Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens: The challenge of understanding and estimating climate change [link]

A new paper indicates “present” temperatures are the coldest of the last 4 to 7 thousand years in Fennoscandia (Finland). A 2016 paper indicates this region hasn’t warmed (net) since the 1930s. [link]

Efficacy of climate forcings in PDRMIP models. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102

A study suggests that the first burst of oxygen on Earth was added by a spate of volcanic eruptions brought about by tectonics.The study offers a new theory to help explain the Great Oxidation Event about 2.5 billion years ago. go.nature.com/2LiQxlL

New study in GRL observes that during the intraseasonal oscillation in the Indian Ocean, “while the sea surface cools, the reservoir of warm water in the upper Indian Ocean actually increases.” doi.org/10.1029/2019GL

Carbon Brief: CMIP6: the next generation of climate models explained [link]

Temperature trends, and explanation for them, in central Loess Plateau of China. Interactive Effects of Climatic Factors on Seasonal Vegetation Dynamics in the Central Loess Plateau, China [link]

World’s oldest ice core reveals a history of Earth’s greenhouse gas levels. [link]

analysis of the annual frequency of combined precipitation-wind impact categories reveals no significant increasing or decreasing trend in impact over China over the past 30 years. [link]

Flow dependent stochastic coupling of climate models rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10

Sea Caves Hold Clues to Ancient Storms [link]

“The onset of neoglaciation in Iceland and the 4.2 ka event” clim-past.net/15/25/2019/ has very non-Hockey Stick perspective on last 9000 years. Data from both ocean and land proxies on or near Iceland show decline throughout Holocene, small 20th recovery

New Study: 6500 Years Ago The Western Barents Sea Was Ice-Free And 10°C Warmer Than 2015 notrickszone.com/2019/11/25/new

ENSO modulation of MJO teleconnections to the North Atlantic and Europe [link]

“Forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in HadGEM3‐GC3.1 and UKESM1”. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102

Why 536 was the worst year to be alive [link]

During the Mid-Holocene (265 ppm CO2) this Arctic region was sea ice-free. SSTs rose/fell by multiple °C/century and peaked at 13°C (~9°C warmer than today). sciencedirect.com/science/articl

Policy and technologies

Gail Tverberg: Do the world’s energy policies make sense? [link]

After climate despair: The dream of global conversion to austerity has failed to stop climate change. Energy abundance is our best hope for living well [link]

Lomborg: We are throwing money at the wrong solutions to climate change [link]

Pielke Jr: CO2 emissions are on the brink of a long plateau [link]

Why climate alarmism hurts us all [link]

As water sources dry up, Arizona farmers feel the heat of climate change [link]

New generation of hydroelectric dams threaten Europe’s rivers [link]

Everyone needs to shut the hell up about plastic pollution. “AT Kearney asked 1,500 Germans what had the strongest impact on reducing CO2 footprint. Of the 7 choices listed, 22% thought cutting out plastic bags had the biggest impact, more than any other option” [link]

Michael Shellenberger: Apocalypse Cancelled? [link]

Stop the ethanol madness [link]

Samoa climate change resilience challenges Western perceptions wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/24/sam

The powerlessness of Nigeria’s tech startups [link]

About science and scientists

Yin-yang thinking – a solution to dealing with unknown unknowns [link]

Is there a truth crisis? [link]

Citation counting is killing academic dissent [link]

432 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. DAVID WINTERFLOOD

    Judith. Aided or added. ??? It makes a difference. i.e. helped by volcanic eruptions. Or just happening together. Was it a typo ? I cannot perceive a volcano emitting oxygen. Unless combined with carbon. Both being essential to life. And photosynthesis. All these things people forgot or never learnt. But take for granted then attack. Thunderous Greta etc. Your quote below :

    “ A study suggests that the first burst of oxygen on Earth was added by a spate of volcanic eruptions brought about by tectonics. “.

    Regards.

    David Winterflood PO BOX 4 YASS NSW. 2582 Australia. Mob : 61428325857

    >

  2. Lot’s of links, but none test the premise that underpins CAGW – i.e. that global warming would be net harmful for the world.

    • Climate change has already cost Americans at least $16 billion. Fossil fuel externalities are about $200 B/yr. Are these harmful?

      • Not if that fossil fuel usage enable trillions of productive activity per yer.

      • Curious George

        Link to a peer reviewed source, please.

      • Cost of sea level rise:
        https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/11/property-value-flood-mississippi-bay-st-louis-climate-change/602476/

        Fossil fuel externalities:
        The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuels for more than just electricity use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment (dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.):

        “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
        National Research Council, 2010
        http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

      • Rob JM commented:
        Not if that fossil fuel usage enable trillions of productive activity per yer.

        Yes it is. Externalities are real costs paid by real people, through illness and early deaths from pollution, pollution impacts on agriculture, lost ecosystem services, etc.

        It’s energy that enables productivity. It source does not need to be fossil fuels.

      • Curious George

        You use a rather unique definition of “peer reviewed” – for your references only.

      • The National Academy Report is full of peer reviewed sources — that’s where they got their information.

      • Appell- “Cost of sea level rise:
        https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/11/property-value-flood-mississippi-bay-st-louis-climate-change/602476/

        A normal individual would be embarrassed citing a seriously crappy study (hint – a normal person would have noticed that the study was crap )

        It is common knowledge that the area they are discussing is part of a large flood plain built up on several river deltas. That land is sinking, unstable, etc.

        Of course it is going to flood, Climate change and Rising sea level has nothing to do with the flooding.

      • Why is the study “crap?”

        What says the land is sinking (along the entire East Coast and the Gulf Coast?

      • Appell – Serioulsy – virtually every land worldwide formed by river delta’s are sinking. Its common knowledge –
        What is amusing – is someone who professes to have superior knowledge and insight into global warming, yet is unable to recognize crap science.

      • Hmm, that’s hardly proof that land is sinking up and down the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Do you have any data you can share without the personal jabs?

      • Appell ‘s comment -“Hmm, that’s hardly proof that land is sinking up and down the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Do you have any data you can share without the personal jabs?”

        David- If you werent such a rabid cheerleader for every AGW study, you probably wouldnt get caught so frequently with promoting crappy studies such as the one you linked.

        I gave you some basic geological info on the region. Its not so hard to a little basic research to get your self up to speed for a subject matter that is common knowledge or at least common sense to most individuals.

      • Appell – Fossil fuel external costs –

        FYI – all producs have external costs which are not build into the consumer price.

        Food is just one example – The price of food pruchased from the farmer and/or grocer doesnt cover the cost of removing the waste product of food.

      • Appell

        I’m surprised you weren’t aware that parts of the east coast is sinking. It’s common knowledge for anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time studying SLR. It’s one of the fundamentals to know along with Sydney SLR rate of 3” per century, Jakarta sinking 12 feet in the last 30 years, the IPCC estimate of contribution to GMSLR of Antarctica of .27mm/yr (1/5 thickness of a dime), the 60 year cycle, the similar rate of current rise in the 1910-40 period, SLR beginning in the early 1800s and the existence of several papers finding no acceleration of SLR Rate.

      • joe wrote:
        I gave you some basic geological info on the region….

        In other words, you have no data at all.

      • Food is just one example – The price of food pruchased from the farmer and/or grocer doesnt cover the cost of removing the waste product of food.

        It does if you buy the food in a restaurant.

        But it’s a bad analogy. Food waste costs are paid directly by the consumer. Fossil fuel wastes aren’t. And food wastes don’t affect the entire world for the next 100,000 years. Fossil fuel waste do.

      • cerescokid commented
        I’m surprised you weren’t aware that parts of the east coast is sinking

        Of course I’m aware that parts of the east coast are sinking. I’m not aware that all of it is, and all of the gulf coast. And it doesn’t mean the sea isn’t rising (and accelerating now). Naturally those places that are sinking will often be the first to experience problems from sea level rise. Keep your checkbook out.

      • Thanks Judith, for some good, hard data on the topic.

      • Appell

        If you start reading things that skeptics have already read, you might begin to know as much as they do. Although, based on what I’ve seen, you have a long way to go.

  3. The Palmer and Stevens link has a Figure 1 of great interest. It shows the usual spaghetti graph of multiple models of the rising trend of temperature anomalies, increasing by about 1 degree C in 120 years. However, on the RHS of the graph are shown the ABSOLUTE temperatures (not the anomalies), covering a much wider range of 3 degrees C. The authors take this as evidence that the models would be unable to predict regional trends, because their different estimates of absolute temperatures would interfere with their predictions.

    This reminds me that some 4 or 5 years ago, I went to the KNMI site and ran the 35 or so models (that is, took already-run realizations for each). The recommended appraoch is to look at results of anomalies, but it is also possible to choose the absolute temperature predictions. By mistake I chose the absolute temperatures. I was astounded to note that the 35 models differed by a full 3 degrees C in the current world temperature (from 12.5 to 15.5 C). this at once says that a model that thinks it is 12 .5 C today will find a vastly larger area of below-freezing regions in fall and winter than a model that believes it is 15.5 C today. How could one compare such models? On that basis, I concluded the models did not seem fit for purpose. It appears that Palmer and Stevens have come to the same conclusion (although they simply say we need an Apoolo-type program to fix the problem).

  4. Lomborg: We are throwing money at the wrong solutions to climate change [link]

    We are throwing money at solutions to problems that do not exist and causing harm to the economy and energy production.

    Climate has and is and will change in natural cycles that we can not control with one molecule in ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere.

    Controlling climate, which has always changed in natural cycles that depend on internal response to external forcing, and has natural frequencies that depend on ice and water changing state, controlling climate with a trace gas is beyond unreasonable, this is something people would try to do and fail, if they did not even suspect what causes natural climate change. They have never studied causes of past natural climate change and they do not even suspect that climate is really supposed to change with natural warmer and colder, alternating, cycles.

  5. A regenerative agriculture field day in NZ.

    • “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. ” Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer – – https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

      Buried in this quote is why general circulation models cannot work.
      Process level models work. Either as linear models incorporating remotely sensed data.

      Or nonlinear models at cloud resolving scale. Doing this over the whole planet – with much more precise observations of initial conditions – would resolve the divergence problem but require 3,000,000 times more computing power.

      “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.” Sergei Havtsic et al – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

      This shows that they haven’t.

    • Models work

      When aided by the LIA, anything would work, even saying the temperatures will go up in concert with the purse of the PGATOUR. Funny how natural variability comes to the rescue like that.

    • “Models work.”

      It depends on what one is modeling.

      Global average temperature appears predictable within variation.
      That’s because RF is relatively independent of chaotic motion.
      But global average temperature is not a particularly significant value to climate.

      Storms, precipitation, hurricanes, droughts, floods, cold outbreaks, and even heatwaves appear to be much more dependent on variations of motion with little to no dependence on global average temperature.

      • “We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example. We also find regular structures on much smaller scales, like the ripples in the windblown sand, the intricate structure of animal coats, the beautiful pattern of mollusks or even in the propagation of electrical signals in the heart muscle. It is the goal of pattern formation to understand nonequilibrium systems in which the nonlinearities conspire to generate spatio-temporal structures or pattern. Many of these systems can be described by coupled nonlinear partial differential equations, and one could argue that it is the field of pattern formation is trying to find unifying concepts underlying these equations.” http://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

        The problem is not forcing but thresholds and emergent properties. This scientific paradigm suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components of the physical system start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, dust, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation. This results in changes in surface temperature and hydrology certainly on decadal – and quite likely centennial to millennial – scales that are well beyond the simple forcing and feedback paradigm. As Sergey Kravtsov and colleagues found – decadal variability is missing in state of the art numerical models.

        Temporal (Lorenzian) chaos in models is orders of magnitude simpler. Models are not the opportunistic ensembles of the CMIP – these latter lack any solid theoretical underpinning. Models with today’s observations and computing power can produce 1000’s of divergent solutions from plausible starting points in perturbed physics ensembles. They are in other words probabilistic rather than deterministic.


        “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.”

    • Has model performance gotten worse?

      Here is an early model run of quadrupled CO2 by Manabe and Stouffer, 1980:

      There is a slight temperature trend maxima at the tropical upper troposphere, but it is less than half of the lower Arctic temperature trend.

      No hot spot.

      Despite all the money, compute cycles, and ink dumped at the problem, current models persist in creating the unobserved hot spot which the model of 1980 did not.

      • So much for Models
        Jones et al 2016
        “Over the 36-year satellite era, significant linear trends in annual mean sea-ice extent, surface temperature and sea-level pressure are superimposed on large interannual to decadal variability. Most observed trends, however, are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. With the exception of the positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode, climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability overwhelms the forced response in the observations, but the models may not fully represent this natural variability or may overestimate the magnitude of the forced response.”

    • A claim that “models work” with a reference to a poor quality magazine article that talks about “correct predictions”. You did read the paper before posting?

    • Yes they work. But in the current case, they have no value. The GMST is not the climate. Not tested were ice sheet, SLR, precipitation, regional, ENSO and deep ocean current models.

      A company like Apple has provided value. Apple made our lives better. CMIPs haven’t. We have not as a world prevented 0.1 C of warming and even if we had, Lomborg would argue, what a waste. At what point do the CMIPs provide value for some redneck in Iowa or some liberal living in D.C.?

      We could argue like the Apollo missions, we got some cool stuff that was applied and provided value. They allowed us to win arguments against deniers. But so what? That’s wasn’t the point. The point is policies that make things better for voters.

      If we’d listened to Hansen, we’d have nuclear power, then we might be getting somewhere. But CMIPs >>> Nuclear Power hasn’t worked yet.

      The CMIPs are just a fighter in an MMA cage match. How nice.

      Given that you won the climate model argument, what do we have? Nothing. We have less reliable and more expensive electricity. We have unaddressed problems.

      This I am right argument, where SkS comes to mind, doesn’t solve any problems.

    • @Mosher

      Models work.

      Well that is a relief.

    • I read the Timm Palmer and Bjorn Stevens paper a few day ago. I skimmed your paper this morning. It isn’t a hard read – although the format is a bit confusing. I suggest you read more Tim Palmer. Or here’s a video instead if that’s too difficult.

      Perhaps not so unexpectedly – I get whines from both skeptics and alarmists about my pet theory. I keep it under a rock and bring it out now and then. My precious,

    • SM
      models work

      Put this in your model and smoke it:

      During the Mid-Holocene (265 ppm CO2) this Arctic region was sea ice-free. SSTs rose/fell by multiple °C/century and peaked at 13°C (~9°C warmer than today).

      https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911930109X

    • So I’m guessing this is another case of climate models correctly “predicting” thing after they actually happened. Or in other words this is retroactive “prediction”.

      I’m pretty sure Zeke isn’t using the models that existed back then, most or all of which made predictions which went rather far from what later happened, if my memory means anything.

      So we are actually talking about models that have had many adjustments in recent years that are now “predicting” what happened at the end of the 20th century?

    • Hausfather’s model is wonderfully tuneable.

      Needs to go hotter? Tune up CO2 sensitivity.
      Needs to go colder? Make aerosols block the sun more. Thrown in a volcano or two (of the dozens that go off every month) for good measure.

      CO2 is the control knob.
      Aerosols / volcanoes are the control knob on the control knob. A skilled artist like Hausfather will turn both knobs to obtain any desired wavetrain. Rather like playing one of those Moog synthesisers from back in the 60’s and 70’s, like Joy Division, Kraftwerk etc.

      The perfect climate model – tunable in skilled hands to match any climate history. (Just don’t mention Karl Popper.)

    • No, they don’t.
      Climate is not only the average global temperature, but also a hubs different physical quantities and phenomena, clouds formation, albedo, ice, snow cover, etc.
      None of these, nor even one, is modelled with the accuracy necessary to guarantee reliable prediction/projection at the end of the century, or even beyond.
      Fact, easy to prove, one further proof is given in a paper cited here by Judith.

    • Steven Mosher
      Models work.
      Steven Mosher
      model predictions of global means are skillfull.
      Steven Mosher
      You cant rebut facts.
      Steven Mosher
      No. Skeptic models dont work Sounds like a rebuttal of a fact

    • You cant rebut facts.

      • The fact is there are over 100 peer reviewed studies showing warming of some kind during the Medieval Warm Period all across the globe.

      • Steve, I’m not quite sure what you mean with “facts”. In the Hausfather et al paper they compare the validity during timspans ( 1970…2000s), which are not sufficent long to estimate the TCR from observations. In the figure in question of the paper you can see a TCR in this time span of about 1.8 K/ 2*CO2. However I question it this is the correct TCR of the obs. climate system. My “fact” is the estimated TCR (from obs. with a simple EBM) which is mentioned in Otto et al (2013); L/C (14,18) because there is used a sufficient long time timespan. Unfortunately in the H.(19) paper they do not discuss this issue. So it can’t make my wonder that the obs. TCR and the model deviated values don’t diverge too much: they both underestimate the (multi) decadal internal variability, which is not enough taken into account when applicating too short timespans.

      • The fact is there are over 100 peer reviewed studies showing warming of some kind during the Medieval Warm Period all across the globe. …

        Doesn’t matter if you cite one, ten, one hundred, ten thousand. Imo, nobody to date has met the bar.

        It cannot start out established, which is how it is being presented:

        There was a MWP that evil alarmists erased!!!!

        It has to be established. I can’t find that it was ever done.

        When study does that, which would be very easy to do. That would be fine with me as it would indicate climate sensitivity could be very high.

        But you want to establish a conclusion that has never been made with an end run.

        Only takes one. What is the name of the study that clearly proves a global MWP that occurred at the same time? Can you provide a link?

      • At the rate of publication the over 100 will become 1,000 in a few years. When people don’t want to face up to overwhelming evidence, it doesn’t matter what the evidence is. Especially, when orders from headquarters say don’t.

        At first, the rationale was that the MWP only occurred in Northern Europe. After papers found evidence in other continents in the Northern Hemisphere, it was that no evidence was found in the Southern Hemisphere. After studies found evidence of warming in the Southern Hemisphere, then it was there was no synchronicity. Then that argument was destroyed. Now, it’s about questionable amplitude. Because the MWP temperatures don’t reach current global temperatures doesn’t show there was no MWP. It could have been a global, synchronous event, yet below the current temperatures. Also, coarse resolution of proxies from that period leaves large error bars, too large to come to definitive conclusions.

        Skeptics have the advantage of using common sense. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, chances are very, very good it’s a duck. There is too much evidence to the contrary to say there was no global warm period during the putative MWP.

        On the other side are those who are so gullible and naive that they go ga ga about a 16 year old kid.

        I rest my case.

      • Mosh, JCH

        You’re cynically taking advantage of the difficulty of getting palaeo data. Exactly like creationists.

      • Re: “In the Hausfather et al paper they compare the validity during timspans ( 1970…2000s), which are not sufficent long to estimate the TCR from observations. In the figure in question of the paper you can see a TCR in this time span of about 1.8 K/ 2*CO2. However I question it this is the correct TCR of the obs. climate system. My “fact” is the estimated TCR (from obs. with a simple EBM) which is mentioned in Otto et al (2013); L/C (14,18) because there is used a sufficient long time timespan. Unfortunately in the H.(19) paper they do not discuss this issue. So it can’t make my wonder that the obs. TCR and the model deviated values don’t diverge too much: they both underestimate the (multi) decadal internal variability, which is not enough taken into account when applicating too short timespans.”

        You used this false claim on RealClimate already, and were rebutted on it:
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/#comment-751791

        Once again, H.(19) had a TCR estimate of ~1.6, and covered a period of 1850 to about the mid-to-late 2010s. That’s clearly shown in figure 5 of the paper and further discussed in section 4 on page 4903:

        “A limited role for unforced internal variability in twentieth-century warming”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1

        That is longer than the post-1940 period you asked for over on RealClimate. So no, their higher TCR is not due to them using a shorter time period. Moreover, they explicitly address the “(multi) decadal internal variability”, especially with respect to the ~60 year AMV/AMO. They even say so in their abstract, noting that it’s primarily a forced response, instead of internal variability. And some of the literature on the serious deficits in Lewis+Curry’s EBM-based approach were already cited to you over at RealClimate.

      • There can be 100,000. If they all say the same thing as the first 100, sorry, no cigar.

        It would ever so easy to just do it. And yet, they apparently can’t, or won’t, or don’t get it. Whatever. They’re short.

      • What is common sensical about claiming there was a MWP when your guys can’t write the paper? Or won’t. Or haven’t figured out it hasn’t been done yet. (Maybe they don’t know; maybe they Lamb already did it he did not.) Whatever. I’m anxious to see it. Bingo, common sense, sensitivity could be pretty high.

      • Atomsk: You seem to be a little confused. In the Hausfather et al ( 2019) they find a TCR of about 1.8 from observations und compare the “early models” vs. this value.

        Source: RC
        There is no “fig. 5” in this paper. Eventually you mean the ( introduced at RC by you) Haustein et al (2019) paper, but this is not the paper we discuss here. (BTW, the fig.5 of Haustein et al shows “Illustration of the ENSO influence on our results.”???) IMO you are very fast when you write about “rebutted”. Stay on target and don’t mix up the things

      • JCH
        What is common sensical about claiming there was a MWP when your guys can’t write the paper? Or won’t. Or haven’t figured out it hasn’t been done yet.

        There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers at CO2 science showing proxy evidence for the MWP in every continent on earth.

        http://www.co2science.org/

        Your denial of the MWP (and presumably of the LIA also) shows that the warming alarm story requires the effective destruction of knowledge of past climates; that this quote from the climategate emails remains as true as ever:

        ”We’ve got to get rid of the MWP.

        Your obedience to this directive is impressive.

        Every single “week in review” from JC includes at least one paper confirming centennial climate variability over the Holocene. You just avert your eyes from them. From just this week we have:

        “The onset of neoglaciation in Iceland and the 4.2 ka event” https://clim-past.net/15/25/2019/ has very non-Hockey Stick perspective on last 9000 years. Data from both ocean and land proxies on or near Iceland show decline throughout Holocene, small 20th recovery

        New Study: 6500 Years Ago The Western Barents Sea Was Ice-Free And 10°C Warmer Than 2015 https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/25/new-study-6500-years-ago-the-western-barents-sea-was-ice-free-and-10c-warmer-than-2015/

        Why 536 was the worst year to be alive [link]

        During the Mid-Holocene (265 ppm CO2) this Arctic region was sea ice-free. SSTs rose/fell by multiple °C/century and peaked at 13°C (~9°C warmer than today). https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911930109X

      • Atomsk, PS: You favour the Haustein et al (2019) for the estimation of the TCR deduced from the EBM approach vs. L/C (2018). However I found two points against this claim: 1. The Haustein paper takes advantage also from the BEST data for the GMST change. This dataset is not peer reviewed, AFAIK. L/C 18 uses C&W and HadCRUT4 which are reviewed. 2. The Haustein paper doesn’t include all known forcing agents, as you can read it in section 2: The by Haustein et al (2019) used agents are described there: ERFghg, ERFaero; ERFvolcano and ERFsolar. However, there are more known forcing agents: land use; O3 tropo; O3 strato; H2O strato; contrails… the sum of the radiative forcing from this agents gives ( my crude calculation) additional 0.39W/m² between 1750 and 2018. The negligence of the mentioned forcing agents in the ERFtotal must enhance the TCR. In L/C 18 all agents are used. Therefore I trust L/C 18 more than Haustein et al (2018). You won’t, I’m quite sure…

      • Instead of the commie inspired top down approach of having the entire debate hinged on one questionable paper, the free market of ideas is superior. When warming is found on all continents during the same general period innumerable authors and studies, that surpasses the bar. Science advances by one discredited paper at a time.

        http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.htmx

      • LMAO. You don’t get it. When they roll up the math, they all fail to get the job done. 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, doesn’t make a hill of beans of difference until one of them, ONE, takes it across the finish line.

        It would be easy. Why haven’t the advocates of the MWP done it? Mann tried. Surely the geniuses in the contrarian community – all of them smarter and more ethical than Mann!!! – can write a simple paper that takes the MWP across the finish line.

        Right?

      • “There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers at CO2 science showing proxy evidence for the MWP in every continent on earth.”
        AND
        “It could have been a global, synchronous event, yet below the current temperatures.

        https://physicsworld.com/a/unique-climate-change-has-no-natural-cause/

        “But from the start, there have always been gnawing questions: hasn’t the climate always changed? If global temperatures rose between 700 AD and 1400 AD, and then fell again, is what is happening now not part of some similar long-term cycle? And until now, that has remained without a confident, categorical answer.
        So the latest study surprises nobody. But it matters, because the Nature study clarifies a point of possible confusioRaphel Neukom of the University of Bernn. There have been changes in modern human history, but none of them global and synchronous (happening at the same time). They were random fluctuations within the climate system, and even changes in solar activity or volcanic surges could not affect all of the planet at any one time.
        “It’s true that during the Little Ice Age it was generally colder across the whole world,” says  in Switzerland, and first author, “but not everywhere at the same time. The peak periods of pre-industrial warm and cold periods occurred at different times in different places.”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

        Yep – still waiting for evidence of global synchronicity of historical cold warm events.

      • Re: “Eventually you mean the ( introduced at RC by you) Haustein et al (2019) paper, but this is not the paper we discuss here.”

        Actually, you’re the one who originally introduced the false idea that there weren’t analyses covering a sufficiently long period (ex: since 1940) to show a TCR of higher than 1.3:

        “However, the question remains: Do they correctly replicate the TCR of the real world? During timespans of about 30…40 years the (multi) decadal internal variability is more or less muted. It would be interesting to see the sensitivities from about 1940 on, because the observed TCR in this timespan is about 1.3 as is was stated in Otto et al (2013) and Lewis/Curry (2014,2018) and to my knowledge nobody contradicted those values deduced from observations using a sufficient long timespan.”
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/#comment-751719

        I cited Haustein et al. as a rebuttal to that over at RealClimate. You had no cogent response to that (beyond obscuring what Haustein et al. said), allowing you to repeat your script here:

        “My “fact” is the estimated TCR (from obs. with a simple EBM) which is mentioned in Otto et al (2013); L/C (14,18) because there is used a sufficient long time timespan.”
        https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/06/week-in-review-science-edition-114/#comment-904269

        “(BTW, the fig.5 of Haustein et al shows “Illustration of the ENSO influence on our results.”???) IMO you are very fast when you write about “rebutted”. Stay on target and don’t mix up the things”

        Once again, please actually read Haustein et al., especially figure 5 of the paper and the discussion in section 4 on page 4903:

        “A limited role for unforced internal variability in twentieth-century warming”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1

        Since you again won’t acknowledge what it says, I’ll explain it to you again, with a quote from the paper:

        In Fig. 5, the TCR range from 1.2 to 2.0 K is indicated with our best estimate using a TCR of 1.6 K (bold lines). Based on linear regression between HadOST and the Global response model result, our most precise TCR estimate is 1.57 K with an associated interdecile uncertainty range of 0.87–2.27 K (10th–90th percentiles) [page 4903].”

        And as I already explained to you multiple times, this (figure 5) covered a period of 1850 to about the mid-to-late 2010s. That is more than long enough to meet your request of a time period at or longer than post-1940. So I suggest you stop obscuring what Haustein et al. actually said, in an attempt to get people to accept the false claim that no one used a “sufficient[ly] long timespan” to “contradic[t] those values” from papers co-authored by Nic Lewis.

      • Atomsk, while you are behind the scene, making obscure claims just like those: ” I cited Haustein et al. as a rebuttal …” I made clear why Haustein et al is in fact no rebuttal but contents some kind of (biased) claims. They “forgot” some forcing, well known in the literature. Please think about those shortcomings b4 you claim that you found something vs. LC18. It’s a blame game you play.

      • Re: “However I found two points against this claim: 1. The Haustein paper takes advantage also from the BEST data for the GMST change. This dataset is not peer reviewed, AFAIK. L/C 18 uses C&W and HadCRUT4 which are reviewed.”

        As I noted in my previous comment, you initially said you knew of no “observatio[nal]” paper with a time period of post-1940 or longer, that got a TCR estimate of greater than the 1.3 value from papers Nic Lewis co-authored. Of course, your claim was false, since Haustein et al. 2019 is just such a paper, and you claimed you were aware of it. But instead of admitting your initial claim was false, you’re now introducing new reasons to not accept Haustein et al. 2019. How telling; you’re moving the goalposts, after you were shown to be wrong.

        Anyway, here is a quote from Haustein et al. 2019:

        “We use Berkeley Earth Land/Ocean (BE) (Rohde et al. 2012), HadCRUT4-Cowtan/Way (Cru4CW) (Cowtan and Way 2014; Cowtan et al. 2015), HadISST2 (Titchner and Rayner 2014; J. Kennedy et al. 2017, unpublished manuscript), and Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) (Donlon et al. 2012) data as observational data [page 4895].”
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1

        You therefore conveniently left out two pertinent points: Haustein et al. used C&W as well, and they cited a publication for BEST (Berkeley Earth surface temperature analysis). I wonder why you did that. Maybe because including those points would debunk what you just said?

        It’s ironic that you do this with respect to L/C 18 (Lewis+Curry 2018), given that one of the co-authors is Judith Curry. She’s cited BEST before and views it favorably. One can again wonder why you conveniently left that out… :

        “The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth.”
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-surface-temperatures-released/

        “Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures”
        “Influence of urban heating on the global temperature land average using rural sites identified from MODIS classifications”

        You seem to be using motivated reasoning to reach your pre-determined conclusion that Lewis’ co-authored TCR estimates of ~1.3 are right, while any other analyses with higher values (such as Haustein et al. 2019) must be wrong. Hence you repeatedly distorting the contents of Haustein’s paper. So at this point, I don’t think you can be trusted to accurately represent the contents of Haustein et al. 2019, or TCR estimates in general.

      • Atomsk: The BEST dataset in it’s recent form is NOT peer reviewed, Is it this you wanted to say? Thanks! And the Haustein et. al didn’t take account for all forcing agents. Sorry for this fact, Your claim of “motivated reasoning” falls back to you as long as you are not able to respond on this. “Lost” forcing agents… and not peer reviewed GMST: Is it your imagination of science? Let me say: it’s wrong.

      • You two have been left in the dust by the literature. Soon and Balunias and Idso and Christensen and Ljungqvist and Luning and Grove have all done that.

        Even your boy Mann went wobbly about the Southern Hemisphere and global proxies
        “Conclusions are less definitive for the SH and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the SH. Given the uncertainties, the SH and global reconstructions are compatible with the possibility of warmth similar to the most recent decade during brief intervals of the past 1,500 years. A targeted effort to recover additional high-quality, long paleoclimate proxy records from the SH could reduce these current existing uncertainties.”

        To reduce these current existing uncertainties. That is what has been going on in the last decade. Filling in the data.

        North America-Filling In
        South America-Filling In
        Africa-Filling In
        Asia-Filling In
        Australia-Filling In

        You could wait a couple of years and go for the Daily Double by capitulating on both the AMO and MWP at the same time.

      • phil salmon wrote:
        Your denial of the MWP (and presumably of the LIA also) shows that the warming alarm story requires the effective destruction of knowledge of past climates

        AGW doesn’t depend on the MWP or LIA at all. It’s warming that’s independent and with a different cause.

      • cerescokid wrote:
        You two have been left in the dust by the literature. Soon and BaluniasM

        Soon & Baliunas was a flawed paper from the start, where they choose their criteria to get the result they wanted.

        “The most significant criticism is that Soon and Baliunas do not present their data quantitatively–instead they merely categorize the work of others primarily into one of two sets: either supporting or not supporting their particular definitions of a Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age. “I was stating outright that I’m not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results,” Soon says.

        “Specifically, they define a “climatic anomaly” as a period of 50 or more years of wetness or dryness or sustained warmth (or, for the Little Ice Age, coolness). The problem is that under this broad definition a wet or dry spell would indicate a climatic anomaly even if the temperature remained perfectly constant. Soon and Baliunas are “mindful” that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age should be defined by temperature, but “we emphasize that great bias would result if those thermal anomalies were to be dissociated” from other climatic conditions. (Asked to define “wetness” and “dryness,” Soon and Baliunas say only that they “referred to the standard usage in English.”)”

        Scientific American, 6/24/03
        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/

      • It seems frank wins on points. Omitting significant forcings from an estimate of ECS is rather a serious omission. It is hard to claim that this flawed study contradicts frank’s point. Lewis and Curry has been around for a while and most of the attempts to claim its biased low have been refuted.

      • Ceresco kid
        The evidence of other periods of warming and cooling is shown in the link regarding 536 being the worst ever year.

        Apart from mixing up their Roman empires as it was the west,already in decline, whose demise was hastened,not the east which endured another 1000 years, it was a cold period as I observed in my article from 8 years ago

        ‘Note 1 * The quote from St Cyrian in 250AD provided earlier would be considered ‘anecdotal,’ a particularly derisory term in the Climate Science Dictionary, who prefer computer models or intriguing proxies. However, in this instance the journal ‘Science’ comes to our aid. On their website they quote Ulf Buntgen of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape, who produced a study looking back on 2500 years of climate change. He wrote ‘increased climate variability from AD250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the migration period. Distinct drying in the third century paralleled a period of serious crisis in the western Roman Empire marked by barbarian invasion, political turmoil and economic dislocation in several provinces of Gaul.”

        So yet another period of change that ended the settled and warm Roman period.

        Mind you, what I find fascinating is that the Roman empire endured as recently as the discovery of America!

        tonyb

      • Global and synchronous?
        Current warming is supposed to be global and synchronous while previous warmings / coolings were not?
        Wrong, current warming is far from global and synchronous.
        Most of Antarctica has not warmed for decades.
        Neither has Fennoscandia, neither has south America, neither has Japan.
        Neither has much of the Pacific ocean.
        North America was significantly hotter in the 1930’s than now.

        This is of course where the climate editors are busiest.
        The creationist denial of historic data also helps the cause, of course.

        But this is all way short of getting the alarm story over the line of departing from the null hypothesis of natural variation.
        When you do achieve such a difference from null – why don’t you go ahead and publish it? No need to be shy.

      • Appell

        I assumed the link was a professional, scientific review of Soon, et al, and its categorization of 240 papers. Instead, it was an amateurish, hit piece, not worthy of a struggling, sophomore journalism student with erroneous assumptions and incomplete analysis. The very first sentence in the article was misleading. Soon didn’t suggest humans may not be responsible for warming. They even said it was plausible that there was possible amplification from human activity. The article went downhill from there.

        One of the absurd quotes was that it would take weeks to identify all the errors. There was no explanation of what those errors were. Another person criticized the statistics but there was no elaboration on what those statistical weaknesses were.

        While the intent of the article was to denigrate the authors and their work, it had the opposite effect. More than ever, after rereading Soon and the incompetent article that criticized it, I’m convinced there was a global warming period.

        But the real clincher in deciding how well done the Soon paper was, I found at the very end of the article. Its author.

      • Phil

        “North America was significantly hotter in the 1930’s than now.”

        You do seem to have a particular penchant for making assertions without evidence.

        Like so many others, this one is entirely false.

        Data:

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/northAmerica/land/ytd/12/1910-2018

      • “Global and synchronous?
        Current warming is supposed to be global and synchronous while previous warmings / coolings were not?
        Wrong, current warming is far from global and synchronous.
        Most of Antarctica has not warmed for decades.
        Neither has Fennoscandia, neither has south America, neither has Japan.
        Neither has much of the Pacific ocean.
        North America was significantly hotter in the 1930’s than now.”

        Really?

        That’s not what (along with every other climate organisation) the Richard Muller lead BEST team found (with judith in the team as well I believe) when they did a “Sceptics” study of the global temp record ….

        And as this study in Nature says ….
        “By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

      • cerescokid-

        If you’d actually read the quote from Sci Am and study Soon & Baliunas you’d see that their criteria was so broad as to guarantee their result. Such as:

        “The problem is that under this broad definition a wet or dry spell would indicate a climatic anomaly even if the temperature remained perfectly constant.”

        Let’s see you justify that, without the rage and insults of your last comment.

      • dpy: It seems to be so. However, in the Haustein et al paper they indeed omitted some antr. forcing and it’s not clear how they were able to caclulate a TCR when one uses the GMST ( including BEST that got a revision -leading to a noticable stronger warming trend, of course- in 2017 or so which was NOT reviewed) and neglegting some forcing agents which contribute noticable to the warming. A short time after the release of the paper I asked the lead author for the absent forcing agents in a German forum where he was active from time to time. No response…

      • Tony Banton

        But that’s precisely what Richard Muller did say

        https://earthsky.org/earth/analysis-by-former-climate-skeptic-confirms-earth-is-warming

        one third of the world was cooling according to Muller in 2011

        By coincidence my own studies had shown that same result, around the end of 2010 and hearing of his studies,probably via Judith who posted my article here on the subject, I asked him.

        He confirmed the one third cooling. I have his emails to this day.

        He also posted something last year about America’s cooling which I tied in with an article here on CET cooling since the turn of the century, although not a scientifically valid period,it was nonetheless intriguing.

        I have asked mosh several times in this forum whether he could post an article showing the locations and the duration of cooling stations as personally I think it is a more interesting subject than continually promoting only warming stations.indeed, it would also be interesting to see an article on sea level fall being experienced in some places to ascertain how scientifically valid it is

        I am of the non scientifically valid opinion that past warming and past cooling periods during the Holocene were rarely globally synchronous

        Tonyb

      • Appell

        If I didn’t read the quotes, how did I question the quotes. I read your article 3 times and then reread the pertinent sections of Soon 3 Times to see how your wording matched up with their work. Maybe you should reread it to see your errors.
        You can’t even put together a coherent response to my comment. You did a lousy job of evaluating the Soon paper, driven more by your rabid global warming mindset rather than an impartial, scientifically based analysis. Own it, rather than trying to change the subject. You continue to exhibit the core fault of all warmists, you think you know more than you do know, or is possible to know.

        I realize the psychological turmoil you must be going through having to face up to the collapse of the belief in the hockey stick. It’s kapput. Get used to it. You also need to get used to the AMO. It lurks in our future.

      • cerescokid –

        You didn’t address this criticism of S&B’s paper:

        “Specifically, they define a “climatic anomaly” as a period of 50 or more years of wetness or dryness or sustained warmth (or, for the Little Ice Age, coolness). The problem is that under this broad definition a wet or dry spell would indicate a climatic anomaly even if the temperature remained perfectly constant.”

        or this:

        “‘I was stating outright that I’m not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results,’ Soon says.”

      • cerescokid –
        I realize the psychological turmoil you must be going through having to face up to the collapse of the belief in the hockey stick. It’s kapput.

        This is ridiculous and ignorant. The hockey stick has been confirmed many times by now, by many different mathematical techniques. PAGES 2k published a paper this past summer that found a hockey stick using 7 different statistical techniques.

        It’s also easy to show that the hockey is the expected result given observed CO2 and basic physics:

        1) temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)
        2) CO2 forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)
        3) Atmo CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.

        So if CO2 isn’t changing, there is no temperature change — the flat handle of the hockey stick.

        If CO2 is increasing exponentially, as it has been over the industrial era, its forcing is changing linearly and hence so is the temperature – which is the blade of the hockey stick.

      • Who cares if I didn’t address the criticism, there have been dozens and dozens of papers since finding evidence of warming during the MWP. One has to completely suspend common sense to have a massive amount of proxy and anecdotal evidence of a global warm period and then deny that it existed, especially when some proxies show resolution to only within 1.8C. The entire institution is making educated guesses, wanting to convince themselves they can make the error bars go away. You have been had.

        If it gives you comfort and air cover believing in the fantasy of the hockey stick, have at it. The rest of us have to grapple with reality.

      • It doesn’t matter. When they roll up the 100’s and 100’s, they do not add up to a GLOBAL MWP that is in any way comparable to 20th and 21st-century ACO warming. Not as warm globally; not as warm in as many places last the same times.

        But, they could try. I hope they do. Climate sensitivity could slam into the high end. Yippee. It’s sort of telling that they don’t. 100’s and 100’s is apparently their substitute science. That’s the card that is being played.

      • cerescokid commented
        …there have been dozens and dozens of papers since finding evidence of warming during the MWP.

        That’s not good enough. You have to show the warming was

        a) synchronous
        b) global

      • At above David Appell says “That’s not good enough. You have to show the warming was
        a) synchronous
        b) global ”

        Further up tonyb says ““It’s true that during the Little Ice Age it was generally colder across the whole world,” says in Switzerland, and first author, “but not everywhere at the same time. The peak periods of pre-industrial warm and cold periods occurred at different times in different places.” ”

        I looked at this aspect for a particular reason. They were global and they were synchronous. But the changes depended on whether the place was at low or high latitude; whether between tropics or above, in which case the trends were opposite.

        My source then were polar and equatorial ice cores – same isotope – from Wiki. However the data had to be aligned to reliable chronological datum, which they were not. The change at the end of the YD was a reliable point to sync traces (a global event). The result: polar move together, but opposite equatorial. The effects are latitude dependent and different, but global and synchronous, particularly at the dates I already had derived from archaeology, tree-rings, and the earlier research of others.

        The data source is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
        Ignore the black ‘averaged’ line as it throws one off; the secret is in the contrasting trends; however the time datum is false – correct by aligning at gisp2 to ~11,600 BP as/with Vostok and Kilimanjaro which coincide.

        My reason: as here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/

      • This whole issue reminds me of the lockstep thinking of some about taxes. Myths have evolved over generations about the top marginal tax rate and how it’s the panacea to solve deficits and eliminate income inequality, even though the facts don’t substantiate that view.

        Myth1. When the top tax rate was 91%, there was massive income redistribution. No. As an example, in 1954 less than .3% of taxes were paid by income earners over $1 million. In 1962 there were only 62 tax filers out of 340 who earned over $1 million paid that marginal rate. The impact of the 91% was nearly nonexistent.

        Myth 2. With 91% top rate, the Effective Rate for all tax filers was much higher than today. No. For instance, in 1948 and 1949, with a top rate of 91%, the Effective Rate was 9%. Today it’s 15%. Add SS of 1% then versus 6% today, the total taxes on individuals was 10% then versus 21% today.

        Myth 3. When Bush 2 reduced taxes, Income Inequality exploded. No. The number of millionaires under Clinton went from 66,000 to 240,000. Under Bush 2 from 240,000 to 320,000. Millionaires Income Clinton-$176 Billion to $817 Billion. Bush 2 $817 Billion to $1.08 Trillion. In fact under Clinton the Effective Tax Rate on Millionaires went from 31% in 1993 to 27% in 2000.

        Myth 4. Clinton balanced the budget by increasing top marginal rate. No. It had practically no effect. Economic Growth did it. Tax revenue increased by $925 Billion 1992 to 2000. Of that, $400 Billion didn’t involve Individual Income Tax Revenue. From 1988 to 1993, after 2 Tax Increases in 1991 and Clinton’s in 1993, the Effective Tax Rate went from 13.4% to 13.5%. So, the sum total increase in Effective Tax Rate after 2 marginal rate increases was only .1%. Apply that .1% to the Gross Income at the time of $6.4 Trillion generated only $6.4 Billion. The deficit had been $290 Billion.

        And yet, the public believes the top marginal tax rate is the solution to all budget problems. Real growth in Gross Income and lack thereof, is the actual lynchpin. The media never investigate or give the facts, just like on global warming, climate change, climate emergency. The March of the Unthinking continues.

      • Appell – “This is ridiculous and ignorant. The hockey stick has been confirmed many times by now, by many different mathematical techniques. PAGES 2k published a paper this past summer that found a hockey stick using 7 different statistical techniques.:”

        is Pages 2k supposed to be the gold standard of climate reconstructions?

        If so why so many errors?
        If so, why so many ex post exclusions & cherry picking of proxies?

        https://climateaudit.org/?s=pages+2k
        Exclusion of law dome – one of the highest resolution proxies of Antartica

      • CK – you apparently have not been keeping up with your reading on the the ~60-year cycle.

        Why haven’t the critics of temperature reconstructions produced any temperature reconstructions? There’s one that has been shot so full of holes it looks like a rural stop sign. But a serious effort – zippo. Why? They know it will look like: a page 2 clone. And, they’re just playing a silly game.

      • The 60 year cycle in SLR is all over the literature. I have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Re: “Atomsk: The BEST dataset in it’s recent form is NOT peer reviewed, Is it this you wanted to say? Thanks! And the Haustein et. al didn’t take account for all forcing agents. Sorry for this fact, Your claim of “motivated reasoning” falls back to you as long as you are not able to respond on this. “Lost” forcing agents… and not peer reviewed GMST: Is it your imagination of science? Let me say: it’s wrong.”

        I was actually quite clear in what I wanted to say. So not only can you not be trusted to accurately represent Haustein et al., but you can’t be trusted to accurately represent what others say.

        Once again, you misrepresented the temperature datasets used in Haustein et al. (both BEST and C+W), moved the goal-posts from your point of post-1940s time-frame, etc. You evidence-free claim that BEST is not peer-reviewed is simply wrong, as was already pointed out to you. When you’re debunked on one topic, you simply move on to something else, without ever admitting you were wrong. Quite tedious, and a clear sign of your motivated reasoning.

      • tony

        “But that’s precisely what Richard Muller did say

        https://earthsky.org/earth/analysis-by-former-climate-skeptic-confirms-earth-is-warming

        one third of the world was cooling according to Muller in 2011″

        WRONG WRONG WRONG

      • “Steve, I’m not quite sure what you mean with “facts”. In the Hausfather et al paper they compare the validity during timspans ( 1970…2000s), which are not sufficent long to estimate the TCR from observations.”

        WRONG. you can estimate TCR from that time span. FFS, havent you ever heard of uncertainty. Seems like you dont know the basic facts of any analysis

      • PAGES2K data sources have been meticulously analysed and documented. Products have been corrected but in context of the precision of the data – it seems less than a problem and more a case of being as accurate as possible. It’s all there if you want to see how they did it. Reconstructing continental scale temperature variability made possible with the wealth of data sources they used is an important contribution.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2566.pdf

        It shows ‘stadium wave’ like leads and lags in the system obscured in global averages. And some very interesting regional features – including anti-phase polar temps. There is a cooling apparent in the middle of the last millenium slated to volcanic effects and solar downturn. Given SST reconstructions with SST feeding into cloud – I suspect more marine boundary layer stratocumulus shading dark oceans beneath.

        The 20th century reanalysis project informs this SAT animation. You might pay particular attention to temperature evolution in North America if that’s your interest.

        Kravtsov et al 2018 compared this to models – a mean I presume although the theoretical rigor of statistics of opportunistic ensembles is questionable – to find that decadal variability is missing in state of the art models. Little wonder as the geophysics of internal variability are little understood and their numerical representations rudimentary.

        I have found a few of the participants of this thread to be guilty of bad faith arguments in the past. It is no wonder then that there have been so many words and so little progress in understanding.

      • Atomski, You’re back to your MO of deflection and swears. The main point frank made is that Haustein left out significant forcings resulting in a TCR that a is higher than is really justified. Lewis and Curry did not make this mistake and so their work is more trustworthy. That’s a very significant issue. Whether BEST was peer reviewed is a side show. You of course return to the side show to throw mud in the hope that some of it will stick. It’s kind of childish.

      • dpy: childish is the right word. He can read in the Haustein et al (2019) paper what forcing agents they used ( and what agents they didn’t account for) and compare it with the approach of L/C 18. It’s a big mystery how H.et al could estimate some kind of TCR. It’s a peer review issue in short.

      • Frank states the BEST temperature record is not peer reviewed.

        Atomsk responds to Frank’s point.

        dpy concludes Atomsk is therefore “childish”, in a typical technical comment. Frank piles on.

        Richly amusing.

      • Steve: ” Seems like you dont know the basic facts of any analysis” You nailed it :D
        Of course one estimate some value from very short timescales, but what about the reliability? So I change my sentence to: …which are not sufficient long to estimate the TCR from observations with adequate uncertainty. Do you feel better? My pleasure!

      • I see some are still trying to establish a consensus on the GWP by using a printing press to recreate the same inadequate science gobs of times. Ditto for the 60-year cycle.

        (There appears to be one in the data) times dozens sightings = a scientific consensus that there is one.

        And yet, when somebody does an analysis of “there appears to be one” it quickly gets really milky. Even the great Michael Mann failed to make the grade on the MWP.

        Under analysis so far, the great Medieval Warm Period dissolves into the Great Whatever Period.

        But I wish they would prove the MWP was a period of global warming comparable to today’s warming. That would be fantastic. I’m cheering for that.

      • Mosh

        Your 8.22 response to my 11.35

        Dr Muller said those words in response to me and in several articles. Why are they wrong? What is your interpretation of what he has written?

        It would be really helpful if you could post those stations cooling and those warming and their duration. If you disagree with the one third to two thirds split perhaps you could clarify what Dr Muller meant by his comments as they seem very explicit and unambiguous. Thanks.

        tonyb

      • JCH,
        “But I wish they would prove the MWP was a period of global warming comparable to today’s warming. That would be fantastic. I’m cheering for that.”

        There’s no proving in science, you should know that by now. Regarding Mike, he sees evidence for a MWP as an attack on him. How pathetic!

        From a climategate email:
        “In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think so.”

      • And this is how they conspire and make disgusting propaganda, corrupting science:

        “to: “Keith Briffa”
        Hi Keith,
        Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.
        1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.
        2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.
        3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.
        4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural” fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)
        Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.
        Look forward to tomorrow.
        All best
        Jonathan
        Jonathan Renouf
        Series Producer
        Science Department
        201 Wood Lane
        London W12 7TS
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/

      • Verytallperson, You are just doubling down on the misdirection. The important point is that Atomski’s “reference” has significant flaws that inflate its TCR estimate. Lewis and Curry is more rigorous. The whole point about BEST being peer reviewed is a grey area that is secondary. However, it is true that the choice of BEST also inflates the TCR because HADCRUT shows a somewhat lower temperature anomaly increase over the historical period.

        It’s all part of a pattern of deflection and misrepresentation by Atomski whose track record contains little else. Virtually every time he mines the literature to make a point its out of context and irrelevant to the important points. It’s a tried and true debaters deception. Someone says there is no study that says X. You find a flawed study that says X kind of. All this shows is that Frank should have said “there is no credible study that says X.” It’s total misdirection and legalistic logic chopping by Atomski.

        Sorry to see you joining the effort to distract and deflect from the important points about TCR estimation. There is no credible study that shows a TCR based on observations that is inconsistent with Lewis and Curry. You recall the study by the Skeptical Science kids that had to be corrected when Nic pointed out an obvious error? Nic’s track record is one of being correct most of the time and always having sound arguments. Attempts to deflect from that point are childish.

      • Yes, I read a million comments where Mosher lectures some skeptic that there is no such as proof in science, but that was before writing the same thing about speculation dozens of times equals consensus.

        Climategate – not even a Billygate. Lol.

      • In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’

        The null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant departure from background variability. Hence the need for a hockey sting to beat data into submission. Although calling it that is strained metaphor.

        There was of course no “no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.” https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/32886/1/PAGES2k_NGEO_inpress.pdf

        I’d call the MWP and LIA definitions semanic legerdemain. There is of course no globally synchronous modern warming – synchronized chaos more likely. Instead there are patterns of regional warming and cooling that evolve as the global stadium wave – another metaphor – signal is propagated around the planet. As – I have said before in this thread – this animation of 20CR surface temperatures shows.

        Disentangling internal variability from AGW can’t be done with models or statistics – only with a deeper understanding of geophysics will that be possible. Internal variability plays no part at all in the forcing/feedback paradigm. But it matters to communities where the focus is. Building resilience to extremes – natural or otherwise. Or the partial and impractical solution of replacing fossil fuel fired electricity generation with renewables.

      • My dear dpy

        If the peer review status of BEST is deflection, then surely your beef is with Frank, not Atmosk?

        And if deflection is your beef, why use first “childish” and now “kids” in your technical comments?

        And we have “debating style” under debate from you. It’s almost as though invective rather than substance is your focus, which we know cannot be the case.

      • As I said, the SLR 60 year cycle is well established in the literature.

        Chambers. 2012
        Kopp 2013
        Ezer 2013
        Scafetta 2013
        Kenigton2014
        Han 2014
        Jevrejeva 2008
        Parker 2013

        Not hard to locate the citations. The next thing we know they will be denying the existence of geothermal activity in West Antarctica.

      • VTG, Neither you nor Atomski responding to the technically important point frank made about Haustein et al. That’s called deflection. It’s really that simple.

      • Consensus by list.

        Systems fluctuate. Timing can easily be a series of coincidences that mean nothing. Until there is a consensus on what made it go up when it did, and what made it go down when it did, and why it has completely stopped happening, all you got is: sea level fluctuates around an accelerating trend.

      • JCH

        Lol. A few years ago Jevrejeva was your heart throb. Now, you want to diss her work .

        Take it up with the scientists. It really is a non controversial issue and I don’t understand why it’s a big deal.

        The more controversial question involves the existence of the MWP and LIA.

        I loved the email to Briffa that edim provided.

        “Hopefully, this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.”

        That is just hilarious. Nail …….meet…….coffin.

    • The models do seem to generate reasonable global average temperature changes over the historical period but there are a lot of periods where there are large mismatches even here. But this is not what we need GCM’s to do. Energy balance methods do just as good a job. Figure 12 from this paper:

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001829?af=R

      In any case, at least a couple of climate scientists are now admitting pretty much what I said at Real Climate 10 years ago when I first commented at climate blogs. Basically, the truncation errors are too large to expect any skill except in those outputs used in tuning. Regional climate skill is very bad.

      https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/26/1906691116.full.pdf

      There is a huge amount of noise and rationalization and indeed misrepresentation by those who are selling the models and it’s another ethical issue with climate science. Denial of fundamentals of numerical analysis has been a prominent feature of model defenders at least since 1980.

      BTW, McIntyre and Mckittrick have a great paper on climate gate that disassembles paleoclimatology very effectively. Basically, we should have little confidence in tree ring based reconstructions because the statistical methods used are invalid. Another field that needs fundamental reform of its methods.

      http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/climategate/Climategate.10YearsAfter.pdf

      It all paints a picture of a field that really has a lot of baggage and a lot of ethical and bias problems. I do comment Palmer and Stevens though for their latest. It’s a good start.

      Finally, Lewis and Mauritsen have some new work showing that observational estimates of ECS are NOT biased low because of the “pattern effect.” Another area of denial by many climate scientists. There have been hundreds of papers trying to find reasons why observational estimates must be biased low. Nic has done a good job of fending off this onslaught of weak science.

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/cfmip2019/s2/5_nicholas_lewis_c.pdf

      Steve Mosher, The picture is still one of a field in need of reform. Skeptic bashing does nothing to advance science or mankind’s wellbeing.

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

        Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

      • From this certainty stems the conviction that additional warming is best avoided by reducing or reversing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases.

        Glad you agree, David. That’s progress. Now that that’s settled….

      • FWIW – I think they kind of miss the point in that they are arguing that the high level of uncertainty with existing modeling means society can’t take action, whereas I think the high level of uncertainty with existing modeling is actually a reason for society take action.

        Iow, imo, the problem isn’t with the level of uncertainty, but with how people deal with uncertainty.

        They seem to think that defining “fit for purpose” is some kind of objective scientific standard.

      • Tim Palmer is a doyen of climate modelling – although more concerned with probabilistic forecasting at weather to decadal scales than with century scale opportunistic ensembles.

      • Joshua, Your response is classic. Palmer and Stevens are technically correct about the models. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with their political or policy statements.

      • Joshua, I think you are missing the point. Uncertainty means its harder to persuade people to act especially if it involves agreeing to scarcity of energy.

        I think the real issue here though is that as more papers are coming out, it is becoming quite well documented that the models are much more uncertain than anyone admitted before. The messaging needs to catch up with the latest science, don’t you think?

        This Palmer and Stevens paper almost exactly mirrors NASA’s vision 2030 for CFD in its plan and the high cost of that plan. Both put all the eggs in the eddy resolving time accurate chaotic simulation basket. I personally think that’s a 50 year project even with very high funding. At least they have a plan. Up until the present, modeling groups had no plan really. It’s a good place to start the discussion.

      • “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.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

        To go back to one of the seminal publications in the field. Epochs are ubiquitous in the climate system. Even at decadal scales.

        e,g, https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/18/thresholds-and-epochs-in-the-grand-climate-system/

        “Reliability of future global warming projections depends on how well climate models reproduce the observed climate change over the twentieth century. In this regard, deviations of the model-simulated climate change from observations, such as a recent “pause” in global warming, have received considerable attention. Such decadal mismatches between model-simulated and observed climate trends are common throughout the twentieth century, and their causes are still poorly understood.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        Incomplete geophysics combined with what can best be described as ‘irreducible imprecision’ give results that are best overlooked.

        “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

        From atmospheric eddies to ice ages. One of the ‘simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity’ is that it is fractal.

        We have established that your motivation is more political than scientific. I tend not to give any credence to what you say for that reason. Much as I do for fanatical skeptics. If I answer in some detail it is not that I expect to convince you but is directed past you to some more open minded other.

        But if you want pragmatic policy responses – things that have some hope of success in the real world – I suggest you return to Judith’s Madrid post. I can expand on that – have a little under this post – in great detail if you want to provide a preferred policy framework as a basis for honest discourse. That would offend Don of course. All the more reason.

      • “The models do seem to generate reasonable global average temperature changes over the historical period but there are a lot of periods where there are large mismatches even here.”

        In the process of attempting to better understand how the energy budget model, aka energy balance model, or EBM applies to the CMIP5 model workings in the 1861-2005 historical period, I did a rather extensive literature search and some analyses of own. The most bothering discovery for me was the fact that in order to reconcile the changes in individual model global mean surface temperature (GMST) over that period with the independently determined model parameters of climate resistance, ρ, and/or the feedback parameter , λ, required different radiative forcings for the individual models. Since forcing is an externally applied variable and can have only a single set of series values in the observed realization – that the skill of model attempts at reproduction are being measure against – the use of individual model forcings seemed artificial to me. The question also arises from another angle when one considers that the climate sensitivity of an individual model in the historical period is not a good indicator of the resulting GMST changes.

        For whatever the reason different forcings were required in the historical period, I was curious about whether that requirement continued into the future period of 2006-2100 where model GMST changes cannot be tested against an observed value and thus are not as important for establishing model skill credibility. I was somewhat surprised to find that in the future period the correlation between individual model parameter like ρ and/or λ and GMST change was very good for almost all models. I also found that while intra historical and future individual model GMST changes correlated well across time and scenarios, the correlation between individual model GMST changes in the historical and future periods was low and negative.

        The upshot of these observations to me was that without the connection (correlation) between the historical and future periods for GMST changes, the historical period cannot be used for hindcasting the future period and it reveals little about the predictive skill of the model. After writing up my investigation results in paper format, not for the purpose or any intentions of publication, but rather to test whether I might have gotten something wrong or not thought it properly through, it struck me that while the climate science literature touches on the issues of my investigation it never to my knowledge delves into it sufficiently to make the conclusions I make. (The paper, Forster et al. (2013), Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres Volume 118, Issue 3, “Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models”, contains essentially the same data as my write-up and makes the GMST change versus ρ for the historical period with essentially the results as in my write but does not make the same correlations with the future period).

        My biggest concern is the disconnection between the historical and future periods and the implication that the relative predictive skill of the models in the future cannot be determined from the historical. It puts the problem back to comparing a measure of climate sensitivity between the models and the observed. That process has its own limitations and large uncertainties. I do think that Nic Lewis has a good handle on that comparison and I look forward to his future original papers in this area of climate science and his criticism of others work in this area.

        What I need is some feedback from persons with some knowledge in this area of climate science (I plan to sent my write-up to the authors of the Forster et al. ). To that end I am linking in this post a copy of my write up that has a main body, a section with tables and figures, a literature reference list and a supplementary information section. Included in the link is my email address for those who might have the time to browse through the write up and have comments on it. I have not taken the time at this point to make the writing more succinct but I think it is at least readable for those with some knowledge of the subject.

        https://www.dropbox.com/s/jvps550us39npd1/Disconnect2.pdf?dl=0

      • Ken, Thanks for doing this work. Is it possible that what is going on here is the difference between forcing and “effective forcing?” My fuzzy recollection is that there is a lot of controversy and lots of different ideas about how raw forcing translate into inputs to an EBM method. Nic seems to prefer Hanson’s original work. I think Schmidt was involved in a recent attempt to do better that incidentally seemed to show that the effective forcings were lower, meaning EBM estimates were biased low. I’ve grown tired of this seemingly endless stream of obviously motivated papers.

        However, I would point that what Schmidt et al did was use climate models for their work. I think its almost certainly true that different models have quite different effective forcings and that it could change over time as cloud changes accumulate. Clearly they will have different effective aerosol forcing and that will result in accumulating differences over time.

        Just a thought but I could be wrong.

      • Thanks, dpy6629, for the feedback.

        If you hold that the forcing, however defined, should be the same for all models in a given scenario and time period then the change in GMST (ΔT) for individual models should be well correlated with 1/ρ for individual models. That is the case with the scenarios and time periods in the future (2006-2100). That is opposite of the case in the historical period (1861-2005) where there is no correlation between ΔT and 1/ρ. The correlation of ΔT to 1/ρ for the scenarios with increasing forcing for the scenarios RCP 4.5 through 6.0 to 8.5 in the future period are essentially the same and high. It is as if there is a sharp and discontinuous change around 2006.

        There can be efficacy changes of forcing agents relative to that for CO2 which could affect calculations where efficacies for all agents are assumed to be 1 or near 1, but again since I am doing correlations with individual models all in the same time period with the same scenarios I do not see that being an effect.

        Forster et al. 2013 uses the term adjusted forcing which is determined using the energy budget model with the λ, the feedback parameter, from the abrupt 4XCO2 CMIP5 experiments and the TOA Net Radiation and ΔT from the model run. Those adjusted forcings have a very wide range over the historical period. That in of itself is informative, but it seems backwards to calculate an externally applied variable like forcing. I would prefer a calculation where an external forcing for the observed period was used in the energy budget model and applied uniformly to all individual models to calculate ΔT.

    • phil: UAH’s LT data show Antarctica warming by 0.4 C since 1979.

      data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

      British data shows the South Pole warming by 0.6 C since 1957, with about 2 C in the last two decades. (There’s been about a 1 C decline from 1985-2000.)

      data: https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/Amundsen_Scott.All.temperature.txt

      • David, VTG
        If you excluded from Antarctica the western peninsula with one of he world’s most active chains of volcanos under it, the east part is more or less static in temperature for a few decades.

        It’s a hard problem, comparing instrumental record with palaeo proxies with such a huge difference in accuracy, precision and consistency. You could call it Mike’s Nature Trick but it’s all we have.

      • Phil, my point was about North America. I didn’t bother checking the rest.

        Are you withdrawing your false claim that “North America was significantly hotter in the 1930’s than now.”?

      • Phil,

        Data?

        The problem with citing volcanoes is that, in order to explain climate CHANGE, you have to show their activity has increased over the last several decades.

      • One study said they had identified some huge number previously unknown volcanoes under the antarctic ice sheet. Ominous. Oh my gawd. Hot. Hot Hot. Then they quietly, very quietly, admitted they have no idea whether or not any of them are active or not.

      • “The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. While this is widely accepted, there is a relatively poor understanding of the different types of nonlinearities, how they manifest under various conditions, and whether they reflect a climate system driven by astronomical forcings, by internal feedbacks, or by a combination of both.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ACLIM.0000037493.89489.3f

        Climate models fail because there is neither the technology – 3 million times more computing power – or the mathematics to square the circle. They are the poster child of global warming but cannot yet reliably inform policy. If they are not yet reliable they must be set aside while development of these immensely promising tools continues. For enlightenment at the moment we need to look to observations.

        This 2013 PAGES2K graphic shows relative temperatures changes as standard deviations. It shows ‘stadium wave’ like leads and lags in the system. North America was warmer a 1000 years ago with a 30 year average perhaps a little warmer than now in the middle of the 20th century. PAGES2K is a triumph of science – one of many. Like much else it is dumbed down far too much by skeptics and warministas alike in the climate war.

        One prominent feature is the antiphase dynamic of polar temperature in what may be a synchronous chaos property of the system. “Stable isotope proxies from ice cores show subtle differences in the climatic fluctuations of the Arctic and Antarctic, and recent analyses have revealed evidence of polar synchronization at the millennial time scale.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379113004198?via%3Dihub

        “Successful prediction of future global climate is critically dependent on understanding its complex history, some of which is displayed in paleoclimate time series extracted from deep-sea sediment and ice cores. These recordings exhibit frequent episodes of abrupt climate change believed to be the result of nonlinear response of the climate system to internal or external forcing, yet, neither the physical mechanisms nor the nature of the nonlinearities involved are well understood.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818103001875?via%3Dihub

        Jose Rial is someone I admire immensely. This is the source of uncertainty that models – beset by their own nonlinearities – cannot conceivably encompass. Observations reveal a system that is dynamically and unpredictably sensitive to small changes. This is where we go beyond uncertainty to risk. The question then is what can pragmatically and rationally be done about it.

      • Actually climate models by and large are accurate:

        Science 12/4/19
        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

        Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections
        Zeke Hausfather et al, GRL 12/4/19
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378

      • “As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science. Unless we step up our game, something that begins with critical self-reflection, climate science risks failing to communicate and hence realize its relevance for societies grappling to respond to global warming.” https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390

      • There haven’t been any big climate surprises so far, so, as the GRL article shows, models have done a good job of projecting temperatures to now.

        If there are no surprises in the future, model projections are worrisome enough. We aren’t even planning for those, let alone nonlinearities.

      • VTG

        Here’s how much the USA has warmed in the last century:

        https://realclimatescience.com/2019/12/everything-looks-like-a-nail/

        Will you be withdrawing your claim that the USA has warmed?

      • whereby some influential people and institutions misrepresent doubt about anything to insinuate doubt about everything – Palmer and Stevens

        Gee whiz, I wonder who the heck they’re talking about. LMAO.

      • Copied and pasted into the right place in the thread.

        “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.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

        To go back to one of the seminal publications in the field. Epochs are ubiquitous in the climate system. Even at decadal scales.

        e,g, https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/18/thresholds-and-epochs-in-the-grand-climate-system/

        “Reliability of future global warming projections depends on how well climate models reproduce the observed climate change over the twentieth century. In this regard, deviations of the model-simulated climate change from observations, such as a recent “pause” in global warming, have received considerable attention. Such decadal mismatches between model-simulated and observed climate trends are common throughout the twentieth century, and their causes are still poorly understood.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        Incomplete geophysics combined with what can best be described as ‘irreducible imprecision’ give results that are best overlooked.

        “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

        From atmospheric eddies to ice ages. One of the ‘simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity’ is that it is fractal.

        We have established that your motivation is more political than scientific. I tend not to give any credence to what you say for that reason. Much as I do for fanatical skeptics. If I answer in some detail it is not that I expect to convince you but is directed past you to some more open minded other.

        But if you want pragmatic policy responses – things that have some hope of success in the real world – I suggest you return to Judith’s Madrid post. I can expand on that – have a little under this post – in great detail if you want to provide a preferred policy framework as a basis for honest discourse. That would offend Don of course. All the more reason.

      • Phil,

        1. Your claim was “North America was significantly hotter in the 1930’s than now.”. You now point to data about the USA. The USA and “North America” are not synonymous. Please respond to the data I posted clearly showing your claim is false .

        Do you now accept your original claim was false?

        2. If you’re prepared to accept thay fact, then we can move on to why your source for the USA does not show what you claim for it.

      • Phil,

        I am more than happy to address the question of USA warming, once we’ve cleared up the point on North America.

        i find it much more productive to address one issue at a time.

        Do you accept that North America has warmed, and your claim was false, as the data i posted upthread very clearly demonstrates.

        If you can’t accept that, I really don’t see any point in debating anything else.

      • I am more than happy to address the question of USA warming, once we’ve cleared up the point on North America.

        I think if you examine the Canadian records, you’ll find lots of extreme heat records during the dust bowl as well as in the US.

        This is not, as you argue, a good representation of North America, most of the Canadian long term records are adjacent to the US border, and there are not good long term records from Mexico or elsewhere in Canada.

        The extreme high ( and low ) temperatures of the Dust Bowl are not the same as global warming. These temperatures were from dynamic variation, and not from the global temperature. And global warming might mean an increase of average temperature but not an increase of extreme temperatures.

      • Turbulent,

        If you don’t think North America has warmed since the 1930s, please post data from a reputable source which shows such.

        I’ve no idea what point you’re trying to make with your vague ramblings.

      • VTG, I think his point may be that North American temperatures in the 20th Century is a complex question about the pattern of warming that may be impossible to answer reliably because of lack of coverage early in the 20th century.

        Once you lock into a simplistic attempt at consensus enforcement, you can’t seem to exhibit any nuance at all.

      • Huh? I struggle to find much to say about this that hasn’t been said in this very long thread. – but there’s the ‘warming hole’.


        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076463

      • dpy,

        Hello again and thanks for the “technical” comment.

        You seem to claim temperature records are unreliable and it hasn’t warmed since the 1930s.

        Has it dawned on you that you can’t claim both simultaneously? And what chance of a citation for this claim in your “technical” comment?

        Now, how about a link to actual data. I provided it up thread.

        Or do you solely have arm waving?

      • I have shown PAGES2K results, a global CR20 animation and an analysis of 1400 odd US stations just above, How can they not see it?

      • Say a religious cult decides to cover a major portion of the USA with black fabric for several summers in a row. Will it was warm the USA?

        Yes or no?

        Because that is what happened in the Great Depression. The weather station was just a few miles down the road from my father’s ranch. When he owned it was lush green. Every single summer. So full of pheasants a hunting party of 300 shooters bagged six birds a piece within an hour of the start of opening day.

        In the Great Depression it looked exactly like this. A few miles down the road from Dad’s ranch the state record, recently tied, temperature was set at 120 F:

      • Now he has some sort of post hoc religious mania? Where were those goalposts again?

      • VTG, I’m chiding you for not reading and understanding Ellison’s comments. It’s a mixed bag in North America and he points out that data is sparse in the early 20th Century in the far North. He also pointed out that the SouthEastern US has cooled. We do have adequate data in the US to make that statement.

        I don’t care really whether its warmer in North America since 1880. I do doubt that the error bars in the early data make a definitive statement very certain.

        Why are you focused on this point that is largely irrelevant? The answer appears to be unflattering to yourself.

      • dpy,

        given that that arm waving and “enforcement” rhetoric are all you’ve brought in your “technical” comments, it’s a bit of a mystery why you’re piling on in defence of Phil’s patently false claim.

        I’m sure you’ve a flattering reason why.

      • VTG, Now you are just transparently lying about what I said. I’m defending Ellison against your deflection. I do not take a firm position on your silly straw man about warming in “North America.”

  6. Pingback: Week in review – science edition — Climate Etc. – Climate- Science.press

  7. Interesting paper about why 536 AD was worst year.

    A demonstration of merging science with what heretofore was considered only anecdotal, to shed light on past climate events. A new field perhaps-Anecscience.

    • Cerescokid

      I replied upthread to the 536 link.

      tonyb

    • Year 536 CE has more attributes that should be noticed. It is at the root of the Eddy cycle, same as LIA, and the year of a Kepler trigon (according to Solar System Live, occurring at end February).

      • An addition: Poring over the miserable remnant of an old coin recently, likely of the Ostrogoth Theodoric (493-526), it appears – as the coin also proves- the move of the Germanic tribes down to the Mediterranean had already started before the 535CE event, and thus the volcanic events were the ‘cherry on the cake’ of a climatic trend (to Eddy root as it happened).

  8. BoM sidesteps the cause of the recent cold air outbreak in south east Oz, doesn’t mention a very negative SAM.

    I blame the ABC for this sin of omission.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-07/lowest-maximum-summer-temperature-at-thredbo/11774908

  9. COP 25: Hysteria meets diplomacy in Madrid (my latest)
    https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/05/cop-25-hysteria-meets-diplomacy-in-madrid/

    The climate change hysteria movement is expecting bold action at the COP 25 climate summit now on in Madrid. That is not how these protracted international negotiations work. One wonders what the hysterical reaction to inaction will be?

    As I have pointed out, the climate alarmism movement is tearing itself into two camps..

    They are not yet warring camps but after Madrid they well may be. COP 25 is real negotiations, by real countries, over real issues. The issues are stupid, but still real, because they can lead to really stupid national actions. This I call the moderate camp of alarmists. The hysterics want impossible actions, stuff that cannot happen, which sets them against the moderates.

    For example, the hysterics want immediate drastic action to reduce co2 emissions. The nations meeting in Madrid have adopted very mild emission reduction measures, or promises at least. The big issue is whether they will increase their ambitions next year, at COP 26. Nothing is on the table this year. This has to infuriate the hysterics.

    The hysterics want emissions to end by 2030 (which is impossible). The COP nations are dickering over maybe setting a goal of net zero emissions (which still allows emissions) by 2050. The hysterics have to hate this.

    The biggest issue on the table at COP 25 is what the rules should be for a new emission trading scheme. I call this the sale of indulgences and explain in detail here.

    Given that billions of dollars worth of indulgences are at stake for big countries like China and Brazil, this is a huge issue for the moderates. The hysterics damn it as just a way to avoid taking domestic action. In this case they are correct.

    There are other huge issues of wealth transfer either on the table in Madrid, or hoping to get there, or standing beside the table, or something (the metaphor is getting away from me).

    The developing countries want to see some evidence that the promised $100 billion a year in bribes from the developed countries will actually begin next year (it will not). The promises for emission reduction by the developing countries are predicated on that big money coming. The hysterics could care less about who pays for what. Funding is not part of their grand plans, like the Green New Deal.

    Then there is the lumbering giant slowly approaching the Madrid table, the giant whose stage name is Loss and Damage. The giant’s real name is Compensation. This is the idea that the developed countries should compensate the developing ones for all the future damages due to human caused climate change. In practice this probably means pretty much all bad weather, all sea level rise, etc. The official estimate here is $400 billion a year but that could easily grow. I am not making this up.

    Th last time the giant was on the table, it was exiled to a study-like limbo. But that study has now ended, so the biggest issue of all may find its way back to the table. What happens then is anybody’s guess.

    But the hysterics have no need for the giant Compensation. Their avowed program is to quickly end human caused climate change, so the issue of future loss and damage simply does not arise for them.

    There are more big differences, but these are enough to show the yawning policy gap between the two camps. The COP 25 negotiations and the hysterical climate emergency movement are about as far apart as two camps can get.

    How the hysterics react to COP 25’s inaction remains to be seen. It could be quite a show. Stay tuned to CFACT for the blow by blow.

    David

    The Climate Change Debate Education project

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/climate-change-debate-education

  10. This is a good article about the paper on the world’s oldest ice core:

    Ancient air challenges prominent explanation for a shift in glacial cycles

    • The shifts in glacial cycles have been caused by changes in the internal ice and water mass and spring rates.
      continents drifted and caused changes in ocean currents.
      warm currents flowed in and near the tropical regions, around the earth. Polar oceans stayed frozen and there was little or no evaporation to promote snowfall and sequestering of ice. Little ocean water took part in ice cycles of sequestered ice. Current flow around the warmer regions was blocked between North and South continents and warm water was forced to flow into Polar Regions. This promoted evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice in cold places. This increased the volumes of oceans that became sequestered ice. As these volumes increased, more ice on land and then returning to the oceans, the periods of the warm and cold cycles lasted many more years. The largest warm period was 100 to 140 thousand years ago and the largest cold period was 20 to 100 thousand years ago. Each ice age cycle sequestered ice in cold places that did not thaw and return to the oceans. The last warming from 20 to 10 thousand years ago ended because the rest of the sequestered ice did not thaw and go back into the oceans. the current 10 thousand years have had warm periods and ice age periods that are shorter because less ocean becomes sequestered ice and less sequestered ice thaws and reenters the oceans.

      Internal response of ice and water, due to changes in sequestering of ice in cold places has caused the evolution of the climate.
      The most recent ten thousand year period is the new climate normal.

  11. I think the link in this tweet was mistakenly forgotten:

  12. The sun has a maximum surface temperature of 10,000 degrees farenheight and a minimum of 7,300 degrees farenheight. I will say that is an average of 8,650 degrees farenheight. It is losing radiant heat to the black sky at that rate. An infinitely small portion of that radiant heat is striking earth in an area equal to that of the great circle of earth, 24/7.
    Why is it you do not believe the surface of the earth is doing the same with an average surface temperature in the 60 degrees farenheight

    • Ms. Curry,
      I read thde above “climateaudit.info”. There is no scientific research in there that makes any sence. The only thing we have available of the past is the Ice cores showing the last 400,000 years. Unless you understand the Ice in the core is only formed in the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the Ice Age. The dates are inacurate because the Carbon Dating is of solids which, as the Ice melts, from ther top down, remain stacked in order.
      This Ice Age began about 20,000 years ago. I have explaied my understanding of the Ice Ages to you. It certainly makes more sense than thet Hocktstick and other gobeltygook above.

  13. “Why 536 was the worst year to be alive”

    I do not understand why this article ignores the numerous papers pointing to an explosive eruption at Krakatoa in 535 causing the subsequent global cooling. It is almost as if the authors want to limit the effects to the Northern Hemisphere. Ice cores from Antarctica and Chile also record this event which would not have been seen if the volcanic eruption had been in Iceland as suggested in the article.

    While the effects of this eruption might have been limited to a decade or so, it as well as the 8.2k event and the 4.2k event were not present in the Marcott 2013 reconstruction and the other cartoon presented by xkcd.

  14. “Madrid, Spain, 07.12.2019 (IUCN) – The loss of oxygen from the world’s ocean is increasingly threatening fish species and disrupting ecosystems, a new IUCN report warns. Ocean oxygen loss, driven by climate change and nutrient pollution, is a growing menace to fisheries and species such as tuna, marlin and sharks, according to the report released today at the UN Climate Change conference in Madrid.”

    https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-048-En.pdf

    This is not something to be dismissed lightly with cartoon thinking.

  15. “New generation of hydroelectric dams threaten Europe’s rivers”. A nice exercise in marketing. There is no “new generation”, and the “threat” is the usual one – a human-made, unnatural change to the God-given order of things. Four environmental NGOs commissioned the study – are all environmental NGOs full of creationists? Is this study more trustworthy than a study commissioned by the Big Oil?

  16. Experiment closes critical gap in weather forecasting
    https://phys.org/news/2019-12-critical-gap-weather.html
    “Scientists working on the next frontier of weather forecasting are hoping that weather conditions 3-to-4 weeks out will soon be as readily available as seven-day forecasts.”
    “SubX is filling the gap between the prediction of weather and the prediction of seasonal conditions, which is guided by slowly evolving ocean conditions like sea surface temperatures and soil moisture and variability in the climate system that work on time scales of weeks.”
    Big things with lots of power and sustain that aren’t jumping all around. Like seasons. This would have value. Take for example the Minnesota planting and harvest problems. So there is market pressure to do this. If it can be done, it will be done.

    • December 4 I canceled my December 6 morning appointment because of a heavy rain forecast. It turned out to be a beautiful day, with rain starting at 4 pm.

    • What does it mean? It’s cryptic.

    • CFMIP is the most interesting. It’s a presentation at their annual event. Means Lewis and Mauritsen collaborated.

    • This presentation explicitly says that observationally based ECS estimates are not biased low because of a “pattern of SST warming effect.” You may recall that this was one of the main responses to Lewis and Curry over the last few years. This sounds like an important result because of the shear number of these pattern papers is large and the talking point has been echoed ad nauseum.

      • The issue with some pattern effects is enlightet e.g. in Dong et al (2019)
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0843.1
        They find a strongly negative feedback at work if the observed warming pattern will hold into the future. From their conclusions:
        “…that only in the case that the western Pacific warming keeps warming at a greater place than the rest of the global oceans can we expect ICS to remain as low as that derived from recent energy budget constraints (e.g., Otto et al. 2013; Lewis and Curry 2015; 2018; Armour 2017; Knutti et al. 2017). If GCMs are accurate in their projection that the western Pacific warming will not keep pace with the eastern Pacific and high latitude warming, then we can expect a less negative feedback, and a higher value of ICS, in the future.”
        Many papers questioned this. IMO the Lewis/Mauritsen presentation shows that the observed pattern won’t change because this is a result of the result of the ERF ant itself. This is also bolstered from an earlier paper , Seager et al (2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334012764_Strengthening_tropical_Pacific_zonal_sea_surface_temperature_gradient_consistent_with_rising_greenhouse_gases .
        If it could be shown that the observed warming pattern is indeed a fingerprint of the forcing itself and not a random product of some internal variability ( and therefore not shown in GCM) this would mean that the results of EBM approaches (Otto et al, L/C 18 and other papers) are reliable also for the future. and not the projections of GCM which do not include an important negative feedback of the real climate system of our earth. Not more and not less.

      • Isn’t it based upon one dataset? Used to be the whole world was warming slowly based upon the gold-standard dataset: HadCrappy3. That’s what I called it. Back when it actually WAS the gold standard.

        Mauritsen has been an author on a large number of peer-reviewed studies in 2019. Maybe you should read them.

      • JCH: The whole presentation ( did you mean it?) is about (mostly tropical) ocean related pattern, they do not take advantage from HadCRUT 3, 4, ect.

  17. “In the last 65 years we have come to realize that over-enrichment of waters with nutrients or organic matter (eutrophication) is a problem that threatens and degrades coastal ecosystems, alters fisheries, and impacts human health in many areas around the world. Over 900 areas of the ocean around the world have already been identified as experiencing the effects of
    eutrophication. Of these, over 700 have problems with hypoxia, but through improved nutrient and organic loading management on adjacent land about 70 (10%) of them are now classified as recovering.” https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-048-En.pdf

    Wading around stinking, eutrophic estuaries – this was the problem that first engaged me as a young environmental scientist and engineer. Experiments in algae harvesting, building wetlands and sediment traps, dredging immense amounts of jelly like organic material from the bottom into ponds. I lost swamp dozers trying to consolidate it. We did get them back. This is all hugely costly. As I say – only rich societies can afford environments. One solution is being delivered by farmers with precision agriculture – such as in the recent NZ field day video I linked above. Another is much better water management in urban areas.

  18. “Today’s processes are reminiscent of those thought to have promoted the occurrence of oceanic anoxic events (OAEs) that occurred episodically during the past several hundred million years and that led to major extinction
    events (Holland, 2006; Watson, 2016). While a full-scale OAE would take thousands of years to develop, the small oxygen inventory of the ocean (i.e. the oxygen inventory of the ocean is only ~0.6% of that of the atmosphere)
    makes it particularly sensitive to perturbations of its equilibrium oxidative state. The consequences of such perturbations on the biogeochemistry and ecosystem state are not well known.” https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-048-En.pdf

  19. Why 536 was the worst year to be alive [link]

    Examining ice core record thousands of years from now– in 50,000ths of a meter slices– may show that, bringing production back to America from China in a dispute over whether the western world’s patent system can be used against the productive by allowing Mao’s China to simply copy and sell- back products using stolen ideas (blood, sweat and investment), resulted in a worldwide decrease of pollution…

    • Many businesses take their manufacturing process to China because labor is cheaper there. Why would they bring it back to America?

      • If we ever need to fight in another major war, we will lose because we sent all our manufacturing to China. If we ever need to fight in another major war, we will lose if we have destroyed our fossil fuel energy system. If we ever need to fight in another major war, we will lose without even fighting, because we have destroyed our ability to do anything ourselves.
        Why would we bring all this back to America? We would bring it back because we really may someday really need to be able to defend our country from some other country. Every thing from China is lower cost because we have allowed them to have trade advantage forever.
        Now, we have a President who is trying to fix this, and other major problems. We need to help our President make out country great again.

      • David

        Public pressure, tariffs and a reduction in corporation tax allowing US companies to keep more of their taxes they had moved ashore?

        Tonyb

      • It is depressing to read a canard like this, “If we ever need to fight in another major war, we will lose because we sent all our manufacturing to China.” Such statements show a great deal of confusion about economics, US economic activity, and the nature of production in the world today.
        US industrial production did not peak in the supposed heyday of American manufacturing the 1960s, but rather it peaked last December and the trend is upward for the future.
        We did not send all of our manufacturing to China; “made-in” labels refer only to final assembly. Chinese manufacturing is dependent on the world supply chain. The iPhone for example (Made in China) uses components from 43 countries. If there’s a war, the supply chain would be significantly disrupted, and China would be affected at least as much as we would be.
        The concern about warfare is one raised from time to time, for example: people ask what if we can no longer manufacture steel? That has never happened and some US steel companies would be profitable even without barriers to foreign steel. In any event, US defense uses a small fraction of the steel produced here even in years without steel tariffs or subsidies.
        It is too often the case that even knowledgeable people jump to erroneous conclusions where economics is concerned, certain that anecdotal evidence is enough for them to make universal judgements.

    • Why would we go to war with China?

  20. Here I give the Earth’s Effective Temperature calculated with the Complete Formula.

    1. Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Calculation:

    So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,30

    Earth is a rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Re-emitting Universal Law constant
    N = 1 rotation per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation period

    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth is{

    Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.earth = 288,36 Κ

    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

    Those two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  21. He’s wearing down. Looking at the list of Recent Comments, he has left a gap here and there.

    • ““Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism.” Hayek

      Don seems to balance a stubborn technical ignorance with a lack of objectivity. He has one thing to say – and it’s trivial obscurantism. .

    • Hey Don, how you doing?

      I’m surprised to see you engaging with RIE. I’ve been tempted myself but decided it wasn’t worth the effort.

      You were right on Trump. We (my wife and I) sat out the 2016 election but we’re all in for DJT in 2020.

      Have you been to Jamaica recently?

      • I’m trying to discourage this sort of ‘engagement’. There is no interest and no point.

      • Judith,

        I have added some links above from the past week – nuclear energy, regenerative agriculture and the new IUCN report on ocean deoxygenation – and made comments on models. I am very exited by the IUCN report. I’m up to p119 of nearly 600. It led me to an excursion to hyperthermals and Ocean Anoxic Events (OAE) as the cause of mass extinctions. A large excursion of CO2 in the atmosphere, hyperthermals, a proliferation of both autotrophs and heterotrophs, the evolution of anoxic ocean zones, mass die off, deposition of organic carbon on ocean beds and a drawdown of atmospheric CO2. With then a temperature drop

        https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rsta/376/2130

        I challenge cosy little skeptic (and alarmist) memes with a relatively sophisticated take on science, policy, technology, environments, biogeochemical cycling… But there is a coterie of died in the wool conservatives here and I struggle to understand what it is they do stand for. Like Hayek – I am not a conservative. I am a classic liberal much as your your Founding Fathers were – and from the same source.. I am quite sure that neither progressives or conservatives understand that.

        “When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.” F. A. Hayek

        This sort of perpetual – even this low level backhanded – harassment is aimed at stifling diversity of opinion in an aspirational echo chamber. When I say there is no skeptic diversity of opinion what I mean is papering over of inconsistencies, incompatibilities, eccentric theories and downright dumb off the cuff ideas – I had no idea that driving around in my SUV could stop deoxygenation of the oceans – as long as one identifies as a skeptic and repeats mantras about models, global greening and hot spots.

        Don finding me less amusing than Jimmy is rat’s arse territory. What I find less than amusing is grumpy old men sitting around polemicizing about a science they have little grasp of while trusting in winner takes all social polarization to get them through the day. Leaving the high policy ground to progressives. They whine about the GND – but offer no alternative. There is no indication that they have any sense of the adventure of the future. Just a reactive defense of the status quo and a nostalgia for the past. .

        https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/11/PS.11.25.19_climate.energy-TOPLINE.pdf

        “…we must be able to offer a new liberal programme which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia…a truly liberal radicalism…the main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals….: F.A. Hayek

        But say the word and I will disappear. I will continue researching and writing and one day may have a great notion.

        Robert

    • I suppose removing Don’s ‘loony left’ – hard even to call it a comment – will have to do.

      • Not unusual. 40%:

        RECENT COMMENTS
        kellermfk on Week in review – science edition
        Robert I. Ellison on Week in review – science edition
        Robert I. Ellison on Week in review – science edition
        Robert I. Ellison on Week in review – science edition
        JCH on Week in review – science edition
        Joshua on Week in review – science edition
        Robert I. Ellison on Week in review – science edition
        Herman A (Alex) Pope on Week in review – science edition
        cerescokid on Week in review – science edition
        frankclimate on Week in review – science edition

      • Ah – but note the quality.

      • If he had any respect for your blog and the other participants, he would restrain himself.

      • If he had anything interesting to say he would have done it by now.

  22. Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:

    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

    and the planet Te (Tsat.mean) measured by satellites:

    Planet or ….Te.incomplete .Te.complete …Te.satellites
    moon ………..formula ……..formula ……..measured
    Mercury ……….437 K ………346,11 K ………340 K
    Earth ………….255 K ………288,36 K ……..288 K
    Moon ………….271 Κ ………221,74 Κ ……..220 Κ
    Mars ………….211,52 K ……215,23 K ……..210 K

    http://cristos-vournas.com

    • Christos, neither the “incomplete formula” or the “complete formula” applies to the Moon or Mercury, since they have almost no atmosphere so one can’t assume global equilibrium, which is where the factor of 4 comes from.

      Also, note that the “incomplete formula” is better on Mars than the “complete formula.”

    • And your phi=0.47 is just a fudge factor picked only to get the observed value. That’s not science. You’re only wasting everyone’s time here with your incessant posting of this nonsense.

  23. “O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) (2009) have shown that non-threatening
    images that engage everyday emotions, such as a picture of a community mobilizing to protect their local environment, are more likely to inspire wider citizen action to address climate change impacts than are fear-inducing
    representations of a climate catastrophe. For example, pollutants mostly from wastewater treatment facilities resulted in poor water quality and deoxygenation in Narragansett Bay over the past decades. The pollution
    led to algal blooms and a lack of dissolved oxygen in the bay. Following a large fish kill in 2003 (Figure 2.1.6)wastewater treatment plants reduced the amount of nitrogen discharge into the water and in some parts of the Bay the oxygen returned to normal levels by 2014 leading to better water quality and a healthier marine habitat that resulted in increased home prices in this
    region (Jepsen, 2017).” op.cit.

    As a humble sanitary engineer – my designs have won awards for integrated urban water cycle management – it is simple and relatively inexpensive to strip nitrogen from sewage effluent. It involves switching off aeration and allowing oxygen levels to drop to where organisms then get their oxygen from soluble nitrous oxides by chemical reduction.

    This demonstrates a common sense principle. Offering hope rather than fear. There are many pragmatic solutions.

    • Operative words are “pragmatic” and “common sense”. That philosophy should also apply to CO2 emissions The idea of “zero” man made CO2 demonstrates radicalism in a particularly virulent form.

      In passing, effluent treatment operations can be somewhat of an art form. Die off of helpful organisms can occur quickly as a result of screw-ups or environmental upsets (lots of rain). Not so sure I would characterize achieving desired results as necessarily simple, particularly when faced with the realities of funding the cleanup effort. Here in the U.S. Midwest, nitrogen runoff from the vast farmlands is a really tough problem to solve.

      • As I say – only rich economies can afford environments. It takes resources – but I think you underestimate the reliability of modern technology and redundancies built into treatment systems – and overestimate the difficulty of nitrate stripping – reduction of NOx to N2 in a holding tank – in sewage effluent. If you have an infiltration problem – it is time to fix it.

        Freshwater is a scarce and valuable resource. Recognizing this – in new state of the art designs the object is to integrate water supply, stormwater and sewage effluent to most efficiently, safely with regard to public health and with low environmental impacts – utilise water.

        Nitrogen leaving farms is throwing away fistfulls of dollars. The object is to not apply more than is needed by crops. Combine precision farming with riparian zones and wetland conservation and restoration and there are the bones of a solution.

      • Not sure I share your absolute faith in technology, although life on the planet has certainly become better.

        The landscape is littered with the results of foul ups. Having worked with, technology, screw-ups are inevitable. Sometime’s we get lucky and things work out OK, other times, not so much. Best approach is for folks to take responsibility for what they do, as opposed to relying on big-government and bureaucrats attempting to control everything. Observation from over a half a century of working with technology.

      • I have a 10 year old Pajero that has never given me a moments trouble. I can without much regret bash it around the bush. My friend has a relatively new turbo diesel Suzuki I researched for her. Brilliant little car – responsive, great handling, gets 20 km/L. It has sensors for everything. I can’t help thinking it’s a dinosaur on the way out. To be replaced by electric hybrid vehicles sporting simpler, lighter, efficient and fuel flexible linear generators charging lightweight ultracapacitors powering electric motors. These things can leave any dinosaur in their dust.


        https://www.libertine.co.uk/

        Many applications – backup generation, remote power, etc. And just for fun.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/07/28/how-difficult-is-it-to-build-an-electric-car/

        Unless it works in markets it is not much use. Subsidies to bring technologies to market is a good use of government money – much as first of a kind advanced nuclear reactor prototypes are being supported to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the US. You want innovative industry to drive future economic growth. It is why I have little objection to current levels of wind and solar – although there is a limit to my patience.

        There is obviously a role for government in other areas as well – but they do stuff it up.

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

        My first job out of university was designing some sewage pump stations and a pipeline over the Jindabyne Dam. I may be an airy fairy environmental engineer – the first of my kind – but unless you know the nuts and bolts and big boys toys – you are not a real engineer and cannot design practical systems. It used tanks and state of the art electronics to buy 24hrs of security against power outages in a water supply catchment and a harsh climate. Well – as harsh as it gets in Oz. I was $20,000 under a $2M budget. Both the client and the regulators loved me. One of the last was lime dosing, ion exchange and reverse osmosis to produce potable water from acid mine drainage. These are complex but mature technologies. It was cheaper than building a pipe up a mountain.

        Sometimes you can get lucky. I built a marina in Airlie Beach – someone had to do it – and we were blowing up a hill right in the middle of town for the seawalls. There were small pockets of weaker rock not in the geotech report. One detonation resulted in rock fragments shooting 100’s of metres vertically that landed on the resort next door taking out some tiles that fell into a pool occupied by a dive class. One rock took out a thankfully unoccupied pool umbrella. I got lucky that day. We were shut down for only a week after copious grovelling to government, media and the public, halved the drill depth and went way over the blasting budget. And of course there was the standard fine print in the geotech report.

  24. A new paper indicates “present” temperatures are the coldest of the last 4 to 7 thousand years in Fennoscandia (Finland). A 2016 paper indicates this region hasn’t warmed (net) since the 1930s.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jens-Ove_Naeslund/project/Climate-and-radioactive-waste/attachment/5d1a717bcfe4a7968db0b23c/AS:774756081102853@1561727652835/download/TR-18-04.pdf?context=ProjectUpdatesLog

    Fennoscandia is where the glacial spread of the last glacial maximum nucleated, 30,000 years ago.

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The low temperature in the stratosphere above the polar circle does not determine the strength of the polar vortex. The influx and distribution of ozone in high latitudes is decisive. The animation below shows that the influx of ozone to to Bering Sea led to the division of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere over the Bering Sea.

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/12/07/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-10.87,94.02,296
    You have to understand how strong the impact of the stratosphere is on the wind from autumn to the spring.

  26. Two links connect to the same paper (one via NoTricksZone) about an accurate alkenone proxy of Holocene sea temperature variability in the western Barents Sea:

    Lacka et al. find huge variability there, linked to Atlantic inflow (warmer) or not (cooler).

    A distinct decrease in %C37:4 (from 50% to approximately 25%; Fig. 3A) occurred c. 11,500 cal yr BP. This decrease was followed by a substantial SST increase, from an average of 2 °C to an average of 8.4 °C; however, SST oscillated significantly from 3 °C to 12.5 °C (Fig. 3B). At the same time, the alkenone flux remained relatively high (average 1.6 ng cm−2 a−1; Fig. 3D).

    Between 9200 cal yr BP and 3400 cal yr BP, SSTs in Storfjordrenna remained highly variable (from 3 °C to almost 13 °C; Fig. 3B). The %C37:4 varied between 7% and 38% (Fig. 3A), and the alkenone flux was very low (between 0.08 and 0.61 ng cm−2 a−1).

    In this context, recent warming and ice loss can not be presented as alarmist hockey stick warming there. Variation, as much as several deg. C per century, has been the norm for the western Barents throughout the Holocene.

    The first IPCC report in history commented thus about historical climate variation:

    “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
    says the Teacher.
    “Utterly meaningless!
    Everything is meaningless.”
    3 What do people gain from all their labors
    at which they toil under the sun?
    4 Generations come and generations go,
    but the earth remains forever.
    5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
    and hurries back to where it rises.
    6 The wind blows to the south
    and turns to the north;
    round and round it goes,
    ever returning on its course.
    7 All streams flow into the sea,
    yet the sea is never full.
    To the place the streams come from,
    there they return again.
    8 All things are wearisome,
    more than one can say.
    The eye never has enough of seeing,
    nor the ear its fill of hearing.
    9 What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.
    10 Is there anything of which one can say,
    “Look! This is something new”?
    It was here already, long ago;
    it was here before our time.
    11 No one remembers the former generations,
    and even those yet to come
    will not be remembered
    by those who follow them.

  27. Panta rhei – everything flows.

  28. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Dangerous wave of arctic air from central Canada falls in the Midwest.

  29. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Very high levels of galactic radiation, that exceed 6800 counts in Oulu. This is such a level as in 2009 during the year of total silence on the Sun.

  30. The 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

    The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any measurable greenhouse warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Unfortunately, that’s the bitter truth.

    • If there’s no greenhouse effect, explain TOA observations like this:

    • I have no time for sky dragon slayers – but this is not data.

      • If it’s not data, what is it?

      • Ideal blackbody radiation shown against calculated absorption lines. Even if – given the Planck response – these notches are indistinguishable against large variations in TOA radiant flux.

        “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

        Now this is an elegant empirical proof of the hypothesis – and it has been replicated. Can you tell me why?

      • Even if – given the Planck response – the notches exist they are indistinguishable…

      • Robert I. Ellison wrote:
        Ideal blackbody radiation shown against calculated absorption lines.

        No, they are the spectra measured by satellite over North Africa. See Figure 7-8 here:

        http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

      • Loeb et al 2012 is a measure of the *increase* in the greenhouse effect, similar to Harries et al 2001. It’s not proof of the greenhouse effect per se, or at least not an obvious demonstration of the GHE like my figure is.

      • I managed to download the 1972 paper – via what might or might not be sci-hub. So it was the IRIS instruments on NIMBUS 3 & 4. So you are right – it is emissions detected through a narrow aperture compared to ideal blackbody radiation. But to assume that this is the shape of all sdky emissions is incorrect.

        This is from Harries 2001. You need to think about the instrument specifications and what is being detected.

        Total IR emissions look more like this when aggregated over the planetary surface – rather than a 95km diameter circle. It shows net cooling in IR btw.

      • Robert, I didn’t assume the graph I posted was a all-sky proof of the greenhouse effect — only that it showed there is a GHE and anyone denying it has to explain that graph and the changes in outgoing radiation as a function of wavelength.

        Your graph of total IR emissions doesn’t directly show the GHE.

        I didn’t need to consider the instrumentation for the graph I posted and or it heuristic purpose.

        Now please stop being so pedantic.

      • I am disappointed David. You have a ‘proof’ you don’t understand and have no curiosity about. But if you are going to hand wave at something – Harries 2001 is a better proof for several reasons.

        The IR out data shows that there is much more happening in climate than IR photons being emitted in random directions in the atmosphere. As it says in Loeb et al 2012.

      • Robert, again, my purpose was to prove the existence of the GHE, *not* changes in it (which is what Harries et al 2001 does).

      • No one but sky dragon slayers need more proof – and they ain’t buying it.

        You have a proof that you don’t understand and ignore other and larger radiative changes.

      • Robert Ellison wrote:
        You have a proof that you don’t understand and ignore other and larger radiative changes.

        I understand my proof very well — you’re the one who doesn’t. And you still don’t understand that I wasn’t trying to say *anything* about climate change or radiative forcings. Though I can’t fathom how you would. Try to get this straight finally.

      • Tell me then why this result requires narrow observing apertures? And why you are refusing to discuss complications?

        “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

      • Robert, I’m not going to participate in your pedantic pissing match, which I see you start a lot of here. My point was a simple, heuristic one, hardly intended to be the final word in atmospheric spectroscopy, simply that the GHE alters the outgoing radiation spectrum from a blackbody curve. You knew that from the beginning, or should have. Now go play elsewhere.

      • David – I insist on integrity and honest, open debate. You specialise in climateball word games. As you do with any denizen who dares to call you to account it seems. I have been patient – openly admitted that my original assumption was premature, based on inadequate investigation and wrong. I asked you to defend your proof – I know why it works – and consider wider implications of other satellite data. Your response is to insult, insinuate, berate and shut down discourse. As always it seems.

      • Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

        “The results presented here provide (to our knowledge) the ®rst experimental observation of changes in the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect: previous studies have been largely limited to theoretical simulations because of the paucity of data.” Harries et al 2001

        He seems to have grabbed a 1972 graph from some lecture notes and waves it about without much effort to understand. Have we seen the interpersonal dynamic where warinistas need to be smarter than skeptics? It might upset the Appell cart if he weren’t.

        I told him Harries et al was a much better reference – I’m damned if I’m telling him why it is such an elegant proof of the greenhouse gas hypothesis. He’s not interested it seems. 😊

  31. The warming potential of black carbon (BC) may be underestimated. “In a study funded by the California Air Resources Board to compare models and observations of the aerosol absorption optical depth (AAOD) of BC over California, supposedly a region with one of the best-constrained inventories of BC emissions, the regional model underestimated the observed AAOD by a factor of 2–3 (9).” https://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4243

    There are similar results in the region of the Asian brown haze.


    “AAOD for BC (550 nm) predicted by the NASA-GISS global climate model (background grid) compared with observation-based BC-AAOD retrieved for the NASA-AERONET sites (circles). The same color scale applies to both sets of data. The AERONET BC-AAOD is based on average inversion of data sampled during years 2000–2014 (10). 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.” Factors include a mixing and coating of black carbon with co-emitted sulfate and organic carbon


    “Time-course evolution of BC aerosol composition, light absorption (where EMAC-BC is the enhancement because of coatings), and associated climate effects (as DRF).”

    High efficiency low emission (HELE) coal is the foundation of ASEAN energy planning. It reduces carbon dioxide emissions by about 7% and removes almost all BC, sulfate and mercury.

    https://watertechbyrie
    .files.wordpress.com/2017/06/hele-e1550170804379.jpg

    They are relatively cheap and plants built today will be with us for the next 50 years – even if cheaper technologies emerge in the interim. Unless fuels become ridiculously expensive.

  32. COP 25: Hysterics march to no avail in Madrid (my latest)
    https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/08/cop-25-hysterics-march-to-no-avail-in-madrid/

    Friday was hysterical marching day, so they dutifully filled a street in Madrid. In addition, in a carefully orchestrated show, hundreds of demonstrators were let into the COP 25 conference center. These marches are family social affairs, so there were mothers with babies, etc.

    Ironically, while this family social occupied one part of the center, the 26,000 negotiators, observers and press were busily ignoring them in another part. The great gulf between action demanding hysterics and no action moderates was within a single building.

    The march did have one very interesting feature, which for a change was not Greta Thunberg, queen of the hysterics, even though she was around. According to the website, this march was co-sponsored by Greenpeace.

    To my knowledge this is the first time a mainstream green group has publicly aligned itself with the Greta group. Greenpeace is a very deep pocket, with annual income in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This could give the hysterics serious money muscle.

    On the hilarious side, Greta gave us a true “out of the mouths of babes” moment. Speaking at a pre-march press conference she said their many marches had “achieved nothing.” I am sure she meant it as yet another call for action, but it correctly describes the futility of what the hysterics are doing, at least for now and especially at COP 25. Her speech writers, who are normally very good, seem to have flubbed the sound bite.

    The point of these negotiations is to get compromises between well established and opposing national positions. There are no surprises. All these hysterical calls for bold action are irrelevant. Even the smallish goal of increased ambition in reducing emissions is simply not on the agenda.

    I mean that literally, there is no item on the crowded COP 25 agenda that even allows for tabling increased ambition. That item is scheduled for COP 26, a solid year from now in Glasgow UK. These are, after all, Soviet style five year plans and the next plans are not due until 2020.

    Of course at this point the hysterics can still hope (against hope). Next Friday will be a different story, as COP 25 comes down to the wire. Mind you there will be a fanciful reason for hope, at least for a while.

    Each COP is run in two stages. In the first week or so the grunt national negotiators work to make the major disagreements as clear and simple as possible. In the second week we get what is called the ministerial session. Here the high ranking national politicos fly in (for shame) to shoot for settlements.

    There is always a cliff hanger over the biggest issue, which in this case is emissions trading. Technically this is Article 6 of the goofy Paris Accord, the only article left to finalize. The differences between nations are enormous, with potentially billions of dollars at stake for giant countries like China and Brazil. This is funny money which many smaller countries want to deny them, in the name of integrity. Yes integrity; I am not making this up.

    The last day’s session typically goes into a prolonged overnight overtime. But the hysterics despise emissions trading, as it is the opposite of bold action, so they will see no significance in this late suspense. Moreover, this last day happens to fall on a Friday, so it is a marching day. At this point all hope for bold action will be lost, barring some sort of miraculous change in UN procedures.

    I can hardly wait to see what happens in the streets, as the hysteric’s complete failure to generate bold action becomes crystal clear next Friday. It is hard to imagine these gentle folk rioting, but who knows. There is a lot of emotion here. What will Greta say?

    More deeply the question is how will the hysterics recover from this almost certain monster failure? The critical COP 26 is a long year off. Have the hysterics peaked too soon or will they continue to march, and march, and march? Perhaps the U.S. Presidential race will restore them.

    In the short run the end of COP 25 looms very large. By coincidence this supremely unlucky day for the hysterics is Friday the 13th. How cool is that? Time will soon tell.

    I wonder if the press will notice this glaring failure?

    • Is this a case of repeating attempts to make fun of people at large who are not listening and expect a different outcome?

      https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/11/PS.11.25.19_climate.energy-TOPLINE.pdf

      The New Yorker called Greta the anti-Trump. And she has a higher approval rating.

      • She’s an adult and I have no doubt utterly sincere in her beliefs. But she does seem to trigger some grumpy old men. You need to cultivate more generosity of spirit. And recalibrate policy to be more relevant in today’s rather than yesterdays world.

      • While this comment remains. Frankly – it seems far too early for political jingoism – but I can’t resist a challenge. Remember – I don’t have a dog in the race – it’s a spectator sport. Checking the odds at Bovada – it looks like a two dog race. Trump and Biden. Trump has short odds. Biden’s will firm as he moves through the primaries – assuming he is winning there. I note he modified his stance on abortion. Preparatory to applying to admission as a full member of the Catholic Church. He looks like a good bet at current odds.

        I usually wait to the day after elections to prognosticate. That way I am always right. Frankly I was surprised that Trump scrapped in even against Hillary Clinton. Democrats blew that one aye? What Trump needs to have a snowballs chance in 2020 – is first to survive impeachment without imploding. His option there is to stonewall through the courts for long enough to prevent release of information until after the election. In the interest of future Presidents. Primarily his second term I’d venture. And then rebuild support among white evangelicals to 81%.

        Let’s see how it’s travelling after the holidays. May the most cynical win.

      • And we keep losing grumpy old men comments. 😁

    • Don participates not at all other than with this nonsense. I spend a lot of time on my laptop researching and writing. There is a little red dot that flashes up frequently – I’m disappointed if it is not there – and all of you are a lot more interesting and amusing than Don. Even JCH. Who owes Tim Palmer a million dollars – btw. The terms were unmistakable. On one side there is Tim Palmer – a doyen of global climate and weather modelling – dissing climate models. On the other there was Steven Mosher – say no more.

      But Don has options. Other than simply repeating his rote complaint. He might just not read my comments. Actually – I’m pretty sure he doesn’t He has never shown any capacity or interest in geophysics. If it is true that it takes 10,000 hours to become even moderately expert – I commend us all – except for Don – for trying. It is hard to know what he could make of the black carbon lensing effect or the the IRIS interferometer on NIMBUS 4 back in the 1970’s – for instance. Even if he did read my comments. It is impossible to tell anything from his commentary – apart from ‘all the way with DJT’. There is no content other dissing me and praising the master of the universe. It might show respect if he did contribute something of substance. Does he have it in him? .

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Changing the circulation in the Pacific. A tropical storm will finally reach northern Australia.

  34. Climate models wade into historic politics: only the 1943 Bengal famine was not caused by weather (so by Churchill ??). The rest of colonial India magically had enough food….

    Drought and Famine in India, 1870–2016 Vimal Mishra et al. 22 January 2019 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL0814

  35. Very low solar activity (ssn) continues for six months in a row. So far, it looks like the deepest (between-the-cycles) minimum since the Dalton minimum (early 1800s).

    The average ssn for the last six months is 0.8!

    • We’re just in a regular solar minimum in it 11-yr cycle and not near the Dalton Minimum:

      • David, that’s a tsi reconstruction and they’re not very reliable. Furthermore, it doesn’t even show the latest numbers, so it doesn’t address my point at all. This is how the measured tsi looks like, but even that is not 100% accurate as far as I know (different satellites, calibration…):
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod

        So, regarding sunspots numbers, this minimum so far is very deep. The 6-month average ssn is lowest since the sc 6/7 minimum in 1823.

      • You just wrote the TSI reconstructions are “not very reliable” (with no proof), then cited PMOD’s TSI reconstruction! Why is it more reliable than others?

        There are plenty more TSI graphs here, over lots of time frames. They don’t show the current solar minimum being any deeper than the last few previous ones:

        https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

      • Meanwhile, December 2019 looks like it is going to be way hotter than November 2019 was.

      • David, my original point was strictly about the latest sunspots numbers (through Nov 2019) and how they compare with the rest of the data we have. You brought up the tsi and not just the measurements, which we have only since 1978, but a reconstruction! Why you did that, I don’t know, maybe to muddy the waters? Proof in science? That’s dissapointing, even for a warmist/alarmist like you.

        Regarding the tsi record, I thought you were familiar with the inconstistencies/discrepancies. It’s pretty uncertain, read up on it, very interesting. For a start:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
        “The space-based TSI record comprises measurements from more than ten radiometers spanning three solar cycles.”
        “In orbit, radiometric calibrations drift for reasons including solar degradation of the cavity, electronic degradation of the heater, surface degradation of the precision aperture and varying surface emissions and temperatures that alter thermal backgrounds. These calibrations require compensation to preserve consistent measurements.”
        “For various reasons, the sources do not always agree. The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment/Total Irradiance Measurement (SORCE/TIM) TSI values are lower than prior measurements by the Earth Radiometer Budget Experiment (ERBE) on the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), VIRGO on the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SoHO) and the ACRIM instruments on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM), Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) and ACRIMSat. Pre-launch ground calibrations relied on component rather than system level measurements, since irradiance standards lacked absolute accuracies.”
        “Disagreement among overlapping observations indicates unresolved drifts that suggest the TSI record is not sufficiently stable to discern solar changes on decadal time scales.”

        Now, if the tsi record is so uncertain and unstable, imagine how unreliable are the historical reconstructions, which are based on it.

      • Sunspot numbers also go to zero in a solar cycle minimum. They haven’t been in a prolonged minimum like the Dalton Minimum.

        TSI is what affects climate, not sunspots. The correlation between the two is only approximate.

      • JCH, Decembar hotter than November? Globally for sure not, maybe you mean sh temperatures?

        Or maybe you mean the global temperature indices, so-called temperature anomalies? If yes, why do you cheer for it? It’s just weather.

      • The anomaly. 2019 will be the 2nd warmest year in the instrument record, and is going finish with a bang.

      • David, again, the 6-month average ssn is lowest since the SC 6/7 minimum in 1823. That’s all. Here’s the data:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/sidc-ssn

        I did not claim that “sunspots numbers have been in a prolonged minimum like the Dalton Minimum”. I wrote, “so far, it looks like the deepest (between-the-cycles) minimum since the Dalton minimum (early 1800s)”.

      • Sunspot numbers regularly spend months at or near zero, every solar cycle.

        Last cycle min the 6-month moving average of the monthly average sunspot number got down to 1.4. Today it’s 0.8. That doesn’t seem like much of a difference.

      • The comparison of the last minimum ( they said it was a deep one) with the present one ( and counting):

    • Appells ain’t oranges.

      “This figure summarizes sunspot number observations. Since c. 1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figures are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).”

  36. Mars, Moon and Earth satellite measured mean temperatures comparison:

    210 K, 220 K and 288 K

    Let’s have here for convenience reasons the following:

    Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:
    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

    and the planet Te (Tsat.mean) measured by satellites:

    Planet or ….Te.incomplete .Te.complete …Te.satellites
    moon ………..formula ……..formula ……..measured
    Mercury ……….437 K ………346,11 K ………340 K
    Earth ………….255 K ………288,36 K ……..288 K
    Moon ………….271 Κ ………221,74 Κ ……..220 Κ
    Mars ………….211,52 K ……215,23 K ……..210 K

    Let’s compare then:
    Moon:
    Tsat.moon = 220K
    Moon’s albedo is amoon = 0,136
    What is left to absorb is (1 – amoon) = (1- 0,136) = 0,864

    Mars:
    Tsat.mars = 210 K
    Mars’ albedo is amars = 0,25
    What is left to absorb is (1 – amars) = (1 – 0,25) = 0,75

    Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison:

    Tsat.mars /Tsat.moon = 210 K /220 K = 0,9545

    Mars /Moon what is left to absorb (which relates in ¼ powers) comparison, or in other words the Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorption ability:
    ( 0,75 /0,864 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,8681 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9652

    Conclusions:
    1. Mars /Moon satellite measured temperatures comparison ( 0,9545 )
    is almost identical with the
    Mars /Moon albedo determined solar irradiation absorption ability ( 0,9652 )

    2. If Mars and Moon had the same exactly albedo, their satellites measured temperatures would have been exactly the same.

    3. Mars and Moon have two major differences which eliminate each other:

    The first major difference is the distance from the sun both Mars and Moon have.
    Moon is at R = 1 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is So = 1.362 W/m² ( it is called the Solar constant ).
    Mars is at 1,5 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is S = So*(1/R²) = So*(1/1,5²) = So*1/2,25.

    Consequently the solar flux on the Mar’s top is 2,25 times weaker than that on the Moon.

    The second major difference is the sidereal rotation period both Mars and Moon have.
    Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,5 days.
    Mars performs 1 rotation every day.

    Consequently Mars rotates 29,5 times faster than Moon does.

    So Mars is irradiated 2,25 times weaker, but Mars rotates 29,5 times faster.
    And… everything else equals Mars and Moon has the same satellite measured mean temperatures.

    It is obvious now, everything else equals, the Mars’ 29,5 times faster rotation eliminates the Moon’s 2,25 times higher solar irradiation.

    That is why the 29,5 times faster rotating Mars has almost the same average satellites measured temperature as the 2,25 times stronger solar irradiated Moon.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  37. ‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.’ https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/climate-pragmatism-innovation

    There are two pseudo science questions to ask.

    1. Is there a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere; and
    2. was 20th century warming 110% anthropogenic.

    People who answer no to 1. or yes to 2. can be dismissed with some prejudice. That would give space for the adults to talk. This is from the NREL Energy Futures report.

    Renewables penetration scenarios – that are decidedly utopian.

    And the cost of 80% penetration by 2050? Tripling and more retail energy prices at real 2009 prices. .

    That’s $16B/year to reduce CO2 emissions by some 20%. Why would you bother? You could do that by continuing to decrease carbon intensity – as you have been doing since the 1970’s – while increasing productivity.

    For rational people the debate has never been about science. Or about not acting. What raised our ire was ideas that will never work – and that would drive populations into more hunger and extreme poverty. This was never going to be a realistic option – every nation in Paris in 2015 – every practical being on the planet – is following a rapid economic growth strategy that embraces all cost competitive energy sources. Just as nations demanded in Paris in 2015.

    Practical policy involves efforts to reduce CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. For which cost effective technology exists in developed economies. Competitive advantage is built on efficiency and innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry – wealth is built on trade.

    You might note – btw – that only agriculture is shown in the EPA pie chart above. This is because the land use sector is a net carbon sink in the US. Agriculture by itself can be too. Eat more meat.

    • The slides on the video above are a bit dodgy – but you can get some idea of the science behind intensive grazing.

      Here’s slicker production.

    • In all likelihood, you just dismissed Bjorn Stevens, Tim Palmer and JC McWilliams.

    • I once asked Michael Ghil if I could use this chart. Turns out it is from his 1973 thesis – republished in ‘A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or,
      How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability” 2013 .

      “The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems — atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere — each
      of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.”

      My quoting these words caused Michael Ghil to spin in his grave according to JCH. Poor Michael isn’t even dead. JCH believes earnestly that whatever he believes is what these high calibre scientists believe. This is very unlikely.
      And that anything I quote is a biased selection.

      The correct answer to question 2 is probably not. Anyone too emphatically on the yes side is (a) not worth the time it takes to endlessly chase your tail and (b) diverts attention from real world solutions for practical people.

      “The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change.” Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens

      • Two-step sidestep on full display.

        Palmer and Stevens are 100% consensus scientists.

      • nobodysknowledge

        JCH: “Palmer and Stevens are 100% consensus scientists.”
        Not any more. Not when it comes to climate models.
        Will they get any attacs from Real Climate Consensus Police?
        Will they be trusted to work for IPCC on climate models?

      • I have been thinking about bad faith arguments. This one starts by blatantly claiming claiming that I am duplicitous – obviating the need to respond coherently.

      • JCH then asserts things that could only be verified by wasting the time of everyone concerned. What seems in evidence is that these high calibre climate scientists have a more nuanced view than the ‘congealed’ opinions of JCH. We might ask Judith if she thinks that 110% of 20th century warming was anthropogenic. But then she is a skeptic who may be vilified at will by any clown who can drive a keyboard.

        IDGAF – identify a bad faith argument, disengage, go away, avoid, forget. Check.

      • Skeptic and warminista tags are completely beside the point. There is uncertainty and risk. What you want to do about it is entirely up to you. I think it reinforces rather than undermines Judith’s strategy expressed most recently in the Madrid post.

      • Not any more. Not when it comes to climate models.
        Will they get any attacs from Real Climate Consensus Police?
        Will they be trusted to work for IPCC on climate models? …

        LMAO. Sorry, LMAO. Utterly ridiculous.

        The most scathing attack I’ve seen so far accuses them of just wanting a bigger toy.

      • Or, see the last time White-Hat Stevens got everybody at Cesspool Etc. all excited – Lindzen was right; the Iris Effect lives!

      • What do they want?

        a gigantic computer model

        Why do they want it?

        because mitigation policeies to date have disappointed them

        Why?

        because they are consensus scientists; global warming could be catastrophic

        Who are the bad people?

        people who use computer model problems to defeat policy goals as global warming could be catastrophic

        Clue?

        they want a gigantic computer with humungous power

      • Now that’s a bad faith argument. And I’m inclined to think apocryphal.

        I had a brief email exchange with Tim Palmer about this schematic several years ago.


        “Figure 8. 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

    • As I said – for rational people the debate has never been about science. Or about not acting. What raised our ire was mad ideas that will never work – and that would drive populations into more hunger and extreme poverty. This was never going to be a realistic option – every nation in Paris in 2015 – every practical being on the planet – is following a rapid economic growth strategy that embraces all cost competitive energy sources. Just as nations demanded in Paris in 2015.

      This includes natural gas generation in the US and HELE coal in much of the rest of the world. While continuing to reduce CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. For which cost effective technology exists in developed economies. Competitive advantage is built on efficiency and innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry – wealth is built on trade. And conserving and restoring ecosystems and agricultural soils.

      I have been discussing these problems with models for a decade or more. Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable… cloud resolving models and 3 million times more computing power… etc… stop me if you have heard it before. That and more is nearer the top of this post.

      “As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science. Unless we step up our game, something that begins with critical self-reflection, climate science risks failing to communicate and hence realize its relevance for societies grappling to respond to global warming.” Palmer and Stevens

      Intrinsic variability and the inadequacy of models. Sounds like skeptic memes. But perhaps warministas could surprise skeptics with policy responses that are a little less insane and ineffective than 100% wind and solar by 2030.

      Advanced nuclear inter alia.

      https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/16/using-all-of-the-heavy-elements-in-nuclear-waste-to-provide-energy/

  38. “The 4.2 ka BP climatic event”

    Grand solar minima series occur on average every 863 years, from 2225 BC, 1365 BC, 500 BC, 350 AD, 1215 AD, and with the next from 2095 AD. The centennial solar minimum from 2225 BC maps out as being 4 solar cycles long, compared to the 3 in the Maunder Minimum which lowered European temperatures 1672-1705. Most of the 1650-1660’s were very warm, but with some very cold winter periods in the late 1660’s, rather like through the rising phase of solar cycle 24. Extreme cold anomalies in any given year are mostly down to quadrupole configurations of the four gas giants, and is why the 1690’s saw the bulk of the coldest conditions in the Maunder Minimum. It is possible to hindcast the colder years through the 2225 BC super solar minimum.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/

    Large volcanic eruptions typically occur in the months following the colder Northern Hemisphere winters, and can slightly warm subsequent N Hem winters. Making them a feedback response rather than a driver.

    • No greenhouse effect Ulric?

    • What is a quadrupole configuration?

    • Hindcast finds correlations. Hindcast does not prove causation.

      More ice extent correlates with colder. Less ice extent correlates with warmer. This does not, by itself, prove causation, but the correlation of ice extent and temperature always does work.
      It snows more and there is more ice accumulation in warmer times when polar oceans are more thawed. It snows less and there is less ice accumulation in colder times when polar oceans are more frozen. Ice core data proves that this correlation always does work. It always does get colder after years of more ice accumulation. It always does get warmer after years of less ice accumulation. Ice core data shows this to always be true during times ice core proxies are available for the time spans.

      • That these correlations are consistent back as far as we have written weather records for, suggests that the effect is real, and that it warrants further investigation to understand the mechanisms. Moreover, without acknowledging that the Sun drives these extremes, global change will never be understood, and they will continue to be falsely attributed to global change by the most respected of institutions and agencies. Like the UK Met Office who claim our UK 2018 heatwave was made 30 times more likely by ‘human driven’ climate change. It reality the heatwave would not have even existed without the Jovian t-square ordering the solar activity driving it.

    • Ulric L
      I checked again the ‘863 yr’ intervals against dates known from various sources/proxies. Over a period of 8000 years the 863yr period does not match. The Eddy 976yr cycle is a far better match, and extends throughout the 8000 yr period. From 6200bce (the 8k2 event), the 2345bce ( the 4k2 which actually started earlier, as 4k2 is the archaeological consequence; see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301621337_Why_we_shouldn't_ignore_the_mid-24th_century_BC_when_discussing_the_2200-2000_BC_climate_anomaly see fig 1. ), to 536ce, the DACP and LIA ~1670ce.
      (there is portent in them tea-leaves).

      However, that the dates still appear to be near to a great conjunction may be part of a number of conditions that collectively act as a trigger for drastic change.

      • Drivel. 2225 BC + 4*976 is 1679, some 420 years past the start of the Little Ice Age series of grand solar minima, that is not a match.
        2225 BC, 1360 BC, 500 BC, 360 BC, and 1225 BC, matches very well, and my findings on the ordering of grand solar minima series shows exactly why they occur when they do. The mean 863 year period is derived astronomically, 976 years has no such basis.
        The 8.2kyr event was very warm in the mid latitudes, and in 863 year intervals, it maps through precisely to other major warm periods from around 2750 BC and from around 700 AD. The warmest periods in the mid latitudes are the coldest periods in GISP2.

      • Ulric L
        Quote “The warmest periods in the mid latitudes are the coldest periods in GISP2.” plus “The 8.2kyr event was very warm in the mid latitudes”.
        Yes, Agreed.
        The 8k2 (6150bce) is an Eddy cycle root. Next root 5200bce is a major tectonic disturbance as is the second root after that at ~3200bce. In between at root ~ 4200bce similar to the 6k2, but now there is evident a shift in obliquity initiating an abrupt shift to polar warming. However it is triggered at 4375bce, a more precise date from tree rings.
        Similarly at about 2k2bce – the 4k2 event – there is an abrupt shift to polar warming. However now the evidence is greater. That said, the trigger point can be removed from the Eddy root by as much as two centuries. The trigger of the 4k2 event appears at 2345bce, in polar/equatorial temp anomaly, tree rings, proxies -see fig 4 showing all above dates in C – C/N ratio – and in abrupt change in B – ice rafting. link https://www.clim-past.net/11/1587/2015/cp-11-1587-2015.pdf This figure4 in link gives all mentioned dates (which dates I already had prior to its publication). The reason for the abrupt shift is indelibly recorded as here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/searching-evidence-deaths-tsunamis-and-earth-dynamics/ and https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/searching-evidence-3/

        That the changes were abrupt, is evident from research by Profs Lonnie Thompson on the Quelccaya glacier, where the abrupt increase at that time preserved soft bodied plants under the ice. As also evident from geology/archaeology the events are abrupt, not stretched over any orbital periods.
        The event time over a period of 8000 years appears linked to the Eddy cycle steps, however the trigger points can go by as much as 200 yeas either way of Eddy roots

      • I have no idea what an Eddy cycle root is, however calling both the 8.2kyr event and the 3.2kyr event ‘roots’ is mixing up cold and warm events. That is the prime evidence against an Eddy cycle. The 4.2kyr super solar minimum was nothing to do with any ‘trigger’ 150-200 years earlier.

      • I acknowledge your questioning in the above. As shown in the second link in the post above, the Eddy cycle root is the bottom of the curve in red as it appeared in a post sometime ago in at this site in the series ‘Nature Unbound – IX’ . The curve root/bottom was then correlated with the DACP and LIA. I extrapolated back and found correlation with a series of already known dates. Why such clear correlation is an enigma still.
        Quoting the dates as BCE the 6150, 4375 and 2345 appear to show sharp increase in polar temps anomaly and contrary to equatorial. In between the 5200 and 3200 were major tectonic disturbances as evidenced clearly in archaeology and some proxies (one proxy was two thick sapropel layers in Med sediment). Again, why they occur in evident step with the Eddy cycle bottom/root is unknown, but they do so over a long period of 8000 years, and that does not happen by chance. To note, the events are abrupt; extremely so.
        They are not a precise 976yrs (Eddy = 976+/-53), which means it is not a singular forcing source, but a combination of forces that trigger abrupt change at different points, but act about a main force regulator which is the 976 Eddy.
        The influence of ‘coupling’ from other planets has been variously discussed (whatever the meaning of coupling is), and before I entered the ring in 2015 with evidence if obliquity changes at those dates (as ‘oldmanK’ here https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/dodwells-surprising-study-of-the-obliquity-of-the-ecliptic/ ).

      • In GISP2, 8.2 kyr and 7.2 kyr BP are cold periods, but by 4.2 and 3.2 kyr they are warm periods. That is why an Eddy cycle does not exist. The events around 2355-2345 BC were due to certain heliocentric Jovian configurations, they drive the largest inter-annual variability (see my first link), it wasn’t even a centennial solar minimum then. 2348 BC was the same Jovian type of cold event as in 829 and 1010 when the Nile froze, and the extreme winters of 1600-1602, 1783-84 and 1962-63.

      • My perspective here is a different one, however it is in agreement. 8k2 and 7k2 are cold periods, however both appear as points of inflection, a point of abrupt change of trend. The 7k2BP and the 5k2 (3200bce piora oscillation) are similar, and both show major tectonic events.
        The 2348bce (or 2345bce) in particular, a cold period, but a point of abrupt change. I am making emphasis here on the abruptness of a sharp trend to a fast warming from cold. Yet at tropics it was opposite. This is one particular date because the record of events -and the reason – can be clearly discerned from the calendar structure, built after the 5k2BP tectonic event, with changed orientation; here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/mnajdra-south-calendar-design/
        That ancient relic still works fine, and I predicted with a model of it the 2016 solstice day (and hour) days in advance, against established belief. What it indicates is a dynamic earth change, which would also explain the fast temp changes globally.
        The big question is what causes it. Planetary torques look like a likely culprit. Thinking aloud here; not just barycentric positions, but gyro torques in some particular planetary arrangement – and of short duration- .

      • We are not in any agreement. I claim that 8.2kyr and 7.2kyr were warm in the mid latitudes. 7.2kyr was cold in GISP2, while 5.2kyr was warm in GISP2. That is exactly where the proposed Eddy cycle breaks down.

      • Thanks for the reply; I know I’m persisting on a point (but I feel this is where the devil of it all is).
        OK, my fault for not being clear. 8k2 and 7k2 were cold at polar (Gisp2 – and vostok); warm in equatorial (Kilimanjaro). However it is helpful to get an idea of the temp, which here I used the Temp Anomaly from Wiki. Polar are about -0.2deg, equatorial +0.5deg. In contrast Gisp2 at 9k2BP was -1deg; at 11k2 it was way down (end of YD). Link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
        5k2, like 7k2, appears from geology as a point of great disturbance, however Gisp2 was at +0.2deg. At ~4k2BP it was +1deg., and a point where the temp reverses down sharply. But it is earlier near 4k3BP that the abrupt shift occurs (as seen in tree-rings, C14, plus).
        At 4375bce (somewhat ahead of ~~6k2BP) Gisp2 is at same temp as 8k2,7k2, but the events from archaeology were as the 2345bce (both accurate date from tree rings).
        Do they fit the Eddy cycle (976 +/- 53)? Not exactly, but considered from the LIA at ~1680 to 9150bce the above dates fall near a 984 interval of 11 cycles. I have no answer why this is so, however the sprinkling of dates close to those ‘markers’ does not occur by chance. There is an element of ‘chaotic’ triggering of abrupt change.

      • “8k2 and 7k2 were cold at polar (Gisp2 – and vostok)”

        Nonsense they were warm in Vostok.

        “5k2, like 7k2, appears from geology as a point of great disturbance”

        Waffle, 7.2kyr was cold and 5.2kyr was warm in GISP2.

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski

    To make matters worse, the combination of the frigid air, wind and other factors will result in AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperatures 10-30 degrees below zero across the northern Plains and Upper Midwest through Wednesday.

    People spending any length of time outdoors will need to make sure they are properly dressed for such frigid conditions.

  40. If they don’t start accounting for ocean surface temperature cycles, including actual TPW measurements, and solar influence, all a more powerful computer will achieve is the wrong answer with greater precision. Global averages were fairly easy to sort out with a desk top. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

    • “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.” Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer


      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

      Abruptly shifting spatio-temporal patterns of globally coupled ocean and atmospheric circulation feed into cloud changes – changing the flow of energy in and out of the planet over decades to millennia.

      https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/18/thresholds-and-epochs-in-the-grand-climate-system/

      In the last decades of the 20th century “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. (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3838.1) A cloud radiative net warming effect caused primarily by Pacific Ocean variability – processes confirmed in CERES observations.

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

      Do they need to ‘win’ the science and for what reason? To evade explaining their mad ambitions for social and economic transformation? It’s time to come clean.

      • Lol. Apparently you think you and Julia and Tim have a secret among you.

        You don’t.

        La Niña took a round, burned its mojo in the next round and retreated defeated back into the ocean. Lost her wind; burned her wick. Did nothing. ACO2 roared back, and finished big.Just like the climate models said.

        Elvis is dead; ACO2 is the new King. There is little point in telling a noncondensing greenhouse gas to live long. It can’t help but do that, but it’s a tradition:

        Long live King “DaPaws Killer” ACO2. According to the Beatles, he’s bigger than Jesus.

      • “The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood…”

        It is no secret. As far as I can see there is science in one space – and JC and friends with a congealed consensus somewhere else. I can’t see that changing.

      • ” …For certain, some things are settled. We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activity and that they are largely responsible for warming of surface temperatures globally. We also are confident in our understanding as to why this warming is expected to be amplified over land masses and the Arctic. Likewise, we are confident in our understanding of how the hydrological cycle amplifies the effects of this warming and how warming amplifies the hydrological cycle. For these and other broad brush strokes of the climate change picture, we are also increasingly confident in our ability to usefully bound the magnitude of the effects. From this certainty stems the conviction that additional warming is best avoided by reducing or reversing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases. – Tim “Dead People on Areas of the Earth’s Surface” Palmer and Bjorn “White Hat” Stevens

      • Thats JCH and not JC. I take my prayin’ seriously.

        But while I am here – “Changes in Earth’s Energy Budget during and after the “Pause” in Global Warming: An Observational Perspective” – might be a more nuanced perspective.

      • And he makes it seem like emissions and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are a surprise. That ain’t the surprises being considered.

        I keep dropping the carbon cowboys hint. If you are going to subsidize agriculture for climate this is the place to do it.

      • ” Figure 11 shows an example of where the uncertainties come from in the UKCP09 scenarios for the 2020s and 2080s, in this case, for winter rainfall in southeast England. Of course, as figure 9 indicates, the overall uncertainty increases with time, but the origins of that uncertainty also change. For near-term projections, natural internal variability and regional downscaling dominate the uncertainty, and as suggested by Hawkins & Sutton [21], model uncertainties, including the carbon cycle, dominate at longer lead times.”

        As I said we have science in one place – and JCH’s congealed echo chamber consensus in another.

      • Tipping points are realistically all that remains of their sometimes a goofy notion.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

      • His comments have disappeared leaving orphan responses. I find that more annoying than the comments – which show a lack of depth and a propensity for vulgarity.

      • Chief –

        He speaks to chaos in the clip. I suggest you watch. It might help clear up some of your confusion.

      • I assume it is the Tapio Schneider video. It goes with the paper linked just above. This is yet another bad faith argument from Joshua. Bye.

      • Do they need to ‘win’ the science and for what reason?

        They are not doing anything that resembles actual science.

        If they win, everybody on earth loses. Life on earth loses.

        Science is always skeptical, they achieved consensus, for them, all science is of no matter. For them, making money promoting green energy is more important than any science.

      • In 2013 I predicted that El Nino conditions would increase from 2014-2015, and extrapolated that California rains would begin to return late 2015, increase through 2016, and get too wet by early 2017. And that South Australian, South African, and North Indian drought would increase from 2016. It’s all about understanding how ENSO acts as a negative feedback to indirect solar variability.

    • I think that he is saying the average surface temperature remaining constant by nature depends on the icebergs melting to replace the heat loss. The hemespheres near the poles is getting colder thus the Orange Beach trees are loosing there growing time as the average surface temperature is cooling. To put it bluntly nature is not breaking off enough ice so the oceans are beginning to lower as we droop more ice and lower the oceaqns.

      • To put it bluntly. The Antarctic is surrounded by water so it can only store the new ice vertically, while the arctic is surrounded by land and it can store the new ice horizontally moving the snow cover south.

      • The average growing season in Alabama is very very long. Last frost to first frost, who says that is shortening, one, and two, who says it has any agricultural significance?

      • “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.”

      • To put it bluntly. The Antarctic is surrounded by water so it can only store the new ice vertically, while the arctic is surrounded by land and it can store the new ice horizontally moving the snow cover south.

        BS! All sequestered ice in ice sheets and glaciers is stored vertically, the ice then flows horizontally and as ice extent increases, cooling from more area thawing and more area reflecting, there is more cooling and climate cools.
        When Antarctica runs out of land, ice shelves are extended into the oceans and the cold water supports sea ice way beyond that.

        To put it bluntly, you have not understood the knowledge that could be gained by understanding ice core data and history.

      • Nothing is certain.

        Climate has always changed in natural cycles. It is certain that future climate will change in natural cycles. We are as a flea on an elephant, we are not in control of natural climate cycles.

      • Last frost to first frost, who says it has any agricultural significance?

        Mostly the people who grow stuff that is sensitive to frost, or people who buy and sell stuff that is sensitive to frost.

      • “Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science‐as‐knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world‐directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis‐ (theory‐) directed paradigm.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078

        There is a hypothesis that IR interactions with greenhouse gases result in randomized photon paths – going in all directions and not straight out to space. Instruments carried by satellites can detect IR emissions. When the Earth is viewed through narrow apertures some of these randomized photons escape detection. Comparing data gathered at different times enables first of all the fidelity of the instruments to be cross checked, and secondly the calculation of change as a result of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. An elegant empirical proof of the hypothesis. Rarely possible in something of the size and complexity of the Earth system.

        The other method involves creatively juggling diverse and almost always incomplete fragments of knowledge gleaned from observation to build a picture of the world. It is a method that requires self reflection – not fooling yourself – humility, a purity of motive and an understanding of how and why it is all so uncertain. It is not fruitful otherwise. Dogmatism throttles back ‘the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery.’ It is here where the adventure of science begins but you have to lighten up.

    • The they I was referring to is the cohort of politicians and greenies identified by Palmer and Stevens as having some ‘congealed’ version of science not consistent with the views of climate scientists. They need to win the science because their policies are appalling and as such better not explicitly admitted to. The problem for them there is that climate science is a lot more nuanced than the fake consensus.

      But skeptics have lost the PR war and nothing from Alex oir Ulric will change that. There is an impossible certitude in theories that – let’s face it – between Ulric, Alex and all the others are mutually inconsistent. They can’t all be right. I would venture that none of them are. Both Alex and Ulric them have a bit of the puzzle – unlike Joshua and JCH – but it is a lot more complex – beyond certainty – beyond a piece or two of the puzzle – beyond simple cause and effect even.

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

      “The purpose of this review is to describe the global scope of the multidecadal climate oscillations that go back at least, through several hundred years. Literature, historic data, satellite data and global circulation model output have been used to provide evidence for the zonal and meridional jet stream patterns. These patterns were predominantly zonal from the 1970s to 1990s and switched since the 1990s to a meridional wind phase, with weakening jet streams forming Rossby waves in the northern and southern hemispheres. A weakened northern jet stream has allowed northerly winds to flow down over the continents in the northern hemisphere during the winter period, causing some harsh winters and slowing anthropogenic climate warming regionally. Wind oscillations impact ocean gyre circulation affecting upwelling strength and pelagic fish abundance with synchronous behavior in sub Arctic gyres during phases of the oscillation and asynchronous behavior in subtropical gyres between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.” https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/gsofacpubs/140/

      High solar activity gives us more zonal patterns, intense and frequent warm Pacific states and modern warming – or at least some of it – and low solar activity more meridional patterns, a cool Pacific and the LIA. Ulric will tell you that I have this arse about. We will have to agree to disagree. This subsystem is deeply fascinating – I have been investigating it for 30 years. Since ‘Geomorphic Effects of Alternating Flood- and Drought-Dominated Regimes on NSW Coastal Rivers’ was published and grabbed the interest of a younger hydrologist.

      Far more important – however – is a robust and practical framework for meeting humanities challenges in the 21st century. There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be emerge from the bottom up in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. Greenhouse gases and climate risk is almost incidental. .

      • “Ulric will tell you that I have this arse about.”

        Most certainly, weaker solar wind since the mid 1990’s has driven a warm AMO phase via negative NAO/AO (meridional atmospheric circulation) and which has reduced low cloud cover and increased lower troposphere water vapour.

        “High solar activity gives us more zonal patterns, intense and frequent warm Pacific states and modern warming – or at least some of it – and low solar activity more meridional patterns, a cool Pacific and the LIA.”

        That is arse about, negative NAO/AO causing the meridional atmospheric pattern is directly associated with slower trade winds and hence increased El Nino conditions. The proof is that El Nino episodes increase in frequency during centennial solar minima. Which is why my prediction worked.

      • No – I don’t think so Ulric.

      • No Ultic – I disagree and there is no point in going over it again.

      • It is technically a coupled, nonlinear system far from thermodynamic equilibrium. A characteristic behavior of the climate system is relatively stable states punctuated by abrupt shifts that owe more to internal dynamics of the system as a whole than external factors such as greenhouse gases. Traditionally called oscillations. They are shifts in patterns of ocean circulation triggered by small changes in the Earth system. Such as feedbacks, solar intensity, orbits and greenhouse gases.

        You are concerned with the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and its connection to ENSO. But we can consider decadal epochs in both. Eliminating the impossible – the possibility remains that these multidecadal modes are triggered by solar magnetic reversal in the ~22 year Hale cycle driving meridional or zonal flows of the polar vortices in both hemispheres. These covary to some extent and shift ocean circulation patterns. Nonetheless. we can compare Pacific Ocean SST with mean states of the NAO.


      • Regardless of your ramble on both internal and solar driven ocean oscillations, negative NAO/AO is associated with slower trade winds and hence increased El Nino conditions. So yes you had it backwards.

      • The trade winds from your cartoon are in the Atlantic Ulric.

      • As if they would not also be slower in the Pacific.

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Current temperature (F) in northern US

  42. Ireneusz Palmowski

    It is worth checking the current troposphere width over North America.

  43. Josef Loschmidt was a brilliant 19th century physicist who was the first to make a realistic estimate of the size of air molecules: quite a feat in those days. In 1876, he understood how these molecules were affected by gravity as they moved between collisions and, because gravity affects their speed and thus the temperature of a region, Loschmidt was able to explain his “gravito-thermal” effect wherein gravity forms a non-zero temperature gradient in the lower region of the atmosphere that is called the troposphere. This fact is verified from the laws of physics and quantified. The quantification is found to be applicable in all planetary tropospheres now that we have data for such planets in modern times.

    The temperature gradient is called the “lapse rate” by climatologists, but it has nothing to do with any “rising parcels or air” that are supposedly warmed by conduction at the surface interface. In fact, there is nothing to hold together any such “parcels” in calm conditions because molecules move at about 500 metres a second (1,800 Km/hour) between collisions and can easily leave the boundary of any imaginary parcel. Never-the-less, it is useful to imagine a very small ensemble of molecules just big enough to have a measurable temperature on a macro scale. We do this below to calculate the temperature gradient. But the important thing to remember is that the temperature gradient forms locally in the atmosphere and does so at the molecular level. There does not even have to be a surface.

    So let us consider this scenario. If we could construct a 10m long horizontal perfectly insulated and sealed cylinder filled with argon (which gas we will say does no radiating) and we then rotate the cylinder about its central point to a vertical position, a temperature gradient will develop due to gravity for which we will say the acceleration is 9.8 m/sec².

    We then calculate that temperature gradient by noting that, when it stabilizes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics* tells us that entropy will be at a maximum. For that to be the case, there must be no unbalanced energy potentials. Energy potentials can be created by any form of internal energy, including chemical energy, kinetic energy and potential energy in a force field such as gravity or centrifugal force. I mention the latter because a radial temperature gradient also forms in a vortex cooling tube due to centrifugal force. So, entropy is essentially a measure of progress in the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials and it reaches a maximum when all such potentials have dissipated fully.

    We have that state of maximum entropy (called “thermodynamic equilibrium”) when the sum of mean molecular gravitational potential energy (GPE) + kinetic energy (KE) is the same at all heights in a local region of the troposphere. If that were not the case then there would be unbalanced energy potentials. Note, however, when comparing regions at significantly different altitudes, there can be different sums (GPE + KE) and that can be due to weather conditions and/or the absorption and emission by radiating molecules.

    Never-the-less, in calm conditions at night, the gradient tends to repair itself in any local region. Temperatures do not tend to level out because gravity redistributes thermal energy and may also modify the density in such as way that the region tends towards maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) with its associated temperature and density gradients.

    The condition (GPE + KE) = constant is REQUIRED for thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Then, from that condition (maximum entropy) we argue that, as a small mass m of argon moves down through a distance dH it will lose gravitational potential energy of m.g.dH where g is the acceleration due to gravity. The energy will be converted to kinetic energy and that energy will be the amount required to raise the temperature of that mass m by dT. Then, from the definition of specific heat (Cp) the energy is m.Cp.dT.

    So m.Cp.dT = -m.g.dH

    and hence the gradient …

    dT/dH = – g/Cp

    If the specific heat is exactly 1.000 (as is close for air) then the gradient is -9.8 K/Km.

    Hence the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the cylinder of height 10m is 0.098 C degrees. As this is close enough to 0.1 degree we should be able to measure it.

    In the real atmosphere there is a temperature-leveling effect due to radiation back and forth between identical “greenhouse” molecules (mostly water vapor) at different altitudes and this reduces the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient. The overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) thus has a gradient that, mostly due to water vapor, is reduced in magnitude to about -6 to -7 K/Km.

    So Josef Loschmidt is proven correct and we see evidence in the tropospheres of all planets with significant atmospheres. For example, the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus is about 320K whereas the solar radiation can only maintain temperatures around 60K near the top of the Uranus atmosphere. The question as to how the thermal energy gets down through 350Km to hotter regions was answered for the first time anywhere in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” published in 2013 and never correctly refuted. I have calculated the theoretical temperature gradient (-g/Cp) for the Uranus troposphere and found that the actual value is about 95% of this theoretical value, which is not surprising seeing that there is relatively little radiation occurring.

    Now, because gravity has already established the temperature gradient in the troposphere of every planet with a significant atmosphere, there is simply no need for any radiative forcing greenhouse phenomenon. Indeed, if that could be a reality, we would get about double the surface warming and we’d all cook. It was Josef Loschmidt’s explanation in 1876 that was completely overlooked by climatologists, and that is where it all went so horribly wrong.

    Footnote: Some have attempted to refute Loschmidt’s explanation but they do not correctly understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.* See this “WUWT errors” page. You may also wish to read https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cogent-irrefutable-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-cannot-warm-cotton/

    * Second Law of Thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.

    • One might agree with Josef Loschmidt. But focusing on kinetic energy (heat) to the exclusion of all else is misleading. The energy content of the atmosphere doesn’t change because of gravity. That would be a violation of the first law. There are transformations between kinetic and potential energy. Most energy comes from the sun – and what matters for climate is the energy content of the planet and how that changes.

      Convection doesn’t happen in parcels btw – but as eddies in a turbulent flow field.

      Something that does change the planetary energy dynamic.

      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-celled-clouds-over-the-pacific

  44. Why climate alarmism hurts us all [link]
    Climate has always changed in natural cycles and that will always continue to happen.
    The climate system has self correcting factors that cause climate cycles. Warm periods follow cold periods and more warm periods follow the following cold periods. In warm periods, there is more evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice, that is when sea level goes back down.

  45. Constraining equilibrium climate sensitivity through simulation of Eocene extreme warmth

    Abstract

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), defined as the global equilibrium surface temperature increase to the radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, is the single number that describes the severity of long-term climate change. ECS is poorly constrained with a range of 2.1–4.7 ℃ in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models. The upper bound of ECS has been raised to more than 5 ℃ in recent CMIP6 models. Past hothouse climates, such as the early Eocene (~56–48 Ma), with elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and extreme warmth, provide unique constraints on ECS in climate models. Here we conduct early Eocene simulations using three generations of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4, 5 and 6) within the framework of Community Earth System Model (CESM). With CO2 levels consistent with latest proxy reconstructions, CESM-CAM5 best reproduces the extreme warm conditions of the early Eocene in proxy estimates. In simulations of the preindustrial, ECSs in CAM4, 5 and 6 are 3.2, 4.2 and 5.3 ℃, respectively. ECS increases with warming in Eocene simulations in all three models, albeit at different rates. The increases in ECS with warming and the differences among CAM4, 5 and 6 are attributable primarily to the simulation of cloud processes. Mechanisms for differences in the simulation of clouds and their influence on ECS will be discussed in detail. The good match of CESM-CAM5 and early Eocene proxy temperatures supports the physical processes represented in the model, and suggests a present-day ECS of ~4 ℃ that will potentially increase with future warming.

  46. Sea ice directly north and northwest of Iceland:

  47. FWIW – I think they kind of miss the point in that they are arguing that the high level of uncertainty with existing modeling means society can’t take action, whereas I think the high level of uncertainty with existing modeling is actually a reason for society take action.

    Iow, imo, the problem isn’t with the level of uncertainty, but with how people deal with uncertainty.

    They seem to think that defining “fit for purpose” is some kind of objective scientific standard. Joshua

    “As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science.” P&S 2019

    Fit for purpose implies that rigorous evaluation has been undertaken to determine the weighting that should be given this line of evidence. Until that’s done – and given the difficulties of this exercise – heavy discounting of the value of this information is justified.

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

    Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

    Practically – it may be best to scrap the lot and build from the ground up new initialized, decadal scale models producing probabilistic forecasts. As the modelling community has been suggesting for a decade at least. This needs only $5B and 2000 times more computing power.

    “The global coupled atmosphere-ocean-land-cryosphere system exhibits a
    wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical,
    biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of
    temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial. The large-scale climate, for instance, determines the environment for microscale (1 km or less) and mesoscale (from several kilometers to several hundred kilometers) processes that govern weather and local climate, and these small-scale processes likely have significant impacts on the evolution of the large-scale circulation (Fig. 1; derived from Meehl et al. 2001). The accurate representation of this continuum of variability in numerical models
    is, consequently, a challenging but essential goal. Fundamental barriers to advancing weather and climate prediction on time scales from days to years, as well as longstanding systematic errors in weather and climate models, are partly attributable to our limited understanding of and capability for simulating the complex, multiscale interactions intrinsic to atmospheric, oceanic, and cryospheric fluid motions.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1

    But expectations of Joshua being capable of getting up to speed with any of this are very likely to be disappointed.

  48. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Where is Arctic sea ice NOW?

  49. Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere…
    What???
    Yes, that is exactly what we said. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
    But how? We are accustomed to the opposite opinion.

    What it is we believe about Earth’s atmosphere thickness? Does anyone think the Earth has a thick atmosphere? A very thick, maybe?

    No, but we think our atmosphere is not thin. It is not very thin.
    What we think about the Earth’s atmosphere is that it is just all right. The Earth’s atmosphere is just the way a planet’s atmosphere should be.

    The Earth’s atmosphere pressure at the sea level is 1 bar. It consists mainly of 79% N2 and 21% O2, and water vapor 1%, and CO2 0,04% and the other trace gasses.
    Let’s compare Earth’s atmosphere with Venus’ atmosphere. Venus is almost the same size planet as Earth is. That is why Venus is called a sister planet.

    The Venus’ atmosphere pressure at the ground level is 92 bar. It consists mainly of 96% CO2 and 4% N2, and other trace gasses. And Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.
    For someone living on Venus the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be thin. It appears to be very thin, very-very thin.
    Compare the figures:

    1 bar with 0,04% CO2 for Earth, and 92 bar with 96% CO2.
    How much more CO2 Venus has?

    Let’s calculate: 92 bar * 96% / 1 bar * 0,04% =
    I am taking out the calculator and we shall have
    92*96*25 = 220.800 times more CO2 Venus’ atmosphere has compared to Earth’s.
    So what we compare is 1 to 220.800 !

    For someone living on the Venus the conclusion would be the planet Earth doesn’t have any CO2 in its atmosphere.

    Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth gives us:
    Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕⁴ /4σ ]¹∕⁴
    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕⁴ =
    Τe.earth = [0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴]¹∕⁴ =
    Te.earth = 288,36 Κ
    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
    Those two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    But when we calculate Venus’-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature by the same Complete Formula, using planet Venus’ data we are getting:
    Te.venus = 259,7 K
    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.venus = 737 K, measured by satellites.
    Those two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are completely different !

    That is why we confirm here that yes, Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect because of its very thick atmosphere, Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect.
    The Earth, on the other hand, doesn’t have any measurable greenhouse effect. Earth has only some traces of greenhouse gasses.

    Earth has only some tiny traces of greenhouse effect, if to speak scientifically, in full accordance with the physics.
    We cannot completely deny Earth having greenhouse effect, how could we… we only compare it being
    1 to 220.800 !

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Sorry.
    Average width of the troposphere of Venus is about 60 km.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski

    What is the average troposphere width of the Earth?

  52. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Counting 15 km above the equator and a maximum of 10 km above the pole, the average width of the Earth troposfere is about 12.5 km. So on Venus is between at height 62 km and 49.5 km (100 hPa to 1000 hPa).

    • Have you confused idth and depth?

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Abstract
        A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
        https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true

      • Thank you Ireneusz – I do know what the troposphere is. It is is generally discussed in terms of height or depth – interchangeably – and not width.

  53. The other scientific method involves creatively juggling diverse and almost always incomplete fragments of knowledge gleaned from observation to build a picture of the world. It is a method that requires self reflection – not fooling yourself – humility, a purity of motive, a love of science and an understanding of how and why it is all so uncertain. It is not fruitful otherwise. Dogmatism throttles back ‘the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery.’* It is here where the adventure of science begins but you really need to lighten up.

    I always find skeptic science to be junk science. Science that lacks a critical mass that might elevate it to paradigm status. Christos for instance fails to explain variability – which would seem to be the core of the climate problem. Yes – thank you Christos – but spare me the passive aggression.
    The opposition – btw – exists in hidebound denial that there is any change not encompassed by the forcing/feedback paradigm. It is all motivated – quite obviously – by competing cultural values. Me – I’m a fiscal conservative of the Austrian scheel variety and a social progressive with bells on both legs. I just wish their ideas would evolve over time.

    * https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078

  54. Robert wrote:
    “I always find skeptic science to be junk science. Science that lacks a critical mass that might elevate it to paradigm status. Christos for instance fails to explain variability – which would seem to be the core of the climate problem. Yes – thank you Christos – but spare me the passive aggression.
    The opposition – btw – exists in hidebound denial that there is any change not encompassed by the forcing/feedback paradigm. It is all motivated – quite obviously – by competing cultural values. Me – I’m a fiscal conservative of the Austrian scheel variety and a social progressive with bells on both legs. I just wish their ideas would evolve over time”.

    Robert, what do you mean?

    I said: “Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere…”

    Robert, do you agree with that or not?

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Really not the point Christos. And I regard copying and pasting my entire comment as a bit pointless as well.

      You calculate a temperature. Neglecting the questionable methodology – Earth has had many climatic epochs. I am not saying it isn’t science. I’m trying to be more tolerant – lol. Just that I don’t see much value in it. We may agree to disagree – which is where I will leave it.

  55. Back in the 1950’s, when I was in High School, Outer space was considered Absolute Zero!
    1. Absolute Zero

    Absolute zero is the lowest limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, a state at which the enthalpy and entropy of a cooled ideal gas reach their minimum value, taken as zero kelvin (0 K, not 0°K). The fundamental particles of nature have minimum vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion. The theoretical temperature is determined by extrapolating the ideal gas law; by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as −273.15° on the Celsius scale (International System of Units), which equals −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale (United States customary units or Imperial units). The corresponding Kelvin and Rankine temperature scales set their zero points at absolute zero by definition.

    Black Sky Radiation was considered the term defined as the heat loss of the surface of the earth to outer space. If I say the average surface temperature of the earth is 63 degrees farenheight then that is a difference of 522 degrees farenheight. We were taught that is how much radiant heat the earth loses every day.
    I do not see anything that changes that fact of science.

    • Robert Clark, I don’t doubt that’s what you learned. But experiments done by Penzias and Wilson at Bell Labs in 1964-65 discovered a radiation permeating the universe, whose blackbody spectrum had a temperature of 3 K.

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Any drop in tropopause height causes a drop in surface temperature.

    • “Basically Lochsmidt’s argument was that the gain in potential energy mgDZ at height Z+DZ is at the expense of kinetic energy (Temperature). We then get DT/DH = -g/Cv (if we assume no adiabatic expansion).” Clive Best

      But is the source of this energy not the sun?

      “We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example.” http://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Earth’s gravity creates a temperature gradient.
      “Compared with our breath, passenger planes move at a pretty leisurely pace. On the average, nitrogen molecules, for example, travel at a speed of more than 1,700 kilometers per hour at room temperature, or almost one-and-a-half times the speed of sound. This means the particles are much too fast for many experiments, and also some conceivable applications. However, physicists at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now found a rather simple way to slow down polar molecules to about 70 kilometers per hour. They let the molecules of various substances, such as fluoromethane, run up against the centrifugal force on a rotating disk, while being guided by electrodes. The speed of the decelerated molecules corresponds to a temperature of minus 272 degrees Celsius.
      “Additionally, the molecules are exposed to the outwardly directed centrifugal force,” adds Martin Zeppenfeld. “On their way to the center, the particles must surmount a huge mountain, and are continuously decelerated while doing so, until they finally come almost to a standstill.” For comparison: for the particles to experience the same braking effect in the Earth’s gravitational field, they would have to fly 2,000 meters upward.”
      https://scitechdaily.com/new-method-uses-centrifugal-force-decelerate-particles-creates-new-research-opportunities/

    • m g h + ½ m v2 = x(Joules) – x is the sum of the kinetic energy (heat) and potential energy of molecules in the atmosphere – constant if the atmosphere is assumed to be an isolated system. Not constant in the real world as it changes with energy in and energy out.

    • J.C. Maxwell, “Theory of Heat”, p.300 (Longmans, Green & Co. 1872)

      “The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium
      of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical
      column of a gas were left to itself; till by the conduction
      of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium,
      the temperature would be the same throughout, or, in other
      words, gravity produces no effect in making the bOttom of
      the column hotter or colder than the top.
      This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics,
      for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the
      conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether
      gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different
      substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal
      plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be
      the same ; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of
      itself; the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same.
      In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns
      were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of
      temperatUre, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder
      column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer
      column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted
      into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.
      But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its
      temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be
      uniform, whatever its material.”

      • Lochsmidt and Maxwell disagreed. Particles moving down are accelerated by gravity and vice versa. The average velocity of molecules decreases as they move higher. So perhaps an isothermal state would not emerge spontaneously. But it is all too idealized for me. What matters for the Earth system is how the energy content of the planet changes over time. That changes in response to many factors – perhaps not gravity so much as albedo and emissivity.

    • Garry, Robert, Ireneusz: The temperature gradient we observe in the atmosphere is the net result of all mechanisms of vertical heat transfer, not just a single mechanism.

      1) Sure, some gas molecules fall and gain kinetic energy and other molecules rise and lose kinetic energy. However, in the lower atmosphere they don’t rise and fall far enough BETWEEN COLLISIONS for their existing kinetic energy to be changed appreciably by addition or subtraction of potential energy. Do the calculations. And if the sum of potential and kinetic energy were the same everywhere, we would expect to see enrichment of heavier molecules near the surface. Above the turbopause (100 km), collisions are rare and there is fractionation by MW.

      2) Thermal diffusion/molecular collisions transfers heat vertically much faster than molecular motion interconverts of kinetic and potential energy. There is an online molecular dynamics calculator that allows you watch 2D box of molecules as you “turn gravity on”. As the molecules begin to fall, they produce a density and temperature gradient, but the temperature (molecular speed) gradient dissipates almost immediately due to collisions, leaving behind only a density gradient. If you place only one molecule (or a few molecules) in the box, that molecule is (or those molecules are) moving faster near the bottom of the box all of the time. The properties of a collection of colliding gas molecules in a box change with the density of the gas. PdV work is important when molecules collide rapidly, but non-existent in a box with one or a few molecules. Statistical mechanics is the branch of physics that applies Newton’s laws of motion to a box of colliding gas molecules, producing the familiar laws of the kinetic theory of gases and thermodynamics.

      3) Thermal radiation transfers heat vertically between IR-active gas molecules much faster than either of the above processes. With simple gray model of radiative equilibrium and no absorption of incoming SWR except at the surface, temperature should increase proportionately with optical depth. However, we observe something different in our atmosphere.

      4) Bulk convection transfers heat in the troposphere much faster than any of the above processes. Both process 1 and 4 create a temperature linear gradient of -g/Cp, but process 1 produces a gradient by molecular weight and process 4 does not. In the lower atmosphere, there is no fractionation by molecular weight, but above the turbopause (about 100 km) there is fractionation by MW.

      Everyone tries to explain the lapse rate by a single mechanism, even though we all should know that multiple mechanisms of vertical heat transfer are occurring! In the lower atmosphere, convection dominates. Higher, it doesn’t. Unfortunately, once above the tropopause, the temperature gradient is perturbed by absorption of SWR by ozone and oxygen, and in the thermosphere by absorption of higher energy radiation. There is no simple grand theory that applies everywhere. However, when you get to the upper atmosphere where collisions are infrequent, the thermodynamic definition of temperature (proportional to the mean kinetic energy of a group of rapidly colliding molecules) technically no longer applies, and scientists talk about a Boltzmann temperature and a Planck temperature that differ. If you prefer, you can say that the concept of a lapse rate meaningless at pressures where a Boltzmann distribution of excited states is no longer maintained by collisions. The standard equations of radiative transfer no longer apply either. Fortunately, the amount of absorption and emission at these high altitudes is negligible.

  57. Good Morning Judith,

    Just wanted to say that you are a breath of fresh air on this topic of “Global Warming”. If I could put extra air quote I would!! With the nomination of Gretta as person of the year by Time magazine this week I’ve decided it is time for me to arm myself with some real FACTS to what I have always believed is going to be one of the biggest hoaxes of my lifetime. Keep doing your good work and I look forward to reading your blog.

    Best
    Scott M Prentiss
    Massachusetts

  58. 2,5 billions years ago sun was at his 75%.

    Earth was closer to sun, a closer to sun planet is warmer.
    And Earth was rotating faster at the time – a faster rotating planet is warmer.

    Most likely Earth never had been a snowball planet.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  59. “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

    I have been studying decadal variability since Wayne Erskine and Robin Warner published their ‘Geomorphic Effects of Alternating Flood- and Drought-Dominated Regimes on NSW Coastal Rivers’ in 1988. I waited patiently to see if his would turn around once more – as it did in the late 1990’s. By 2007 I felt confident that decadal variability would feature more prominently in the IPCC report. To be disappointed, figure there was something wrong with the process and never read another IPCC publication. By now there is such a depth of science that they are asking the wrong consensus question. Did internal variability add to warming the 20th century and is it deterministically chaotic? Only agnotology is sustaining the faint hope that it ain’t. ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’ by Anastasios Tsonis in 2007 put into sharp relief what a two edged sword chaos is. But against a background of natural variability – the rate of 20th warming was modest. Failing dramatic climate shifts – cold or warm – the rate will remain modest in the first half of the 21st century. It suggest a lower sensitivity again than Lewis and Curry – who also neglected decadal variability. Of course – expecting surprises may be the rational bottom line.

    • If you think natural variability caused some of 20th century warming, then say how much and where it came from. Show the data.

    • The context for this background is this report. ‘Absolute Zero’ emissions by 2050. Because not only do they flub the science but this proposed response is insanely impractical.

      http://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf

      There are practical alternatives – sky dragon slaying is not one of those. But unless we take charge of the policy agenda – all we will be left with is political and social irrelevance and expensive, damaging and ineffective nonsense.

      https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-process-heat-for-industry.aspx
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300422630_Principles_and_Practices_of_Soil_Resource_Conservation
      https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-efficiency-2018

      If all you want is to respond to cheap Appelljacked dissimulation – God help us.

    • On reflection – I give him a quote with a number from a high profile journal – and he says I should support my idea with some data. A knee jerk reflex it seems. Ask and then shift the goalposts.

    • Robert: If you do a plot of forcing (omitting volcanic forcing) vs annual temperature, you will see a nicely linear plot with some minor deviations in years with strong El Ninos, La Ninas and volcanic eruptions. The slope is 0.4 K/(W/m2). In the 20th-century, forcing warming clearly dominates unforced variability. The period of putative rapid warming between 1917 and 1944 APPEARS to consist primary of a few cold years beginning in 1917, about two decades of “normal years”, and a few warm years ending in 1944 – not a 27-year period of rapid warming.

      One needs to omit the volcanic forcing because the atmosphere and mixed layer can’t respond to a large change in forcing within a single year. If no heat escaped to space or the deeper ocean, a 1 W/m2 imbalance can warm the atmosphere plus a 50 m mixed layer at a rate of only 0.2 K/yr. If ECS is 3.6 K/doubling (1 K/W/m2), in 2.5 years, warming would be 0.5 K and increased radiative cooling to space will have reduced the initial imbalance to 0.5 W/m2. In another 2.5 years, warming will be 0.75 K, and the imbalance will be down 0.25 W/m2. If ECS is 1.8 K/doubling (0.5 K/W/m2) or 1.2 K/doubling (0.33 K/W/m2), the “equilibrium response” is approached 2- or 3-fold times faster, but not fast enough for annual temperature to fully respond to the large rapid changes in forcing associated with volcanos. Outside of volcanos, the largest year to year changes in forcing are 0.1 W/m2 (solar cycle) and the associated 0.04 K temperature change is indistinguishable from annual noise.

      Lewis and Curry (2018) did the proper analysis taking into account ocean heat uptake as well as increased radiative cooling to space associated with surface warming, using 5-year and 15-year averages instead of annual data. Again there is a straight line relationship between forcing and warming that doesn’t permit a big role for unforced variability in the 20th century.

      • I suppose Judith may have considered it to be an estimate of sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing. It is not remotely a model of the real world.

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/

      • Robert: Radiative forcing is about change in the radiative flux across the TOA. When radiative cooling to space slows, the law of conservation of energy demands that the net internal energy (ie temperature) somewhere below the TOA must increase – and will increase until the net imbalance across the TOA becomes negligible. However, COE doesn’t tell us, how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, or how it will be distributed over the surface of the planet and vertically within the climate system.

        In the meantime, we have heat exchange between the surface and the deep ocean and between the warmer equatorial regions and colder polar regions. This heat exchange is mediated by fluids and therefore is innately potentially chaotic, such as ENSO. Or it may follow patterns like the stadium wave. However, the amplitude of the changes in the video you linked were a few tenths of a degC and the transient (ie incomplete) increase in GMST is already 1 degC.

        I can’t know how unforced (internal) variability is going to change along with forced warming. All I can do is compare projected forced warming to the historic record: For roughly the last century, we can roughly distinguish between naturally forced variability (sun and volcanos) and unforced internal variability. Forced warming dominated. For a few centuries before then, we have some measures of solar and volcanic forcing. Before that we have about 70 centuries of the Holocene, where we can’t distinguish between naturally-forced change and internal variability. We have proxy records for temperature change, but limited information on whether those changes with global or regional. A MWP, RWP, and MinoanWP are clearly visible in Greenland, but not Antarctic, ice cores, and that warming is probably amplified compared to warming elsewhere in the NH (assuming warming extended even that far) and non-polar SH. Therefore, as best I can tell, nothing in the last 70 centuries suggests to me that unforced variability or naturally-forced variability is likely to be significant compared to forced warming if climate sensitivity is high (3+ K/doubling).

      • You assume that these anthropogenic forcings – that lie (perhaps) somewhere between 1.13 and 3.53 W/m2 – explain all surface temperature change and then believe that when they do it is proof. Circular reasoning of the most dizzying kind. You’ll forgive if I don’t bother with tortuous, data less logic.

      • Robert: I certainly don’t assume that all SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE is due to forcing. I assume that conservation of energy applies to the change in the amount of heat in our CLIMATE SYSTEM, which depends on radiative fluxes across the TOA. Our “climate system” is the atmosphere and the surface, which is part land and part ocean. Chaotic fluctuations in heat transport between the cold deep ocean and the surface can produce unforced variability in GMST.

        You assume that conservation of energy doesn’t apply to our climate system, thereby allowing you to attribute anything and everything to unforced variability. However, the 1 degK of GLOBAL warming measured over the past half-century has no obvious precedent in 140 -half-centuries of the Holocene historic record. That record contains combination of naturally-forced variability and unforced variability, and we are confidence that naturally-forced variability played a minor role in the past half-century.

  60. This is a recent observation.

    “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

    And this is the mechanism.

    “Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

  61. Interesting.

    What is the value of ±1 W/m²?
    What is the value of So ±1 W/m²?

    Let’s use the planet effective temperature complete formula:

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    The value of the +1 W/m² for Earth’s average temperature is related as
    [ (So + 1) /So ]¹∕ ⁴
    Let’s calculate:
    [ (1362 + 1) / 1362 ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 1363 /1362 )¹∕ ⁴ =
    ( 1,000734 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,000184

    And how does the +1 W/m² affect the Earth’s average temperature?

    Te+ = 286 K * 0,000184 = 286,05248 K
    It is + 0,05248 oC

    http://cristos-vournas.com

    • Sorry, correction for the above:

      Let’s calculate:
      [ (1362 + 1) / 1362 ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 1363 /1362 )¹∕ ⁴ =
      ( 1,000734 )¹∕ ⁴ = 1,000184

      And how does the +1 W/m² affect the Earth’s average temperature?

      Te+ = 286 K * 1,000184 = 286,05248 K
      It is + 0,05248 oC

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • That’s assuming Earth is a blackbody at a uniform average temperature.

        I made that assumption in my AGU poster on December 12 and was told by the session convener (Mark Richardson) that recent research had showed this assumption was off by as much as a factor of 4, and that 1 W/m2 of radiative forcing could raise the GMST by as much as a whole degree!

        So now I need to fix my poster, which you can track down at http://clim8.stanford.edu/

  62. New York climate warlord Andrew Cuomo forces utility National Grid to supply infinite natural gas out of thin air.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/nyregion/national-grid-cuomo-ny.amp.html

    The New York warlord has shaken down the gas utility National Grid. He has blocked the gas pipelines needed to supply New York with gas and at the same time forced NG to provide an infinite amount of gas to an unlimited number of present and future customers.

    In biblical Egypt, the pharaoh withdrew supplies of plant fiber from the workers but forced them to make the same quota of bricks.

    A few centuries later Alexander the “terrible” or Grozny (the 4th), in Russia, used to have a favourite punishment for political opponents. He would require them to give him a jar of fleas. A large glass jar filled with hundreds of thousands of fleas. The impossibility of this task guaranteed that he then had all the pretext he needed for future actions against the Boyars in question, such as imprisonment, torture and theft of lands and property.

    The motivation is exactly the same for New York warlord Cuomo as for the Czar-psychopath in, effectively, demanding a jar of fleas from National Grid.

  63. Meanwhile over on the other coast, in California we are seeing the ritualised destruction of a power utility company, P&G, on the alter of the climate death cult:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-wildfires-pg-e/california-governor-rejects-pge-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan-idUSKCN1YI038

    I’m curious how in future companies such as Apple, Google, Microsoft etc, will operate in California in the absence of electricity. Maybe that’s the big reveal for the iPhone 12 – it will be an abacus.

  64. Here is a nice analytical – numerical analysis of the AMOC, specifically the southward transport of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) anomalies:

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO-D-18-0068.1

    Included is a treatment of periodic forcing and resultant multi-annual oscillations.

  65. I have a question: When a CO2 molecule absorbs a IR photon and re-emits it, does it re-emit at the same wavelenghth? As a physical process I would have thought that the absorption and re-emission would be subject to the 2nd law with a small amount of enthalpy retained in the CO2 molecule equivalent to the change in wavelength. Is this a thing?

    • If someone thinks they understand quantum mechanics – they don’t. To paraphrase Feynman. The original quantum problem involved discrete jumps in electron orbits on excitation and relaxation by absorption and emission of photons. Energy packets with a mysterious wave/particle duality. It is complicated by vibrational and rotational modes and perfectly elastic collisions with massless photons that have ‘relativistic momentum’. Excuse me for being skeptical. But I think that empirical data suggests absorption and emission at the same frequency.

    • There is no such thing as conservation of photons. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon it gets warmer. 70 picoseconds later (at low altitudes anyway) it collides with an air molecule, to which it transfers some of that thermal energy.
      Independently some other CO2 molecule emits an IR photon, being at a temperature that encourages that sort of thing. This cools that molecule. 70 picoseconds later this colder CO2 molecule slams into a very slightly warmer air molecule at a thousand miles per hour, sucking out some of its thermal energy.

      This ongoing process maintains the atmosphere’s temperature at a level where such arrivals and departures of photons are in excellent balance, much as the population of shopper in Macy’s remains in excellent balance as shoppers enter and leave at the same rate averaged over time.
      During any five-minute interval there need be no correlation between the entering and departing shoppers, other than that they tend to weigh within 50% or so of their average weight. CO2 molecules have a great many absorption bands, all about 0.07 cm^-1 in bandwidth but varying considerably in frequency and hence energy, just like shoppers who vary in weight.

      The one difference between shoppers and photons is that at the end of the day there should be a perfect matching between the weights of entering and departing shoppers. With photons, theory requires no such matching of energies, and experimenters who looked for one would surely get an Ig Nobel prize if they found one, along with a Nobel prize for the same thing a couple of years later if confirmed independently. Which would then require major rewriting of physics texts.

      @RIE “To paraphrase Feynman.” This is not the part of quantum mechanics that Feynman was referring to when he said no one understands it. Obviously Heisenberg and Schrödinger understood what they’d invented (though the literature shows that Schrödinger understood it better). What’s not understood is the Copenhagen interpretation, but Schrödinger’s equation lives outside that interpretation (but his cat both lives and doesn’t live inside it, and nobody understands cats).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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