science
Sent from my iPhone
>
Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, [link]
There is no chaos in climate. Everything obeys the laws of nature and physics. When things are not well understood, important factors are left out of the solutions. This is not chaos, this is just a case of “they do not know, they do not even have a clue as to what causes natural climate change. Temperatures are bounded in the same bounds in repeating cycles. The bounds and cycles have evolved and abruptly changed from cycles that were more than a hundred thousand years into cycles that are about one thousand years.
Climate science is based on peer reviewed consensus facts that are just wrong. Artificial Intelligent Computers are not advanced enough to fix basic facts that are really wrong. Climate scientists discuss past ice ages and ends of ice ages, and at some point, they almost always describe something and then say, “Nobody understands why”, then they tell you they understand the future.
Pope,
I believe you are confusing Chaos with Chaos Theory, which is a branch mathematics often simply called Chaos. It is widley accepted that our climate is a nonlinear system and thereby falls within the scientific study of chaotic systems.
A key takeaway from the study of chaotic systems is the mathematical proof that climate/weather predictions cannot be made beyond a few months. Shouldn’t this be key to the whole climate debate?
Richard
Has reductionism run its course? Dr. Hossenfelder argues that the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles has been so successful in its predictions, that it probably represents the ultimate picture of Nature on microscopic scales. I too am impressed by the success of the SM, but .. in its very foundations it postulates that quarks (the basic components of nuclear matter) are impossible to observe individually. Only in pairs or triplets. Intellectually rather unsatisfactory.
It is amazing how many experimental facts it explains, but it feels rather byzantine. I hope that a simpler explanation of all those facts might be found.
One hundred and twenty years ago there was a feeling that physics – what we call classical physics – explained everything, and that there was nothing left to discover. Then came quantum physics, and the theory of relativity. I don’t call the addition of these two theories a “reductionism”.
They do not reduce things by learning things, they do reduce things by forming peer reviewed consensus, totally wrong, more often than right!
Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, [link]
Although ice-sheet, ocean and continental geometries were subtly dif-
ferent during the mid-Pliocene, our results suggest that major loss of
Antarctica’s marine-based ice sheets, and an associated GMSL rise of
up to 23m, is likely if CO2 partial pressures remain above 400ppm.
Since ice-sheet, ocean and continental geometries are different than during the mid-Pliocene, I suggest a one molecule in ten thousand in the atmosphere increase of a trace gas will not even be noticed.
Is Eating Beef Heathy?
“We’re closer to saying: we really don’t know,” while past guidelines have generally suggested we fully understand meat’s health effects.”
The issue is whether science is involved in nutrition policy determinations or are advocates for some social well-being belief system to determine public policy. The red meat issue is burdened with other social issues including climate change.
Ever since the Korean War autopsy information on “fatty streaks” on soldiers who died of their wounds made the rounds in academic circles, the cholesterol urban myth made its way into changing our way of dietary messaging. Amongst those stories was that cholesterol from animal fats was bad and the US and the wold in general should follow the diets of the high altitude vegetarians. It turns out that these people had the same coronary artery disease as anybody else and the researchers were examining only those who survived their heart attacks.
Other data on cholesterol and animal based diets was suppressed for multiple decades until just recently. Hard to imagine but eating meat, red meat is OK, but it is.
In the Annals of Internal Medicine: 1 October 2019 the clinical guidelines based upon evidence based medicine is…Continue doing what you have been doing. What a message. The clinics, doctors, and the whole health food industry have been told…never mind. They are not going down without a fight .
Does Nir Shaviv know what he is talking about? Where are the data or calculations?
The climate movement is not really about nutrition.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/16/beef-and-climate-change/
go to google scholar, he has dozens of publications in reputable journals on this topic.
George McGovern said in his hearsing that there was no consensus on it.
The tambonthongchai reference was interesting regarding methane being a major greenhouse gas that needed regulation. Further, the source of methane from farm animals was such that: ” Lowering peak climate forcing quickly with ruminant and CH4 reductions would lessen the likelihood of irreversibly crossing such tipping points into a new climatic state.” Other sources of methane were from reservoirs whereby vegetation settled from fast flowing rivers, decompose and produce methane. Bogs, wetlands, and other still waters create similar vegetation decaying methane producing sources.
All these sources of methane was likely irreversibly crossing such tipping points into a new climate state, which, not stated but implied, would be catastrophic. We have our brethren in the modeling industry to thank for our searing view into the future.
After much ado about nothing regarding a human calamity regarding eating red meats that never materialized, one wonders about the speculation regarding ruminating farm animals hurling us all to some equally frightening tipping point. I am reminded in a sort of circumspect way of an earlier era of: “cow tipping.” A cruel trick played on such a gentle and docile creature.
An examination of the attribution of sea ice changes to AGW
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/28/sea-ice-extent-area-1979-2018/
Biomass and sustainable wood burning is a renewable and inexpensive source of future energy. It is proven and it works. Take a look at the paper pulp industry. Those who say otherwise have vested interest one way or another.
In the linked article about it the Netherlands subsidy package for biomass is 11 billion Euros and it says if the subsidy is dropped energy companies will demand compensation.
Seems likely to me that it would be smarter to burn natural gas which is cleaner for the air and just plant more trees anyway.
Study: Science denial is found on both sides of the political aisle http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500
This implies that the conductors of the survey did know what the correct honest science was. I suggest they did not know, did not even have a clue, did not know what the correct science answers would be.
Publish the questions and answers and let the readers decide who made any sense, if any did. I have seen surveys, related to climate change, that did not have a correct answer to choose from. I started an online climate course once. The test answer choices gave me pains in my body. I could not finish the course. A typical test would not have any right answers to choose from. It was easy to know the answer they wanted, it was always whatever promoted the most fear for our future.
Alex
science and activism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/
I hate to say this, because I know well how much of serious efforts have been put into improving these parametric representations (I spent hundreds of hours in vain myself), but all of these parametric representations, even the best of them, are Mickey Mouse mockeries when compared with the reality. …That is, the selection of the parameter values is an engineering process to “make the model work” rather than a scientific process. The models are “tuned” by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained. I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and is not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it. But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes. …
Even if the best compromise so obtained from the tuning looks very close to the observation, the models’ behaviors are guaranteed to be grotesquely unrealistic, since the tuning requires other aspects of the models to be extremely distorted in order to counterbalance the distortion associated with the Mickey Mouse representations described above. …
I wondered how long it would take before an insider confession by a climate modeller shed light on the reality of their trade. Kudos to Mototaka Nakamura.
A wave of dry air that falls from the stratosphere causes a large drop in surface temperature. In this area, the vertical temperature gradient is maximum. The tropopause height drops. Explained below.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
An increase in ionization by the GCR over the polar circle in winter causes blockages in the polar vortex.
Strong ionization of the lower stratosphere by GCR during low solar activity (especially visible in the winter above the polar circle) gives erroneous satellite results of the troposphere temperature in south.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
A clear rise in temperature in the lower stratosphere above 60 S in September 2019.
Solar activity is now extremely low.
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/solarflux/sx-4-en.php
The graphics below show the actual temperature anomalies above the southern polar circle and the tropics.
re The New Michael Moore Documentary: MM says “This is not a film by climate change deniers, this is a film by people who really care about the environment.”.
Non sequitur. And, by implication, a slur. MM’s earlier documentaries were pretty awful; I suspect that this one will be too.
Re : How the U.S. power grid is evolving to handle solar and wind
Politics-speak for How the U.S. power grid is having the expensive additions necessary to handle solar and wind. And how these costs are shifted away from wind and solar operators in order to gull the electorate
Hi BFGC,
Now you’re getting on to my “professional” speciality, albeit from an EU rather than US perspective I suppose.
That article scandalously neglects to mention vehicle-to-grid technology! V2G for short, or VGI as I believe they prefer to call it on the other side of the pond.
Could it be that V2G is even further from commercial viability than other grid batteries ?
Here in the once Great Britain static “grid scale” battery storage has allegedly come of age:
https://anesco.co.uk/energy-efficiency-award/
Anesco’s landmark Clayhill development, which was the first solar farm in the UK to be created without government subsidy, has been named Solar PV Project of the Year as part of the 2018 National Energy Efficiency Awards.
Based in Milton Keynes, the hybrid site combines 10MW solar PV co-located with 6MW battery storage.
V2x technology isn’t too far behind (IMHO!)
Blocking is already visible. The polar vortex pattern will be similar to last year. Very strong sudden stratospheric warming and breakage of the polar vortex are possible in January or February.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-104.00,58.23,591
I’ll be sure to change to winter tyres.
A very wise decision!
Yep. We’ll see what mischief a truly quiet sun can cause. Not an experiment that I’m keen on, but it is something we really need to know. We had an interesting summer and ts looking as if winter may be even more interesting. Hopefully it wont be as cold on th northern hemisphere as I think it could be.
We have a strong correlation between quiet suns and a flappy jet stream, polar vortex incursions and blocking weather patterns. It might be nice to channel some modelling effort over and above normal long range weather prediction towards this. Anyone actually know of any efforts in this regard?
“The accuracy of German citizens’ confidence in their climate change knowledge”:
One wonders that this stuff gets published.
8 rather arbitrary questions no one from the general public without specialised knowledge can confidently answer other than guessing whether it sounds like it conforms to the propaganda one hears all day long. Two question might be legitimately debatable. And you are supposed to believe in the hockey stick.
So what did we learn from this “study”? About whom? The public? Or the Psychologists beliefs? Or the “nature climate change” editiors?
“500-year [solar] cycles often ended with rapid climate cooling. Whenever that happened, societies started to collapse and neither culture nor political systems could sustain them.”
So, it is imperative that humanity must pump more and more CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid the inevitable, disastrous consequences of global cooling on human culture and society?
Unfortunately, this will not help. Only an increase in the strength of the geomagnetic field can help.
In summer and winter temperatures will be extreme. In the summer, due to ozone depletion, more UV radiation will reach the Earth’s surface.
In other words, we’ll all need more energy, not less.
The US corn belt is making its own weather.
Typical of those Trump-voting southerners with other antisocial habits such as feeding the world. To add insult to injury – now it turns out that their redneck agriculture is reversing global warming, causing regional cooling – a direct insult to Greta Thunberg and all the good believers of the world.
“The [influence] of agriculture intensification is really an independent problem from greenhouse gas emissions,” says Ross Alter, lead author of the study
Now if warming were a problem, then one would have thought that cooling to offset warming would be a good thing. But that’s not the logic of today’s advanced climate science.Yes warming is a problem. And cooling – that’s a problem too especially if it’s caused by humans. And even more especially – if it’s caused by the kind of humans who live in the southern republican red states.
There will be unusual temperature drops next week in Colorado at night.
It looks like a serious attack of winter in the Midwest.
No, I wasn’t aware of those further iterations Jim. Thanks that’s very useful mate. I’ll look them up in bit do they differ much from PIOMAS?
The pleasure is all mine BB.
I think you’ll find that the US Navy’s current estimates show Arctic sea ice to be thinner than PIOMAS. Please feel free to compare and contrast at :
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-october-2019/#Oct-05
Thinner but greater coverage? Or just less ice overall? That’s actually not what I was expecting. I do need to go and read your site. Rather than just saying, hello. Seems I’m under informed. My fault, not been that interested in ice coverage for a number of years. Hence the PIPS reference. Knew it was to be replaced but not had cause to go look until now. During which time it wasnt only replaced once. It was even superceded again. Will rectify my state of informedness.
Hi BB – I think you will find that the Navy’s current calculations reveal astonishingly thin sea ice cover across the Arctic.
Meanwhile the MOSAiC Expedition has installed some buoys that actually measure sea ice thickness:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/ice-mass-balance-buoys/winter-2019-20-imb-buoys/
Here’s the initial readings from the most recent one to go live:
Anomalies in the stratosphere due to low solar activity are clearly visible. In winter they will block the polar vortex.
Let’s see how the stratospheric polar vortex develops.
The volume of ice in the Arctic was lower in 2016.
Ireneusz – Not according to PIOMAS it wasn’t!
jim…from one of your links…”Meanwhile the MOSAiC Expedition has installed some buoys that actually measure sea ice thickness:”
Some people are comedians. They are installing buoys in the Beaufort Sea to measure ice thickness. Do they have any idea of the conditions on the Arctic Ocean?
It seems obvious they are trying to measure ice thickness in the one month of Arctic summer.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/circulation.html
The Arctic Ocean is a dynamic system that features ocean currents and wind patterns. The ice is constantly in motion.
When the Canadian RCMP cutter, the St. Roch, sailed west to east through the NW Passage in the early 1940s, it was held up by ice for 2 years. On the return voyage, it sailed right through in 88 days. Captain Larsen, of the St. Roch, explained that the ice is moved around by ocean currents and winds.
How does one measure ice thickness under such conditions? On top of that, colliding ice masses push up and over each other to displace ice vertically up to 50 feet.
There are times in mid-winter when the North Pole temperatures rise above 0C and the Pole is ice free. That has nothing to do with the ice melting, it’s due to the circulating ice leaving a hole. The rise in temperature at the Pole is an artefact of the ocean currents and winds.
Global warming is not an issue in the Arctic Ocean, despite what climate alarmists think.
Also relevant may be the geological features of the Arctic. Pls see https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/04/svalbard/
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Mornin’ Gordon,
If you had read a bit further you would have discovered that
German research icebreaker Polarstern will… spend a year drifting through the Arctic Ocean – trapped in ice.
In essence Polarstern will be following in the illustrious footsteps of Tara and Fridtjof Nansen‘s Fram before her, but with vastly more scientists in attendance than previous transpolar drift expeditions.
The MOSAiC expedition will bring a modern research icebreaker close to the north pole for a full year including for the first time in polar winter. The data gathered will be used by scientists around the globe to take climate research to a completely new level.
There is an ice mass balance buoy of similar design already deployed in the Beaufort Sea. The MOSAiC expedition will be deploying all sorts of other buoys too.
The aim of the expedition is thus “a full year” and not your claimed “one month of Arctic summer”.
As I previously explained to Angech, in this day and age the sea ice in the Arctic doesn’t hang around long enough to do a whole lot of “push[ing] up and over each other”
Jim
The OMG mission of NASA says the Jakobshavn Glacier is advancing. OMG stands for Oceans Melting Greenland. Really? Is there anything more lame than a government agency of the United States of America naming one of its programs OMG? Do you think they paid a public relations consultant big bucks to come up with the name. Do you think they used focus groups?
What is going to happen when the AMO flips and the Glaciers keep advancing and the Sea Ice recovers? Maybe a new acronym…WG. We Goofed.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7356
Ceresco,
I have no idea if, or how much, NASA paid hordes of PR consultants.
I’m also not sure what Jakobshavn Glacier has to do with sea ice?
Perhaps you’d be good enough to explain your “What is going to happen when the AMO flips.. and the Sea Ice recovers?” theory to me very slowly?
TIA
When is the AMO going to flip? It’s not going to flip for a very long time. It’s the same as the global temperature, which is going to be going up for several more decades. The PDO can flip. It recently did. Yawn.
Hi JCH,
Thanks for your input.
However I was rather hoping to hear a synopsis of Ceresco’s AMO theory from his (presumably?) own virtual lips!
Jim and all others interested in the daily arctic sea ice volume developments: The daily piomas data were released, I made this figure:
IMO it shows the anomaly better then the original piomas plot.
best Frank
Pingback: CHRONOS antaa toisen kuvan | Roskasaitti
I would be interested to hear from Jim Hunt or someone else that have more knowledge in what exact error that caused PIOMAS to ad more ice volume to year 2011–13, according to their website:
“We identified a programming error in a routine that interpolates ice concentration data prior to assimilation. The error only affected data from 2010-2013”.
Maybe this question have been discussed earlier, if so please give me a link.
A classical advice to engineers and scientists:
Interpolate at will. Extrapolate at your own peril.
Lars,
I have no idea if that subject has been discussed here previously. I am a very irregular visitor!
However, according to the PSC:
In February 2014 we identified a programming error affecting the assimilation of ice concentration data. This error affected PIOMAS variables starting 2010-2013. Data have been reprocessed and are identified as version 2.1. Ice area and ice thicknesses in the Beaufort Chuckchi Sea areas were affected with ice thicknesses larger in reprocessed versions. Largest errors were in May.
How accurately can the climate sensitivity to CO₂ be estimated from historical climate change?
Pray for a big eruption.
You follow a sick and twisted religion if you pray for catastrophes. But we already knew that, didn’t we?
You get to smear people; I predict I don’t.
You follow a sick and twisted religion, which is what I was suggesting YOU pray for an eruption.
No. I already looked at the relationship between volcanic eruptions and climate and the evidence supports that volcanic activity has no detectable climatic effect while climate change has a strong effect on volcanism.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/10/the-effect-of-volcanoes-on-climate-and-climate-on-volcanoes/
You can give a rest to your superstitious beliefs.
El Chichon and Pinatubo do exaggerate warming trends since the peak rates from the mid 1970s.
However, backward looking rates from present are no more than 1.7°C per century, even with the bump from eruptions.
Wonder why the boogie man rates of 2.0–4.5 K are cited.
Because they can do arithmetic.
Emergent constraints on Earth’s transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s global warming
On the way to > 3.0 ℃.
Highly unlikely
3.0 ℃ would take a lot of homogenization.
Not without going first through –5°C, thus spoke Milankovitch.
“On the way to > 3.0 ℃.”
Typical – invent something that hasn’t been observed.
Transient and equilibrium? I have said something of the sort. How transient Earth subsystems transition to emergent equilibrium – question is.
Computer generated cloud modelling at a scale not possible globally without billions more times computing power. I have great expectations for silicon quantum computing with the amazing Michelle Simmons.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/200-times-faster-ever-speediest-quantum-operation-yet
Soon we can observe and simulate. The numbers to be taken within broad limits below show bi-equilibrium cloud. Low to high CO2. Something of the sort is observed in decadal cloud and sea surface temperature shifts in the north-east Pacific.
There’s not much to them but clouds reflect some 20% sunlight and cool the planet. Loss of low level marine strato-cumulus cloud could cause warming of 8 degrees C.
The Earth system changes. How fast and how much is an open question.
JCH…re post 1970s global warming.
It seems those issuing articles like this offer only the surface temperatures as fudged by NOAA. The post-1970s is also the age of the satellite as per UAH.
Except for the 2016 EN warming, which still seems to be resolving, UAH shows a flat ‘global average’ warming trend from 1998 till roughly 2015, stalled at roughly 0.2C above the base line. Yet the UAH trend is stated at 0.12C/decade.
I have asked repeatedly over at Roy Spencer’s blog how a 0.12C/decade trend can contain an 18 year flat trend? Many people seem OK with a number-crunched trend but my skeptical mind rejects such math.
The IPCC admitted to 15 years of that flat trend and the early portions of it caused alarmist Kevin Trenberth to lament in the Climategate emails that the warming had stopped.
He called it a travesty that their instrumentation could not detect an anthropogenic signal from the ‘real’ noise. Ah, to be as blind as an alarmist. The fictitious anthropogenic signal is a real signal but the real weather signal is noise.
Seems to me the article to which you have linked suffers from the same blind spots.
Dude, NOAA has not fudged anything.
JCH: see thr text and the supps! They estimate a fully forced AMO and IPO, in the supps. they caculate more likely values (i.e. TCR=1.5 when allowing some internal variability after 1970 ) for both. The higher ECS than the obs. comes mostly (they state in the maintext) from changing warming patterns but some new papers assume that the oberved pattern is a result of the forcing itself, so it won’t change much with ongoing further forcing.Therefore their ECS could be too high.
A positive anomaly in Iceland indicates a strong circulation bolkada during the winter of 1708/1709.
Sorry.
A positive anomaly in Iceland indicates a strong circulation blockade during the winter of 1708/1709.
Ireneusz…I am reading a book about an English adventurer, Samuel Hearne, who explored in the Hudson’s Bay area and to the west close to the time you mention 1708/1709. He wrote a book on his adventures which is apparently considered a classic for its description of the Arctic and sub-Arctic at that time. I am going to see if I can find it.
Although Iceland is on the other side of Greenland from Hudson’s Bay, I was interested in whether the Bay froze over during our Canadian winters. Apparently it does, beginning the freeze over in October/November and becoming ice free only by August.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/ice-breakup-hudson-bay
The focus right now is on the Arctic sea ice but why is sea ice further south not considered? It freezes all the way to James Bay at the south end of Hudson’s Bay. There is a mention in the link that this years ice extent is close to normal for the time referenced.
The southern end of Hudson’s Bay does not suffer from the lack of solar energy in winter like the Arctic. The cold spells in that region are due to cold air drifting south from the Arctic. I live near Vancouver, Canada, which is slightly lower in latitude than the southern tip of James Bay and our temperatures seldom dip below 0C in winter. We are warmed by ocean currents which keep us above 0C unless some Arctic air descends to make us miserable.
https://www.mapsofworld.com/canada/
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/ice-forecasts-observations/latest-conditions/educational-resources/sea/where-sea-ice-is-found.html
Researchers say that when 500-year-long sun cycles brought warmth, communities flourished, but when the Earth cooled, ancient societies collapsed:
“Citing this and earlier studies, Xu said that over the next few decades the Earth would enter 25 years of cooling, although greenhouse gases could slow the temperature drop.
Cooling would increase the size of polar ice caps and lower sea levels. Areas such as southern China could benefit as land would be reclaimed from the sea.”
Low solar increases negative NAO/AO states, driving increased El Nino conditions and a warm AMO. That reduces the Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice sheet, and continental glaciers, and raises the sea level.
Grand solar minima series occur on average every 863 years, with the next series starting from the late 2090’s, and begins with the longest pair of centennial solar minima for 3450 years. This centennial solar minimum is very short and eases off from 2025.
Snow is also forecast to develop along with a dramatic temperature plunge over parts of Colorado, including the Denver area.
“Within 48 hours, Denver may go from 80 degrees and sunshine on Tuesday to 20 degrees and snow Wednesday night,” Sosnowski said.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snowstorm-rapid-freeze-up-to-create-dangerous-travel-over-rockies-and-high-plains-this-week/596373
Ireneusz…light just went on, is that you, ren?
For weeks, WUWT thrashed around in all sorts of nonsense about the ostensible “propagation of error” in GCM modeling of “cloud forcing.” Judith is to be commended for not offering any such platform for the public display of sheer analytic ignorance.
Initial imprecision in models saturates at some intrinsic range of probabilities. Cloud in models can’t be globally modeled without a quantum increase in computing power. There’s two problems just there.
She did, here is my display .. https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
re dust bowl amplification…from the link…”…maximum drying in the central and northern Plains, warm temperature anomalies across almost the entire continent, and widespread dust storms. General circulation models (GCMs), forced by sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the 1930s, produce a drought, but one that is centered in southwestern North America and without the warming centered in the middle of the continent”.
***
The models can’t even get it right when the data is real, from the past.
When I studied geology, as part of my engineering studies, we were ‘told’ the dust was due to plowed furrows in fields being incorrectly plowed in long, parallel rows that the wind could blow down and pick up dust. That seemed odd to me at the time since it would mean all plowed fields would have to align with the direction of wind. Of course, on an exam, I would be forced to regurgitate what they had told me.
Today, students are likely ‘told’ that the dust was due to anthropogenic practices that caused the warming and temporary climate change, albeit without proof. In either case, it seems no one is willing to admit that no one knows why the 1930s were so hot and dry in North America. Record show there were heat waves in the 1930s that have not been seen since yet we are told today that current warming is unprecedented.
BTW…Michael Mann is a geologist. Many have queried how his background qualifies him to speak as an authority on warming and climate. He really hasn’t gotten much right in his theories, as far as I can see, He seems to be better, as revealed in the Climategate email scandal, at drumming up support to interfere with peer review and devising methods to hide declining temperatures.
“…heat waves in the 1930s…”
I know you know, but for those who don’t know or pretend that the heat waves didn’t exist, it’s always nice to have a reminder from EPA about the heat waves during that period. This was pretty common knowledge in the 1950s when I first learned about the hot 1930s. Maybe that period is ignored in history classes…..along with everything else.
cerescokid…thanks for graphic.
The question still remains as to what caused those heat waves and record temperatures that still stand in North America despite NOAAs attempts to amend the record.
I find it hard to accept that the warming was only in North America just as the Little Ice Age was claimed to affect only Europe.. I think global record keeping must have been poor at the time since large portions of the planet were off bounds to scientific measurement, like in the USSR.
I hardly think abundant and accurate temperatures were coming from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The vastness of uninhabited Australia was likely not covered.
I hardly think there was a unified attempt globally to get accurate temperature measurements and the 1930s preceded any kind of electronic instrumentation as in Argo buoys. The oceans were not covered adequately and that remains the case today with the exception of satellite telemetry measurements.
It seems reasonable to presume the heat waves in North America were likely more global than local. It’s just as reasonable to presume they were measured more accurately in North America due to the majority of reporting weather stations being located there.
GR,
The historic record for Australia has more than adequate coverage of the 1920-1940 era to show that the USA 1930s dust bowl weather did not show in Australia.
Geoff S.
In long years in erosion engineering – dust doesn’t depend on furrows.
Systematic records have been kept for as long as 1000 years on the River Nile. 400 years for sunspots. Since the 1860’s for systematic weather data. Plus many millennia of fine resolution proxies. Climate change tends to shows as sudden shifts and multiple climate states.
Not random and too much dynamical complexity making transitions between states at all scales.
A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob. A shiny world when marine strato-cumulus cloud rains out.
As in the flow of the Nile so it is in almost all facets of nature that the data show a tendency to Hurst Persistence that drives itA chaotic behavior. https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/25/nonlinear-dynamics-is-climate-chaotic/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/26/a-chaotic-solar-cycle/
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
This is a good one:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293
Technically demanding paper, but here’s the bottom line:
“The correction from the CO2 term is modest and Earth’s feedback is dominated by the influence of water vapor rather than that of CO2.”
IE: CO2 is not in control of climate change. (And most likely, water vapor is not either.)
Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything…
The climate is changing, because the solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field continually change.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
If we look at the geomagnetic field in the north, we can see that there is a tendency to block circulation over the Bering Strait and the north-central Atlantic. This tendency intensifies during periods of very low solar wind.
This can be taken as a warning of the approaching winter in North America.
The loading pattern of the AO is defined as the leading mode of Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis of monthly mean 1000mb height during 1979-2000 period.
Current ozone distribution in the southern hemisphere
Please see how strong the stratospheric warming in the south is.
The consequence of sudden stratospheric warmings is generally outbreaks of cold weather. Look for this in the SH in the next month.
https://www.iceagenow.info/chile-snow-surprises-inhabitants-of-la-araucania-in-full-spring/
Cold air from the stratosphere drops to the surface in medium latitudes. In other regions, moist air from the troposphere is forced upwards.
I’m still curious about the US corn belt making it’s own cooler and wetter weather.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather
So lots of plant growth and transpiration cools climate locally as well as increasing water vapour and rain.
Now climate scientists like to make inductive leaps so here’s one of my own.
Anthropogenic CO2 has increased plant biomass something like 15% globally.
Shouldn’t this also cool the climate and increase water content in the atmosphere?
Wouldn’t this act as a feedback perhaps explaining why warming is less than predicted by physical models that exclude (or underestimate) CO2 fertilization?
Gordon Robertson
This graph shows some data for hot past days in Australian capital cities, to show a comparative lack of hot days in the 1930s such as USA had with its dustbowl era.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/capital_days.docx Geoff S/
For a detail description of these two plots please go to:
https://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-luni-solar-connection-to-weather-and.html
It is amazing how confident (or ignorant?) some scientists can be when showing high resolution global sea and land temperature graphs going back to 1850. Portions of continents had never seen a thermometer in those times. Sea surface water, up until WWII, was read via dipping buckets with bulb thermometers and resolution no greater than 1 degree C. This meant a system accuracy of may be +/- 1.5 degree C. And these measurements were taken mostly along major sea traffic routes, leaving blanks everywhere else. Scientific magic reveals in these graphs an apparent accuracy of 0.2 degrees C.
To your point, note the ~12% coverage in 1880 in the Southern Hemisphere on this NASA graph. Northern Hemisphere is a little better but how much confidence can we really have with such sparse coverage during that period.
But in this era of mass hysteria, anything is possible. Not only possible, but necessary.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/
Potsniron,
You have a point about the lack of coverage raising doubts about the accuracy (and claimed precision) of the claimed results prior to the 1950s.
However, you seem to be confusing the concepts of measurement error and sample standard deviation.
Each measurement of the world’s mean temperature (WMT) has an instrumental (i.e observational) error as well as possible systematic errors. Imagine that each one-off daily calculation of the WMT has an error +/- 1.5 degrees Celcius.
If you make the assumption that over a period of one month the variation in the calculate WMT caused by seasonal is small, you can average the 30 days of observation that make up that month. This reduces the error of the final monthly WMT by 1/[Squareroot(N)], where N = 30 days.
this means that an error of +/- 1.5 C for a single daily calculation of the world mean temperature reduces to +/- [1.5 /SQRT(30)] = +/- 0.27 deg. C.
This is why you get the errors that are quoted on my first graph. In other words, scientists are taking into account observational errors of +/- 1.5 C, however, you are right in saying that they underestimating the errors caused by lack of coverage.
P.S. Note the increase in the claimed errors in the WMT around 1918-20 and in the 1940s, caused by the lack of sea temperatures caused by the German U-boat campaigns in WWI and WWII.
If I understand your application of standard deviation in this case, don’t you assume that the temperature itself over 30 days remains the same? In some locales, like the doldrums, that might be reasonably to assume. However, in most geographical areas the smoothed temperature readings can vary by several degrees, up or down at the beginning vs. end of a month. Plus, you would need to assume averaging weather variables, which do not zero out globally.
This chilling video taken by the Russian military – no doubt in protective suits – shows graphically the environmental destruction in the Arctic caused by climate. The music grippingly evokes the deadly miazma of ecosystem collapse.
Birds cling to a last holdout on precarious cliffs – never before have they been forced to nest their young precariously on vertical cliffs – each one that falls to their death adds to a mountain of human guilt for such a tragedy. A polar bear lies dying by a poisoned creek – howling mournfully.
Alas the blighted seals have developed grotesquely overgrown front teeth – a quick fact-check from David Attenborough confirms this horrible mutation is quite new and without doubt caused by chemical contamination. Icebergs melt under a relentless sun into hideous shapes before disappearing forever. Another polar bear struggles in vain for life. Pure instinct refuses to surrender to merciless climate.
Adding insult to injury, human vandals damage centuries-old ice with an axe – have you no shame? Mutated seals languish in fetid stagnant pools. International tourists look on from a pleasure-boat. In panic a polar bear flees the stench from the polluted waterline and despairingly climbs a mountain face. Party-goers ignore the devastation caused by their kin and wave banalely at a camera. Where is Greta Thunberg when we need her?!
Your weekly reviews are much anticipated and appreciated. Thank you again.
“Substantial blowing and drifting of snow is in store at the height of the storm Friday and in its immediate wake during part of this weekend.
The storm is forecast to bring a few inches of snow to northwestern Nebraska and western Minnesota.
In the wake of the storm, record low temperatures can occur over portions of the North Central states late this week and this weekend.”