by Judith Curry
Politics versus the data versus communicating science.
On December 10 and 11, a catastrophic tornado outbreak slammed the Mississippi Valley, with catastrophic impacts particularly in Kentucky. One tornadic storm traveled more than 200 miles, and more than 100 people may have died. An excellent overview of the storm was written by Bob Henson [link]. Preliminary analysis indicates that the maximum tornado strength was EF4, with winds estimated as high as 190 mph.
Tornadoes and global warming
<begin quote from Henson’s article>
The links between tornadoes and climate change are more nuanced than for phenomena such as heat waves or extreme rainfall.
Fortunately, there is no sign that the number or intensity of the most violent tornadoes (EF3+) is increasing. However, tornadoes are becoming more tightly packed within outbreaks, and there are longer stretches in between, leading to more variability from quiet to violent periods and vice versa. Prior to Friday, the U.S. tornado death toll for 2021 was only 14, the third lowest in data going back to 1875. (The lowest on record was 10, set in 2018.)
There’s also been a distinct multi-decadal trend for recent outbreaks to shift into and east of the Mississippi Valley, particularly over the Mid-South, as opposed to the more traditional territory of the southern and central Great Plains.
As for seasonal timing, it’s never been impossible to get a violent tornado in December, even as far north as Illinois. At least two F5/EF5 tornadoes are on the record books for December: one in Vicksburg, Mississippi on Dec. 5, 1953, that killed 38 (the deadliest December tornado on record up to this year), and one on Dec. 18, 1957, that struck Sunfield, Illinois, as part of the state’s most severe outbreak on record so late in the year.
This December has been strikingly mild across most of the United States, and warm, moist surface air streamed into Friday’s tornadic storms, fueling their power. It’s not hard to imagine the springtime peak and the autumn second-season peak of tornado season edging closer to winter as greenhouse gases continue to warm our climate globally, nationally, and regionally. Such a shift in tornado timing has been difficult to confirm thus far, though.
<end quote>
What does the IPCC AR6 have to say about tornadoes and global warming?
“trends in tornadoes… associated w/ severe convective storms are not robustly detected”
“attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (eg, tornadoes) is beyond current modelling & theoretical capabilities”
“how tornadoes… will change is an open question”
Politics
President Joe Biden made these statements in an interview:
Q Mr. President, does this say anything to you about climate change? Is this — or do you conclude that these storms and the intensity has to do with climate change?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all that I know is that the intensity of the weather across the board has some impact as a consequence of the warming of the planet and the climate change.
The specific impact on these specific storms, I can’t say at this point. I’m going to be asking the EPA and others to take a look at that. But the fact is that we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming — everything. And, obviously, it has some impact here, but I can’t give you a — a quantitative read on that.
Here is what Michael Mann has to say [link]:
Meteorologist Michael Mann of Penn State told USA Today: “The latest science indicates that we can expect more of these huge (tornado) outbreaks because of human-caused climate change.”
In another interview [link]:
We speak to climate scientist Michael Mann about the role of climate change in the storms and climate denialism among Republican leaders. “Make no mistake, we have been seeing an increase in these massive tornado outbreaks that can be attributed to the warming of the planet,” says Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
And then to top it off, there is this tweet – data ‘denial’ at its ‘finest’:
The ‘deceptive’ graph comes from a plot that is on the NOAA website [link] through 2014, which was updated by AEI thought 2018. NOAA’s explainer of the data can be found [here].
The data
Chris Martz, an undergraduate meteorology student at Millersville University, provides the following plots of NOAA’s tornado record
Here are the plots of December tornadoes from NOAA data:
The US FEMA administrator says December tornadoes are the ‘new normal’ [link]. It seems that 1963 is the only year on record with no US tornadoes during December.
With regards to normalized U.S. damage from tornadoes, Roger Pielke Jr provides this graph [link]:
Greg Goodman’s analysis
Historical data of tornado events in USA is often dismissed as unreliable because of changes in observational techniques affecting reliability and consistency of reporting. IPCC SREX claims: “There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
One of the main factors in such inhomogeneity was the development and deployment of Doppler RADAR starting in the mid 1980s, though deployment is an ongoing process in the decades since. Other factors are the spread of urbanised areas into rural areas and facility of reporting by non technical persons due to hand held devices and ready access to global communications. RADAR observations record many smaller events which would not have been seen or recorded previously. Historically, many events were recorded by insurance claims when they affected property or crops and this meant many minor events would go unreported unless they caused injury or significant damage. However large, powerful events are unlikely to be missed.
Tornadoes are classed according to the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale). Examination of the available data from 1950 to end 2019 shows more powerful events ( classified EF2 or greater ) display consistent progression over time and it is just the lower magnitude EF0 and EF1 which are boosted in recent years by better, more comprehensive reporting.
Method
The archive of individual tornado events lists each event by date and provides several data such as location, force rating and fatalities. The number of events of each force rating in each calendar year were calculated, then each time series was standardised (subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation ) to see the relative progression of each category over time.
Analysis
After the strongest year in the record, 1975, there was a marked reduction in tornado activity in all categories. With the exception of a few lesser peaks, activity remained below average ever since. EF2, EF3 and EF4 categories all show very similar progression over time in both individual years of activity and long term trends. It is very unlikely that massive tornadoes would go unnoticed and unreported, so the similarity in the temporal evolution of each category indicates that reporting, down to EF2 is consistent over time. The data are coherent and self consistent between categories, which gives confidence that there are no major reporting induced biases present.
The period from 1950 – 1975 shows a steadily rising level of activity reaching a climax in 1975. After that there was a sudden and marked decline with no sign of a reversing increase since. All three categories are strikingly similar, which indicates there is no tendency towards a greater proportion of more power or less powerful storms over this period.
The post 1975 period marks the beginning of the late 20th century warming which IPCC has attributed mainly to anthropogenic effects ( AGW ). If there is a need to hypothesise a link between “global warming” and the frequency or intensity of tornadoes in USA, it would be that there have been less events in all major categories during this warming period. There has been no significant change in the distribution in storm severity as temperatures rise and recent warmer decades have seen notably less activity than the earlier post-WWII cooling period.
The ‘messaging’
Marshall Shepherd wrote a good article in Forbes entitled How Climate Messaging Spun Out Of Control During the Tornado Outbreaks.
<begin quote>
The good news is that climate change is being discussed with greater vigor. The bad news is that some of that discussion is cringe-worthy. Recent tornado outbreaks sparked a frenzy of coverage about connections to climate change. In my view, some of the messaging spun out of control.
I reached out to Professor Allen for his thoughts on messaging in the aftermath of the December tornadoes. The Central Michigan University scholar told me, “There is a philosophical point where I think we have to be careful to know the limits of our expertise and capability when agreeing to interviews.” I am a scientist who receives media requests frequently. There are so many media outlets these days that content is at a premium and so are “talking heads.” Relative to the audience, I probably can speak to a range of weather, climate, and Earth science topics. Though my degrees are in meteorology, I get asked about wildfires, tsunamis, meteors, and other basic topics, and it is usually ok.
However, we all have limits. Allen goes on to say, “While we might be able to talk about other fields at a basic level, for most of the science (particularly regarding climate change), it is often the nuance which defines what we are able to say – and familiarity with the latest developments in the field tends to be where this is exposed most.” Such nuances can be even more challenging for an “expert” speaking without firm meteorological or climate science grounding.
Expert saturation is another problem. In the midst of events like the December tornado outbreak, journalists are seeking input from experts. Many of the experts become overwhelmed by the requests. It is a double-edged sword. Scholars like Trapp, Brooks, Gensini, and Allen have achieved a certain level of credibility and become “go to” sources. However, when the expert pool “saturates,” there can be a tendency to move to other options. Often, those options are mostly just fine. However, some choices end up being cringe-inducing. Professor Victor Gensini, an expert at Northern Illinois, told me the saturation thing is real. He has done over 50 interviews in the past week and referred 30 others. He wrote, “Honestly, I share a very similar sentiment to you….I think the real issues arise when ‘fringe field’ experts come in and try to apply their perspective and research to the question of the day.”
At the end of the day, there are multiple messages and messengers out there. This is not going to change. How can we deal with conflicting narratives in real-time, poor science grounding by some talking heads, or the saturation problem. I am not sure.
<end quote>
“… tornado outbreak slammed the Mississippi Value, …”
MS SpellWreck strikes again!
Excellent. Thank you, Judith.
“Examination of the available data from 1950 to end 2019 shows more powerful events ( classified EF2 or greater ) display consistent progression over time and it is just the lower magnitude EF0 and EF1 which are boosted in recent years by better, more comprehensive reporting.”
Looking at the NOAA data plotted by Chris Martz, it appears to me that the EF2 and EF3 have both decreased in frequency, with an increase in EF1.
Thanks Clyde, I replied below but apparently clicked in the wrong place to post it here.
Thanks Greg Goodman – the “intentional deception” is entirely with Dr Mann.
I’m shocked to discover that would be the case ….. AGAIN.
I hope Mr. Mann has an arrow on his coffee cup indicating which side is suppose to be up. He could ruin many keyboards due to his coffee cup orientation following his treatment of dendrochronologies.
Quite a lengthily word-barrage to obfuscate its basic message: Opportunists hijack bad weather to lie about climate science and “experts” don’t correct them publicly.
One of my bitches with CliSciFi is its habit of piling on verbiage to hide its lack of evidence for making grandiose claims in its summary statements. Politicians and bureaucrats use words to hide truth.
Beginning in the 1990s, Western governments established the policy that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to dangerous warming. All CliSciFi funding is based on that policy and all CliSciFi reportage reflects that policy. All of the official piled-up words are attempts to obfuscate those basic facts. Propaganda is manifest in CliSciFi.
A look at this four man propaganda tornado
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/12/seasons-greetings-from-tornado-alley.html
will serve to confirm Rorty’s observation that :
“One man’s changed subject is another man’s metaphysical discovery”
Based on the trend of F3 to F5 tornadoes in the US since 1954, it’s obvious that global warming has REDUCED the number. The F1 and F2 tornadoes are excluded because they were too often missed before the satellite age in the 1970s. There’s no need for a long article to explain the facts.
“Based on the trend of F3 to F5 tornadoes in the US since 1954, it’s obvious that global warming has REDUCED the number.”
“Trends” never prove anything except a lack of any data analysis skills beyond clicking “fit trend” in Excel. They certainly do NOT establish attribution to one of a thousand other factors which have not remained perfectly flat over the same period.
There has certainly been less powerful tornadoes during the late 20th c. warming period and there was more during what used to be a cooling period until it got “corrected” away into a plateau.
However, there is no obvious increase DURING the warming period so saying it is “obvious” global warming has reduced tornadoes is not supported by the data. The numbers dropped right at the beginning of the warming period before it has actually warmed and stayed lower.
One could suggest that the conditions which lead to warming are not conducive to tornado formation, ie. warming conditions do not favour them, rather than attempting to link them to actual temperature. ie warmer temps means less tornadoes.
F3 to F5 US tornado counts:
1954 to 1987 – average of 53.7 per year
1988 to August 2021 – average of 33.8 per year
1954 to 1987 includes much of the 1940 to 1975 cooling period.
which has since been revised to a flat global average temperature trend
1988 through August 2021 includes most of the 1975 to 2020
global warming trend
Global cooling trend accompanied by a much larger average number
of strong tornadoes, compared with the count during a global warming trend.
I provided data
You provided a word salad.
No Richard, I tired to explain why “trends” do not prove anything. Rather than providing a counter argument all you can do is make a meaningless comment like “word salad”.
You then double down by replacing your trend with two averages, which then effectively defines a line between two arbitrary points. That is just a far less rigorous way than regression of deriving a “trend”.
You are not “providing data” , NOAA did that. What you are doing is trivial and worthless data analysis from which you are drawing spurious, unjustified conclusions which fit your personal a priori position.
That is EXACTLY what has been wrong with climatology for the last 30-40 years. ALL the “global warming causes ….” mantra is based on this same fallacy.
It is not the data provided by NOAA that is the problem. The problem is the data withheld by NOAA.
Global warming was expected to affect the Arctic more than the tropics.
That pattern happened in the Northern Hemisphere.
The reduced temperature differential should reduce the number of severe weather events in the Northern Hemisphere.
And there has been a downtrend of land falling hurricanes and F3 to F5 tornadoes in the United States.
I exclude non–landfalling hurricanes, and the F1 and F2 tornadoes, because they are very likely to have been under counted, prior to the satellite age in the 1970s.
I have provided a simple explanation of a relationship between global warming and extreme weather events in the Northern hemisphere, based on the Occam’s Razor principle. It’s possible reality could be much more complex.
Now you can pile on, grog, and state the obvious,
once again: ‘You could be wrong.’
Every comment here could be wrong,
because climate science is not settled.
This website exists because
climate science is not settled.
Everyone here knows that.
We don’t need to be
scolded by you
on that subject.
I have a theory
that it is impossible
to prove anything …
but I can’t prove it.
And global cooling was expected to affect the Arctic more than the tropics.
“Global warming was expected to affect the Arctic more than the tropics.”
Same with orbital control during an interglacial.
“Looking at the NOAA data plotted by Chris Martz, it appears to me that the EF2 and EF3 have both decreased in frequency, with an increase in EF1.”
Exactly. That is why they leave in the unreliable EF1 data, despite plenty of evidence it is unreliable and heavily biased by changes in detection and reporting.
Then when they realise that the true “new normal” is notably less in all of the powerful storms, they try to dismiss the whole subject by pretending ALL the data in “unreliable” and IPCC retains “low confidence” ( while still avoiding to report that it is low confidence in a DECLINE in activity, not the opposite ).
“HIDE THE DECLINE” comes to mind again.
“Prior to Friday, the U.S. tornado death toll for 2021 was only 14, the third lowest in data going back to 1875. (The lowest on record was 10, set in 2018.)…This December has been strikingly mild across most of the United States”
To use a historical measurement of death tolls as a signal to indicate tornadic severity over any given year may be misleading at face value, considering the massive differences of population densities between 1875 and 2021. The data seems to suggest that severity has decreased on average over the last 150 years, even after considering todays early warning systems.
“To use a historical measurement of death tolls as a signal to indicate tornadic severity over any given year may be misleading at face value, …”
It is an issue that anyone compiling vital statistics, such as homicides, has to deal with. The usual approach is to show deaths per 100,000 population. This isn’t really rocket science!
Global warming is expected to reduce the north polar to tropics temperature gradient which powers storms and tornadoes which should reduce tornado counts and intensity. This graph https://friendsofscience.org/assets/images/Tornadoes%20F3+%201955-2019.jpg shows that the best fit trend of EF3+ tornadoes from 1955 to 2019 is an amazing 57.5% decline. This article by Sterling Burnett https://climaterealism.com/2021/12/sorry-president-joe-your-claim-that-climate-change-is-making-tornados-worse-is-false/ presents a graph of EF3+ tornadoes from 1970 to 2019 with a declining trend of -7.23 tornadoes per decade. The graph is incorrectly labeled ‘1970-2020″. The number of tornadoes declined over the 50 years by 61%!
“Global warming is expected to reduce the north polar to tropics temperature gradient”
You’re using an expectation to quantify hindsight data?
Regardless, you should have a word with Mann, and the media.
It is a shame that we still have not got beyond talking about “trends” as though they were a diagnostic tool.
Every possible variable goes either up or down over time. That means everything can be said to “correlate” with everything else, and then jump straight to the spurious correlations-proves-causation fallacy. That has been the entire AGW gig since the outset.
This invariably involves ignoring all other change carrying more information than the single scalar value provided by the “trend”. If you want to even sniff out the slightest suggestion of correlation, then you need changes of direction in both senses appearing simultaneously or at least consistent lag/lead relationship.
Discussing trends implicitly accepts all the climate crap we have been fed since the late 90s.
PLEASE STOP IT !
Baloney
“Climate change” is NOT based on extrapolating trends.
Climate change” (aka CAGW)
is the repeated and always wrong
predictions of a NEW trend of global warming.
Rapid and dangerous global warming.
The imaginary NEW trend is NOT LIKE
any of the three global average
temperature trends in the past 110 years.
The warming from 1910 to 1940
The cooling from 1940 to 1975
The warming from 1974 to 2020.
So we have two problems with CAGW:
(1) Climate predictions by people with no skill
in predicting the future climate, and
(2) Climate predictions that do NOT resemble
any actual climate trends in the past 110 years.
The latest warming trend ended in the 1990s, not 2020. Since the end of the 1990s there has been no significant warming as measured by radiosondes and satellites. Both ARGO and satellites have shown that ocean temperatures in the 21st Century have not increased as predicted by UN IPCC CliSciFi models.
‘Baloney. “Climate change” is NOT based on *extrapolating* trends.’
Firstly NOWHERE in comments or in my analysis of the NOAA data did it mention extrapolation, in either direction. So I have no idea what your “baloney” is supposed to refer to.
You are perfectly right about point 1 a 2 . I have been making the same arguments since about 2007. You seem to be ranting against someone you basically agree with.
Greg Goodman.
Dave Fair commented:
Both ARGO and satellites have shown that ocean temperatures in the 21st Century have not increased as predicted by UN IPCC CliSciFi models.
Easy to show this is false — see graphs 1 and 2 here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
Hee, hee, hee, David. Show the UN IPCC CliSciFi model predictions. And show the conversion of temperatures to Zetajoules.
Dave Fair commented:
Hee, hee, hee, David. Show the UN IPCC CliSciFi model predictions. And show the conversion of temperatures to Zetajoules.
Temperature & ZJ are proportional, so the conversion won’t make any difference.
Dave, recall that you wrote:
The latest warming trend ended in the 1990s, not 2020. Since the end of the 1990s there has been no significant warming as measured by radiosondes and satellites.
The data show you are categorically wrong. Admit it.
Appell
You said, “Easy to show this is false — see graphs 1 and 2 here:”
Those are interesting graphs. While the graph with the larger volume of water (0-2000 m) can be expected to contain more heat than the thinner slice (0-700 m) It appears that the larger volume is accumulating heat energy at a greater rate (steeper slope). What is interesting is that the upper volume is accumulating heat energy from absorption of sunlight and conduction of hot air. It is, of course, also losing heat from evaporation of water.
How do you explain that the layer of ocean that is deepest is gaining heat at a greater rate? Do undersea volcanoes or mid-ocean spreading centers play a role?
“Global warming is expected to reduce the north polar to tropics temperature gradient which powers storms and tornadoes which should reduce tornado counts and intensity.”
CORRECTION:
Global warming since 1975 HAS reduced the temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere.
If all other variables were unchanged, that should lead to fewer tornadoes and hurricanes for the US. And that is exactly what happened.
A quick look at one of the global tornado maps shows that tropical and near tropical areas are tornado-free, including all of Africa outside the temperate part of the tip of South Africa.
Luxembourg, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, have tornadoes. Northern Sweden had a tornado outbreak in 2011. Meanwhile, the average tornado count sub-Saharan Africa or the South American rainforests stand somewhere around zero. Canada has about a hundred tornadoes a year, whereas Mexico has about eighteen, mostly minor ones. A study looking for Mexican anti-cyclonic tornadoes said:
If global warming actually turning the US into a hot-box like Central Africa, we could expect an end to our tornado threat. But a lack of tornadoes doesn’t scare people into supporting efforts to fight global warming, so…
Clyde Spencer commented:
How do you explain that the layer of ocean that is deepest is gaining heat at a greater rate?
It has more volume.
Yes, I understand that it has more volume. However, the addition of heat energy has to pass through the upper layer and then is diluted by the larger volume. Therefore, one would expect that the slopes would be the same with a vertical offset.
Clyde Spencer commented:Yes, I understand that it has more volume. However, the addition of heat energy has to pass through the upper layer and then is diluted by the larger volume.
Nope. The data is for the 0-2000 m region, not the 700-2000 m region. It doesn’t “pass through” anything.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
“Nope. The data is for the 0-2000 m region, not the 700-2000 m region. It doesn’t “pass through” anything.”
Then how does the heat energy get to the deeper water?
“Beam me down, Scotty?”
“Please give a line to his presentation.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
Are you suggesting that any and all future projections have 100% probability as long as the scenario assumptions are met? By that test, all projections are falsified unless they are precisely what the model spits out.
Clyde Spencer commented:
“Nope. The data is for the 0-2000 m region, not the 700-2000 m region. It doesn’t “pass through” anything.”
Then how does the heat energy get to the deeper water?
“Beam me down, Scotty?”
I’m sorry you don’t understand, Clyde, but the situation is extremely clear and it simply cannot be made any clearer for you.
The volume is 0-2000 m.
There is no layer on top of that.
I recommend you stop looking like a fool.
I’m afraid it is you who does not understand.
Calling me a “fool” doesn’t convince me or anyone else that you understand.
“I’m done trying to enlighten you. It’s just a waste of my time.”
Yes, it is probably a waste of your time. Why do you persist?
No, I used NOAA tornado count and EF3+ intensities to quantify actual measurements.
My point was that you’re at odds with CAGWers.
“Global warming is expected to reduce the north polar to tropics temperature gradient which powers storms and tornadoes which should reduce tornado counts and intensity.”
No one was “expecting” that before it happened. CO2 is “well mixed” and the classic metric of “climate change” is the physically flawed concept of global mean temperature. ( Temps don’t add, there is not such thing as a “mean temperature” in physics ).
All the models “expected” tropical upper troposphere hot spot. It failed to materialise because climate auto regulation reduces insolation in the tropics when SST rises.
If both the tropics and poles warmed that would not change the gradient.
If the reduced gradient and lesser storms were “expected” why aren’t all the clowns like Mann jumping up and down saying “look, less tornadoes, that exactly what our incredibly realistic models predicted .”.
I can think of at least three good reasons that global warming should have been expected to reduce the north polar to tropics temperature gradient.
1. The polar regions have very low water vapour content compared to tropics, so as CO2 increases, the percentage change of greenhouse gases (mostly H2O and CO2) is higher in the polar regions. This should lead to faster warming in the northern polar region.
2. The polar region has sea ice with high albedo. Warming would cause reduced sea ice, decreasing albedo, enhancing the warming.
3. The tropical and mid latitudes have lots of thunderstorms which act as strong negative feedbacks, limiting the tropical rise in temperatures.
climategrog | December 16, 2021 at 3:30 pm:
– “No one was “expecting” that before it happened.”
Everybody was expecting polar amplification before it happened. For example Judith Curry:
Curry, J.A., Schramm, J.L., Rossow, W.B. and Randall, D., 1996. Overview of Arctic cloud and radiation characteristics. Journal of Climate, 9(8), pp.1731-1764.
“Nearly all GCMs exhibit amplified greenhouse warming in the Arctic … The relative lack of observed warming and relatively small ice retreat may indicate that GCMs are overemphasizing the sensitivity of climate to high-latitude processes.”
It was expected before it happened.
The prediction of less storms is not universal.
If you think the latitudinal temperature gradient is more important you predict less storms.
If you think the sea surface temperature is more important you predict more storms.
If you study paleoclimatology you predict less storms. The storms of the Little Ice Age were something to behold and fear.
If you study cycles you predict periods of less storms alternating with periods of more storms ;-)
If you don’t study and fear CO2 you predict doom and gloom.
And if you want a thermodynamics explanation of why global warming should lead to weaker atmospheric phenomena you have:
Laliberté, F., Zika, J., Mudryk, L., Kushner, P.J., Kjellsson, J. and Döös, K., 2015. Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate. Science, 347(6221), pp.540-543.
“Incoming and outgoing solar radiation couple with heat exchange at Earth’s surface to drive weather patterns that redistribute heat and moisture around the globe, creating an atmospheric heat engine. Here, we investigate the engine’s work output using thermodynamic diagrams computed from reanalyzed observations and from a climate model simulation with anthropogenic forcing. We show that the work output is always less than that of an equivalent Carnot cycle and that it is constrained by the power necessary to maintain the hydrological cycle. In the climate simulation, the hydrological cycle increases more rapidly than the equivalent Carnot cycle. We conclude that the intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work.”
Less work means weaker storms, hurricanes and tornadoes. It refers to energy, not to the amount of precipitation, that should increase with a more active hydrological cycle.
And not one person lives in the “average temperature”,
which is a statistic, not a measurement.
climategrog wrote:there is not such thing as a “mean temperature” in physics ).
That’s ridiculous. Temperature is a scalar. So its mean value is its integral over all of the relevant space, divided by the volume of the space.
climategrog wrote:there is not such thing as a “mean temperature” in physics ).
David Appel: “That’s ridiculous. Temperature is a scalar. So its mean value is its integral over all of the relevant space, divided by the volume of the space.”
If you run a travel agency, I will accept your “average temperature”. You can not do that in physics. Temperature is NOT and extensive quantity so can not be meaningfully added, thus no mean can be calculated. Heat ( energy ) is an extensive property and is what you should be working with.
So I repeat: there is not such thing as a “mean temperature” in physics.
If you are looking for causality you need to deal in physically meaningful quantities. If you are going on holiday, believe whatever the guy selling you room tells you !
Javier: “Everybody was expecting polar amplification before it happened. For example Judith Curry:”
Nice switch. I commented about tropics / polar temp gradient and you reply about humidity and radiation physics. Polar differences conveniently become Arctic only.
If you want to contradict someone, at least have the good manners to talk about the same thing.
climategrok: if the temperature of the northern hemisphere (surface) is a constant 300 K and the temperature of the southern hemisphere is a constant 290 K, the average temperature of the planet is 295 K.
Add heat to the planet and the average temperature will change. That makes the average temperature a meaningful and useful concept.
Afternoon Javier,
Please don’t forget that well known Nobel Prize winner Syukuro Manabe:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/the-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics/
To be read with an American accent:
“One Princeton scientist, Dr. Syukuro Manabe, speculates that warming will not be evenly spread around the world. Instead the greatest warming, up to 18 degrees, is likely to occur in the polar north.
And paradoxically, the biggest effect would be in the winter.”
Gregory, you said,
“2. The polar region has sea ice with high albedo. Warming would cause reduced sea ice, decreasing albedo, enhancing the warming.”
Albedo is used too casually in the field of climatology. It originally was applied to the retroreflection of astronomical bodies having only dense atmospheres or surfaces of regolith, and was an index of the relative brightness. However, Earth also has a large amount of water, which is dominated by specular reflection instead of diffuse reflection.
Snow is a diffuse reflector, relatively insensitive to either the angle of incidence or viewing, albeit the BRDF has a strong forward lobe. It rarely has a total reflectance greater than about 85%, varying with the size of the snow flakes, the freshness (how compacted it is), and how much dust has collected on the snow.
Water, on the other hand, has a specular reflectance varying from about 2% at noon at the equator to 100% within the Arctic Circle and at the limbs of the Earth. The lower latitudes usually show an ‘albedo’ higher than 2% because of suspended sediment and phytoplankton, or in shallow waters, light reflected off the bottom.
However, at the NH Summer Solstice, specular reflectance will be about 10% off water near the Arctic Circle nearest to the sun, while the reflectance will reach 100% at the limb on the opposite side of the globe where the angle of incidence reaches 90 degrees.
The point of this is that the situation is more complex than “Ice good, dark water bad!” Arctic waters usually look dark because one has to be in a position facing the sun to see the light that is specularly reflected off the water and away from Earth. Alarmists mistakenly say that because the water looks dark it automatically absorbs more sunlight than snow or ice. Sometimes that is true. Other times is isn’t. Many who call themselves climatologists appear to be innumerate. They also have weak physics backgrounds.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
Would it be fair to say observation and identification of these type events were enhanced with the mass deployment of Doppler Radar in the 90’s? A similar impact to using satellite technology in the late 70’s forward for tropical cyclone identification.
Yes, but that enhancement was mostly for smaller events that had escaped notice. The enhancement wouldn’t hit all areas at the same time, as the US rolled out Doppler radar earlier than some of the other areas with frequent tornadoes, such as northern Argentina and Paraguay.
Here is a link to his actual Tweet:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1470602918000828416?s=20
https://www.livescience.com/41632-the-truth-about-tornadoes.html
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1470800293512232966?s=20
https://twitter.com/Herrmann8er/status/1470794978507079698?s=20
Simply put Climate Alarmists are simply trying to make an outlier the norm. That isn’t science, that is sophistry. Simply read the Old Testament. Extreme weather has been in existence since the beginning of civilization. From the data above there simply isn’t a scientific way to connect 13 to 18 Micron LWIR to tornadoes. I don’t see how Michael Mann has any credibility at all after reviewing his Twitter account. That guy is a pure political activist.
Henson says this: “Based on the radar clues and the initial damage reports, especially from Mayfield, it seems very likely that EF4 damage occurred.”
Last I looked the Mayfield storm had been officially classed as EF3. Nor was there any EF4 anywhere. If this holds then this set of storms was a widespread but relatively low intensity event. All the pontification about AGW increasing intensity is just the usual false alarmism.
Why does anyone listen to Michael Mann?
One of the great questions of all time.
Pingback: Tornados – El Palo de Hockey
One of my earliest memories was when our father told us to get into the basement since a tornado was coming across the lake toward our home. It didn’t touch down. One of my earliest memories of reading a newspaper article was about the 1953 Flint, Michigan tornado which killed 100+ people.
Several years later it seemed like tornadoes were breaking out everywhere during the 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak, which killed 260.
If you live in the Midwest, tornadoes are part of the spring ritual. A tornado warning in your area is a common occurrence. If one is spotted close by, you head to the basement. The threat can be over in a few minutes.
But not all tornadoes touch down. Not all tornadoes that touch down cause damage. Not all tornadoes that touch down and cause damage kill people. Some tornadoes are 100 yards across. Others could be a mile wide. Some touch down for a couple of minutes. Others travel many miles. Some skip many miles and then touch down again.
Causing damage and deaths is a random event. Most hit vacant land. Some miss population centers by only hundreds of yards. If the path of the Mayfield tornado had been a few hundred yards north or or south, the candle factory would have been spared. The same goes for each population center. A slight change in the paths could have significantly reduced damage and deaths.
As jungletrunks noted above, a long term historical comparison is impossible because of the massive population increase since the 1800s. Who knows how many tornadoes touched down when not a single human being was around for many miles. Had the same tornado of the 1800s with the same path struck in the last 40-50 years there could have been untold damage and death.
This is one list of the deadliest tornadoes in US history. Imagine what the death toll would have been now given the much smaller population base back when some of these tornadoes struck.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/us/deadliest-tornadoes-trnd/index.html
Tornadoes have been part of the American landscape during our entire history. There is nothing unprecedented about the latest outbreak.
Tornadoes are fascinating. On assignment for local papers, I’ve been to the aftermath of two weird events. In one I stood in a woman’s back yard and saw a line of trees that had been twisted and snapped by enormous energy. As we marveled at this, she pointed to the picnic table about 20 yards from the snapped trees. There were clay flower pots on the table that hadn’t even been knocked over.
The other was a guy on one side of a big hill who lost his entire tool shed and found it dropped on top of his neighbor’s pickup truck. The truck was wrecked, but if you looked at it from a distance it looked like someone had loaded the shed into the truck but wasn’t quite done yet.
Visiting damage and talking with weather service people there was often confusion about tornado or “micro-bursts” within heavy storms. But one thing was always clear- you have to have cold temps as well as warm to have tornadoes.
According to constructal theory, the purpose of the circulation (the objective of any flow with configuration) is to provide maximum access to the currents that flow, in this case to the transfer of heat from the equatorial zone to the polar caps. The zones and caps are organized in such a way that they perform this transport in the most efficient way, which is the one that maximizes the heat flow or, alternatively, by the flow structure that minimizes the resistance to the global heat flow.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-main-cells-of-global-circulation-that-determine-Earths-climate_fig2_226399016
—————————-
Eschenbach recently brought the above up. Always holding to the theory that lake ice keeps the lake warmer during frigid during Minnesota winters, I wondered how sea ice reconciles with the above. I have considered sea ice insulation for the oceans preventing emission of joules to the atmosphere.
Perhaps the answer is that there are other regulating attributes of the system not consistent with constructal theory.
I am highly skeptical of constructal theory, and certainly meridional transport does not work the way you describe it.
The Hadley cell is a serious obstacle to heat and moisture transport poleward from the equator. The air is cooled and dried as it ascends, and the sensible heat it transports in its upper branch is almost matched by the latent heat that its lower branch transports equatorward. It is a bad design that results in ENSO. That is the reason oceanic transport of energy dominates at low latitudes. The system is very inefficient. Every c. 3 years the equator has an excess of energy that needs to belch. That’s El Niño.
Energy transport follows the path of least resistance, as electricity does in a circuit. We don’t need constructal theory to understand how electrons move in a circuit.
Thank you.
“Energy transport follows the path of least resistance, as electricity does in a circuit.”
Yes. I thought of that when read of the theory.
Why does the Hadley cell transport surface heat towards the equator?
I suppose the rising of the warmest air there.
With ENSO the path of least resistance is downward, into the warm pool.
But that becomes unstable. However.
Consider a pot of boiling water. It bubbles. That the ocean bubbles with ENSO size bubbles is plausible.
Considering an inability of the Hadley cells to transport warmth poleward, the excess that is lost from the poles has to come from somewhere.
If we cannot agree on what the systems for that transport is, we can agree it happens.
The worse the equatorial regions are at losing heat through the atmosphere, the better they are at stuffing it into the oceans, some of it for transport poleward.
Ragnaar | December 17, 2021 at 4:21 pm:
– “Why does the Hadley cell transport surface heat towards the equator?”
The air in the Hadley cell ascends close to the equator and in doing so cools and dehydrates. Then it is transported to around 30°C where it descends. In doing so it warms and its relative humidity becomes extremely low. This is what creates the deserts at the horse latitudes in several continents. Then, to close the Hadley cell the air is transported equatorward constituting the trade winds. The dry warm air quickly becomes very humid, transporting a great amount of latent heat equatorward. The wind-driven ocean circulation follows the predominant trade winds equatorward, and due to the rotation of the Earth the winds and the ocean currents turn westward sloshing warm water towards the western margin of the ocean basins. Since the Pacific is the largest ocean the great amount of warm water pushed that way creates the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. From the western side of the basins the western boundary currents move warm water poleward. They are the Gulf Stream, Brazil Current, Agulhas Current, Kuroshio, and East Australian Current (EAC). These subtropical WBCs carry warm waters from low to high latitudes and constitute the main oceanic meridional heat transport carriers.
El Niño activates transport at multiple levels to reduce the warm water volume in the equator, including stratospheric transport through the Brewer Dobson circulation, increased convection, and increased outgoing longwave radiation.
Meridional transport is known, just not well measured because we lack the capacity to measure heat transport by the atmosphere or the ocean. It is deduced from sea-surface energy flux and top-of-the-atmosphere energy flux, that are measured. In fact one of the most important remaining problems with reanalysis is that mass and energy transports must balance and they don’t, showing important budget gaps.
All of that doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters in climate change is the energy imbalance at TOA.
Maybe, you should spend some time learning something about the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Here’s something I wrote a couple of years ago on the science behind climate change:
https://www.quora.com/If-climate-change-is-a-hoax-why-do-so-many-scientists-say-its-happening?top_ans=155488291
“Meridional transport is known, just not well measured because we lack the capacity to measure heat transport by the atmosphere or the ocean. It is deduced from sea-surface energy flux and top-of-the-atmosphere energy flux, that are measured. In fact one of the most important remaining problems with reanalysis is that mass and energy transports must balance and they don’t, showing important budget gaps.”
I am a tax preparering CPA. Balancing a simple accounting system is the rule and a check on accuracy and proper understanding. When assumptions are made, we assume it all balances and if dummy numbers are used, they can bring us into balance. Debits equal credits. Lousy accounting can be ‘cured’ by forcing the balance sheet or income statement once a year back into balance.
The GMST seems to serve as the climate balance sheet. However that can be supplemented by ocean, ice and atmospheric storage. What is the climate income statement? Quite complex and lacking zoom in detail. It is of low resolution.
The climate budget lacks detail and is stuck at the toy model level. A CMIP can model some climate at some time in some universe but it’s not real.
What I linked above is another toy model. It’s a high school level beginning accounting class. It’s something to help answer the question, is our accounting system capturing what’s going on? There are a number of tests short of a transaction by transaction audit that is too expensive to have practical value. But the link can be helpful in having an understanding of the system. In other words, the zones must balance relative to each other and to the oceans and to the TOA.
Ragnaar comment – “I am a tax preparering CPA. Balancing a simple accounting system is the rule and a check on accuracy and proper understanding. When assumptions are made, we assume it all balances and if dummy numbers are used, they can bring us into balance. Debits equal credits. Lousy accounting can be ‘cured’ by forcing the balance sheet or income statement once a year back into balance.”
Likewise I am also a CPA with expertise in federal and state taxation.
To add to ragnaar’s comment – Double entry accounting is a self checking mechanism to find and correct accounting errors.
Likewise in math, algerbra, multiplication/division, etc. When you solve the math problem, you plug the answer into the equation and work it backwards to confirm you have the correct answer.
That step is not being done in climate science – especially evident in the climate reconstruction. There are far too many items that simply do not reconcile back to the “climate science” conclusions.
“Likewise I am also a CPA with expertise in federal and state taxation.”
What makes you think a CPA is qualified to comment on climate science? Do you really believe that someone with an accounting background has the same expertise as one who has gone through the rigors of scientific training and has spent years using science to analyze and solve scientific problems?
Yet here you are criticizing climate scientists based on what? The pseudo-science you read here?
“That step is not being done in climate science – especially evident in the climate reconstruction. There are far too many items that simply do not reconcile back to the “climate science” conclusions.”
Not true. As I said, the only energy balance that matters is at TOA. Let me dumb it down so an accountant can understand it. You have a bank account where money flows in and out. If more money flows in than out, you accumulate money and vice-versa. Now you take that bank account and divide it into a bunch of sub-accounts. You can move money between sub-accounts, but that doesn’t impact the overall flow of money in or out of the original bank account. If the money that flows in and out of the original bank account is in balance, does moving money around from sub-account to sub-account increase the total amount of money? The answer is NO.
The same is true of energy. There is relationship between energy and planetary temperature. The higher the amount of energy on a planet, the higher its temperature. It’s as simple as that. If the earth has an energy imbalance at TOA, and the earth absorbs more solar radiation than it radiates energy into space, the energy and temperature of the planet will increase. It makes NO difference what is going on anywhere else on the planet. All this discussion about ocean currents and moving energy from here to there is irrelevant. There are some things that occur withing the earth “system” that can impact the energy balance at TOA. The largest is the greenhouse effect. The others are small or have zero impact.
The climate scientists have it right and you don’t.
Received solar radiation being modulated by clouds doesn’t impact Earth’s energy balance? Chaotic ocean/atmosphere dynamics doesn’t affect cold water upwelling? Chaotic atmospheric/cloud dynamics doesn’t affect precipitation efficiency affecting H2O vapor/rainfall? And much, much more to the effect that CO2 is not the Earth’s thermostat.
“Received solar radiation being modulated by clouds doesn’t impact Earth’s energy balance?”
I never said it didn’t.
“Chaotic ocean/atmosphere dynamics doesn’t affect cold water upwelling? Chaotic atmospheric/cloud dynamics doesn’t affect precipitation efficiency affecting H2O vapor/rainfall? ”
If that has any impact, it’s a small one, and no match for greenhouse gases.
“And much, much more to the effect that CO2 is not the Earth’s thermostat.”
CO2 is not always the driver climate change, but it is now. The “much, much more” is nothing more than moving energy from place to place on the planet. That has NO impact on planetary climate.
If you want to make claims like you are trying to make, you’ll need to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics. Good luck with that!
“CO2 is not always the driver [sic] climate change, but it is now.” How does it know when to switch on and off? If it wasn’t “on” during the early 20th Century warming, how did it know to switch “on” to cause the equivalent late 20th Century warming. Why hasn’t it been “on” since the late 1990s with the significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? What caused the temperature ups and downs during the Holocene?
“How does it know when to switch on and off? If it wasn’t “on” during the early 20th Century warming, how did it know to switch “on” to cause the equivalent late 20th Century warming. Why hasn’t it been “on” since the late 1990s with the significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? What caused the temperature ups and downs during the Holocene?”
CO2 doesn’t know a damn thing. Just like everything else, it reacts to stimulus. There are several factors that could cause the planet to warm or cool. If today the sun would start increasing its irradiance, that could be the driver of climate change with CO2 taking a secondary role.
The rest of your questions are irrelevant. What happened in the past happened because of the conditions at the time. Whether or not CO2 was or wasn’t the driver at the time is not important. What is important is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is currently forcing the temperature of the earth higher.
Looking at the past and trying to claim things that happened back again can be used to refute what’s happening now is ridiculous. If that type of argument is the best you can do, then you have no argument.
Here’s a plot of the earth’s temperature by year:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
The temperature has been on the rise since the late 1990s. You need to stop reading science fiction.
JJBraccili | December 18, 2021 at 4:39 pm |
“Likewise I am also a CPA with expertise in federal and state taxation.”
What makes you think a CPA is qualified to comment on climate science? Do you really believe that someone with an accounting background has the same expertise as one who has gone through the rigors of scientific training and has spent years using science to analyze and solve scientific problems?”
The Logic errors in your response are laugable
A) Only “climate scientists ” are qualified to find errors in climate science
In math – after solving an equation. you work the problem backwards to ensure that you got the same answer. In climate reconstructions , far too many proxies show warmer MWP, yet, those are discrepancies are not reconciled back to reconstructions.
B) Climate scientists and activists are constantly making bogus claims, logic errors, simple math errors and serious cherrypicking of data in their analysis of renewable energy costs and the fossil fuel “subsidies”. Those errors are blantantly obvious to anyone with a elementary level of knowledge in the subject matter.
that raises the question is how someone so deficient with basic logic and math skills can possibly have the superior intellect to ascertain the validity of climate science.
So the answer is yes, a CPA can and does have the capacity of to judge the scientific reasonableness of “climate science”.
joe – the non climate scientist commented:
In climate reconstructions , far too many proxies show warmer MWP, yet, those are discrepancies are not reconciled back to reconstructions.
You just proved JJBraccili’s point, because this is precisely the kind of sloppy, nonrigorous thinking that doesn’t pass scientific muster. “Far too many proxies” is just your opinion, with nothing meticulous to support it. One has to do the actual calculations, which aren’t easy, and when done no reconstruction (I’m aware of) shows a global MWP.
To act as if paleoclimatologists don’t question their results thoroughly, check them inside and out, forward and backwards, every way they can — as do all scientists — is just uninformed and silly. Then the work is peer reviewed by experts before publication. And read and commented on afterward. Presented at seminars and colloquia and conferences. Is your CPA work published for the entire world to review, scrutinize and criticize?
joe – the non climate scientist commented:
In climate reconstructions , far too many proxies show warmer MWP, yet, those are discrepancies are not reconciled back to reconstructions.
“Far too many proxies” is just your opinion, not science. Scientists do the hard work of the calculations. None show a global MWP.
To act as if paleoclimatologists don’t question their results thoroughly, check them inside and out, forward and backwards, every way they can — as do all scientists — is just uninformed and ridiculous. Then the work is peer reviewed by experts before publication. And read and commented on afterward. Presented at seminars and colloquia and conferences. Is your CPA work published for the entire world to review, scrutinize and criticize?
Yet erroneous stuff like Mann and Marcott crap keep coming out of CliSciFi pee review.
David Appell | December 20, 2021 at 9:10 am |
joe – the non climate scientist commented:
In climate reconstructions , far too many proxies show warmer MWP, yet, those are discrepancies are not reconciled back to reconstructions.
“Far too many proxies” is just your opinion, not science. Scientists do the hard work of the calculations. None show a global MWP.”
Appell – Have you taken the time to look at the underlying proxies? apparently not.
The proxies used in the various reconstructions consist primarily of the short term proxies which have a blade but not shaft because they are too short, The long proxies all have a shaft with no blade, which raises the question as to the calibration. It is those long proxies with a shaft and no blade that are used to claim no MWP. Those proxies showing a warmer mwp are grossly underweighted.
In the world of mathematics, and the accounting world you have to reconcile your answer. My second point is there are a tremendous number of proxies that do not reconcile back to the conclusions reached in those reconstructions, including but limited to the numerous examples of receding glaciers revealing forests dating from the MWP. the climate science world is replete with examples of climate scientist ignoring that basic mathematical principle.
One of the reasons you get punked so often with crap science and various studies such as SLR, renewables, fossil fuel studies, melting of west antarctica glaciers is that you fail to perform that basic mathematical principle.
Non-scientist: more handwaving blather.
My second point is there are a tremendous number of proxies that do not reconcile back to the conclusions reached in those reconstructions,
What does this even mean, “tremendous,” and “do not reconcile back?” Be mathematical about it, since you claim that’s your domain of expertise.
the climate science world is replete with examples of climate scientist ignoring that basic mathematical principle.
Some examples?
David Appell | December 20, 2021 at 10:21 am |
Non-scientist: more handwaving blather.
the climate science world is replete with examples of climate scientist ignoring that basic mathematical principle.
“Some examples?”
Appell – reconciling conflicting results / discrepancies is a basic mathematical principle which is applicable in all sciences.
I have given you examples – on multiple occasions. For example, I gave you one in this very post you responded to. You have chosen to ignore those examples which highlights your inability and climate scientists inability and/or refusal to reconcile conflicting proxies.
A few additional examples of warmth during the MWP
evidence of prolong drought in the Ca seqouia’s
receding glaciers exposing forests dating from the mwp in the columbia ice fields (canada), mendelhall glacier, and many others, higher tree line elevations during mwp in the alps, us and canadian rockies, chiliean andes, tree lines extending 50-100k further north through out russia, including yamal. just to name a few.
If you adhere to that basic principle, you and others would not get punked so frequently.
Dave Fair commented:
Yet erroneous stuff like Mann and Marcott crap keep coming out of CliSciFi pee review.
Why is their science “erroneous?”
Well, David, just a few reasons: Cherry picking proxies, misuse of statistical procedures, fraudulently changing the start and end dates of proxy series & etc.
I’m done playing your silly games, David. Goodbye.
the non climate scientist wrote:
I have given you examples – on multiple occasions. For example, I gave you one in this very post you responded to….
I don’t see examples — I see only hand waving. You don’t provide enough details to respond adequately to anything.
A few additional examples of warmth during the MWP
evidence of prolong drought in the Ca seqouia’s
receding glaciers exposing forests dating from the mwp in the columbia ice fields (canada), mendelhall glacier, and many others, higher tree line elevations during mwp in the alps, us and canadian rockies, chiliean andes, tree lines extending 50-100k further north through out russia, including yamal. just to name a few.
More hand waving. No details. Let’s see the publications that you think got all this so wrong, so we can look at the details of what was actually concluded.
I’m not chasing your wild claims and ghosts. You don’t think like a scientist and it shows.
David Appell | December 20, 2021 at 1:34 pm |
the non climate scientist wrote:
I have given you examples – on multiple occasions. For example, I gave you one in this very post you responded to….
I don’t see examples — I see only hand waving. You don’t provide enough details to respond adequately to anything
“More hand waving. No details. Let’s see the publications that you think got all this so wrong, so we can look at the details of what was actually concluded.
I’m not chasing your wild claims and ghosts. ”
Appell man – the only hand waving is the “Monkey See No Evil”
The items I mentioned are well known by those who follow the paleo reconstructions. Obviously you only parrot climate science claims without any critcal review.
If you are going to defend the paleo climate reconstructions, you at least should be aware of the deficiencies – but no! not David A
Yamal Treeline
The treeline series illustrated in Esper et al 2012 was derived from Hantemirov and Shiyatov Figure 2 (but excluding its Early Holocene portion). It showed mid-Holocene treelines extended approximately 30 km north of present treelines. However, this 30 km figure represented the northern limit of the survey, NOT the actual Holocene treeline. By the time of Hantemirov’s thesis in 2009, the survey – and the mid-Holocene treeline – had been extended nearly 120 km north of the current treeline (see middle panel). It appears that the Holocene treeline may have been even further north: in 1941, Tikhonov reportedly observed sub-fossil Holocene trees at 70N, approximately 275 km north of the present treeline. So, while Esper et al were right to note that Holocene treeline was further north, their diagram dramatically under-estimated the actual distance further north of the Holocene treeline, not just absolutely, but in respect to what was known in Russian literature at the date of their article.
Note that, in the 20th century, the Yamal treeline finally reversed its long march south, though still located far south of its Holocene location. This reversal corresponds to the 20th century reversal of the equilibrium line of Norwegian small glaciers – neither effect being apparent in the Esper et al figure.
appell – its not too hard to find the multitude of conflicting proxies, even with a bare minimum of due diligence.
Ancient trees emerge from frozen forest ‘tomb” Mary Catharine Martin, Juneau Empire (2013)
http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.UkOQ7IY3uA9
‘Ancient Forest Thaws From Melting Glacial Tomb’ Laura Poppick, Live Science (2013)
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
Dave Fair commented:
I’m done playing your silly games, David. Goodbye.
You always run away when I press you for something more than hand-waving.
Dave Fair commented:
Yet erroneous stuff like Mann and Marcott crap keep coming out of CliSciFi pee review.
Strange thing to say, because the hockey stick has been replicated by a few dozen studies by now using several different techniques:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
It’s also easy to show that the hockey stick is required by fundamental physics:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/03/20th-anniversary-of-hockey-stick.html
JJBraccili:
Yes we start with a simple view of things such as counting inputs and outputs at the TOA. But then we consider a form 1040 which I describe as a glorified spreadsheet. The modules interact with each other and are all pulled together into a bottom line.
The 1040 might also be looked at as a flow chart. And we can look that same way at a business. And then we wrap an accounting system around that flow chart.
In some respects we are capturing in numbers what the system is doing. Accounting then can have the resolution turned up. We can talk about cost accounting, profit margins, classification into overhead and operating costs. Long term assets. Return on equity.
All this in some respects is providing information that useful to management. The accountant’s reason for being. My point on bringing up constructual theory is to look at the climate as 3 climate zones both North and South of the equator. We might consider what happens when we insulate those zones? We might find increased poleward flows. And equatorial ocean warming. Constructal theory talks about least resistance paths.
None of that means a damn thing. Moving energy around from place to place on the planet cannot increase the temperature of the planet. It can impact local conditions, but that’s about it. The ONLY way the temperature of a planet increases is if the energy of the planet increases.
If you want to know why climate scientists don’t pay any attention to these type “theories”, that why. They’re not hiding anything.
What you may think is logical would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. That law is not just a scientific principle. It’s a foundational principle on which a lot of science is built. Think relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., etc., etc.
David Appell | December 20, 2021 at 8:04 pm |
Dave Fair commented:
Yet erroneous stuff like Mann and Marcott crap keep coming out of CliSciFi pee review.
“Strange thing to say, because the hockey stick has been replicated by a few dozen studies by now using several different techniques:”
Appell man – absolutely true – the hockey stick has been replicate mutliple times. – but as I have mentioned, they all fail the basic mathematical principle – reconciling the conflicting proxies.
I have given you a list of several proxies which directly conflict with the non existent MWP which climate scientists refuse to reconcile.
the multitude of climate reconstructions rely on the long proxies which show neither the MWP or the blade. The long proxies which have the warmer mwp such as law dome , etc are so underweighted,
You keep defending the reconstructions without acknowledging the weak proxies.
Appell – you are a prime example of the honest scientists failure to police the bad outlandish climate science.
You frequently promote some of the most foolish claims in climate science. As mentioned, the religious worship of the climate reconstructions, renewables, fossil fuel subsidies, SLR , melting of west antarctica glaicers due to GW and ignoring the geothermal activity.
Again climate science credibility would be greatly restored if the called out, mann, et al along with the activists, such as cook.
You also get punked vastly more than others on the blog simply because you are so eager to accept the story line with any critical thought
jtncs wrote: Appell – you are a prime example of the honest scientists failure to police the bad outlandish climate science.
You frequently promote some of the most foolish claims in climate science. As mentioned, the religious worship of the climate reconstructions, renewables, fossil fuel subsidies, SLR , melting of west antarctica glaicers due to GW and ignoring the geothermal activity.
I’m not a scientist.
I don’t promote or worship anything. I quote the science here. You don’t like what the science says so you insult me for that.
Mostly you don’t understand science, and it shows in everything you write. Scientists don’t “police” others. The great strength of science, the very reason for its amazing success over the last several centuries, is that everyone gets a say. Make your case for your ideas. Show the evidence for your claims. Convince others. If they see merit in your ideas they will advance. If not, they won’t. But no one’s ideas are suppressed, policed, or otherwise censored. The very idea is anathema to science and to scientists. They don’t police, they counter. They listen and explain why your idea is wrong, or adopt it and work to advance it.
Freedom of thought. It’s gotten a lot of scientists in trouble over time. Even here people like you insult and degrade good scientists because you can’t disprove their ideas but have no better counter than to try to tear them down personally. Its shameful but not unexpected, because it’s been done for centuries. And has always failed.
JTNCS: Re: “Yamal treeline”
You plagarized ClimateAudit, without citing or giving credit.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/03/02/milankovitch-forcing-and-tree-ring-proxies/
Looks like someone should be policing you.
JTNCS wrote: Appell man – absolutely true – the hockey stick has been replicate mutliple times. – but as I have mentioned, they all fail the basic mathematical principle – reconciling the conflicting proxies.
I have given you a list of several proxies which directly conflict with the non existent MWP which climate scientists refuse to reconcile.
You have waved your hands or cited newspaper articles or blogs. None of which is science.
The people doing the hard work of the real science have replicated the hockey stick a few dozen times, as theory predicts should be the case. Large, long, very detailed studies. But you have nothing to say about those papers, which are chock full of the mathematics you claim to value. (But they are more than the mere arithmetic and trivial algebra of a CPA.)
Yet you have the arrogance to think you’re always right and the expert scientists who devote their careers to their research are always wrong. No one who understands science would do that. No wonder you hide your name.
JTNCS wrote:
‘Ancient Forest Thaws From Melting Glacial Tomb’ Laura Poppick, Live Science (2013)
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
And what’s wrong with this?
David Appell | December 21, 2021 at 12:27 am |
JTNCS wrote:
‘Ancient Forest Thaws From Melting Glacial Tomb’ Laura Poppick, Live Science (2013)
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
“And what’s wrong with this?”
Appellman
– Did you flunk your 8th grade botany?
Both the Yamal example and the mendenhall glacier example, along with a multitude of others are highlight the failure of paleo reconstruction scientists to reconcile the work against conflicting proxies. So what if they have done the “hard work” if they failure the step of reconciliation.
How do you get cooler MWP proxies when the tree line is 50-100k north of the present tree line
How do you cooler MWP proxies when there were forests were there are now none because present day is too cold
How do you get cooler MWP proxies when the tree line elevation was higher during the MWP?
Another appell ‘s response – “I don’t promote or worship anything. I quote the science here.”
Appell you are one of the biggest worshipers of “climate science ” Simply because you are a promoter/worshiper of the climate science you fail to recoginize many of the weak positions taken in the name of “climate science”
Not a scientist wrote:
Both the Yamal example and the mendenhall glacier example, along with a multitude of others are highlight the failure of paleo reconstruction scientists to reconcile the work against conflicting proxies. So what if they have done the “hard work” if they failure the step of reconciliation.
What exactly is a “step of reconciliation?”
You seem to think that because there are a few “cooler” proxies — whatever that means — there has to be a cooler MWP. You seem to think that these few proxies overrule all the others. You don’t seem to think they should be folded in with all the others, you seem to think they alone mean there was a hemispheric or global MWP.
Or something. It’s difficult to tell what you think because all you do is wave your hands.
Appell you are one of the biggest worshipers of “climate science ” Simply because you are a promoter/worshiper of the climate science you fail to recoginize many of the weak positions taken in the name of “climate science”
No, I fail to recognize what you think are weak positions, because you rarely, if ever, present anything of scientific value. It’s only what scientists call “hand waving” arguments, viz. there’s nothing solid to it. Your “skeptical” positions are wrong, as “skeptical” positions always have been in climate science.
the non climate scientist wrote:
‘Ancient Forest Thaws From Melting Glacial Tomb’ Laura Poppick, Live Science (2013)
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
Do we know these stumps haven’t been used as proxies since their discovery?
Do we know if they’re fit to be used as proxies, i.e. not deteriorated by glacier pressure or bacteria or water or ice in the wood’s cells or had been by insects or whatnot?
The article said scientists had yet to determine the tree type. Have they? Is that information necessary for a tree ring proxy?
The article says the trees where encased “more than 1,000 years ago.” How much more? Are they even in the MWP timeframe?
Can you cite a scientific paper about these stumps?
See, let’s not wave our hands about some stumps under a retreating glacier.
BTW, what does the retreating glacier tell you about climate change? What does a whole globe of them tell you? Let’s talk about that, too, while we’re focusing on some stumps from 1,000 years ago.
JJBraccili:
“Moving energy around from place to place on the planet cannot increase the temperature of the planet.”
But it’s similar to the definition of cooling. Moving energy around. Yes SW gets converted to LW. Then it has to escape or go into the oceans. What can increase the temperature of the planet is insulation. And that’s what we have.
What we seem to have is least resistance paths for the joules and that seems grounded in physics. If a CMIP fails at materially and substantially creating these paths, how accurate is it?
Evaluating an accounting system can be subjective. The climate experts have them. Others have pointed out their shortcomings.
Moving energy around DOES NOT manufacture energy.
Climate science has been around for 40 years. There is no doubt about the science. There are no “shortcomings” in the science. Are there inconsistencies in the data? Of course, if you ever worked with data, you’d know there are always inconsistencies. That why they do statistical modeling and regression analysis.
The climate denialists make a mountain out of a mole hill. They look at data inconsistencies and claim that was is noise is somehow significant. Then comes the looney theories. Look at “theories” circulating on this website. How about the planet rotation theory? Do you believe planet rotation can create energy? Then all the nonsense about weather patterns and ocean currents. None of that is capable of manufacturing energy.
Because this nonsense is ignored by the scientific community, there must be a worldwide conspiracy to prevent the “truth” from getting out. It must be the leftists crawling out from under their rocks trying to enact a socialist agenda. It’s ridiculous!
Constructal theory – now popular in cosmology – is not the same thing as the Constructal Law of Adrian Bejan. But the latter is just a rebranding of part of Ilya Prigogine’s nonlinear thermodynamics, although it has useful insights regarding heat flow. The important fundamental phenomena are Prigogine’s dissipative structures and emergent thermal homeostasis.
One of the most corrosive fallacies of alarmist revisionist climate “science” is that climate is determined only at the top of atmosphere based on radiative budget. This ignores the oceans. As Richard Lindzen points out, even with perfect equilibrium of radiation at TOA, the oceans by chaotic-emergent circulatory patterning could serve up thousands of years of constantly changing climate. In addition to internal ocean circulation and especially vertical mixing, the sea surface interacts with atmosphere to influence cloud cover in complex ways, affecting radiation budget much more strongly than CO2.
Concerning the proxy studies of Shakun and Marcott. If you actually look at all the proxies used, more than 50, you see that many of them – especially biological ones like midges, pollen etc, are so poor they scarcely resolve the last glacial maximum from the Holocene optimum. It becomes clear that the inclusion of all these poor proxies was a deliberate ironing flat of the Holocene. Steve MacIntyre shows how correct selection of high quality proxies should be done. But for Shakun and Marcott it was “the worse – the better”.
“One of the most corrosive fallacies of alarmist revisionist climate “science” is that climate is determined only at the top of atmosphere based on radiative budget. This ignores the oceans. As Richard Lindzen points out, even with perfect equilibrium of radiation at TOA, the oceans by chaotic-emergent circulatory patterning could serve up thousands of years of constantly changing climate. In addition to internal ocean circulation and especially vertical mixing, the sea surface interacts with atmosphere to influence cloud cover in complex ways, affecting radiation budget much more strongly than CO2.”
Nonsense. Lindzen should and probably does know better. Moving energy around does not create energy, does not add energy to the planet, and cannot cause climate change. If the oceans move energy such that it effects cloud cover in one area of the planet, wherever that energy was taken from has a mitigating effect. Weather is transitory. As soon as the effect ends, the planet returns to its original state. No increase in the earth’s internal energy means no climate change.
The ONLY way energy can be added to or taken from the planet is by an energy imbalance at TOA. That imbalance is the ONLY cause of climate change. That’s classical thermodynamics.
So a decrease in reflected SW from a cloud reduction doesn’t affect the TOA energy balance? Also, please explain the obvious “climate changes” over the Holocene that climate models (using forcings) can’t duplicate.
“So a decrease in reflected SW from a cloud reduction doesn’t affect the TOA energy balance?”
I never said that. The problem is with what is causing the reduction. The claim is the ocean currents are causing it and somehow this replaces the CO2 effect and CO2 is a benign actor that does only good.
Ocean currents moving energy around cannot cause climate change. To move energy from one part of the planet means you remove energy from another part of the planet. There is no net change in energy. A decrease in cloud cover in one part of the planet is offset by the energy deficit in another part of the planet.
Weather is transitory. Clouds do not remain static. Any change in global temperature due to ocean currents will be temporary. You need a permanent change in the energy balance at TOA to drive climate change. That means the source of the imbalance has to be continually increasing. That is the problem with this type of theory and why it never gains traction in the scientific community.
“Also, please explain the obvious “climate changes” over the Holocene that climate models (using forcings) can’t duplicate.”
So what? If the climate changed during the period, it was due to the conditions at that time. It has nothing to do with what is happening today. We can measure all the possible effects that can cause global warming. Fortunately, there aren’t that many. Right now, CO2 is driving climate change. That doesn’t preclude that something else couldn’t come along that would have more impact than CO2 does. There is no evidence that anything else is driving climate change.
[I’m going to hate myself in the morning for this.]
JJ, you assert: “There is no evidence that anything else is driving climate change [other than CO2].” Please tell the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modelers why it is you think that. Because they are telling us there are things they don’t understand (including clouds) that cause their models to fail in reproducing numerous current and past climatic metric changes. Maybe you can straighten out their models for them.
There are lots of things the modelers don’t understand. Parts of the models are black boxed. The models only tell us how long it will take for changes to occur. You don’t need them to determine what is happening, what’s causing it, or where all of this will wind up.
The models are a dynamic analysis. What I’m talking about is a steady-state analysis — the endpoint of a dynamic simulation.
Phil Salmon wrote:
It becomes clear that the inclusion of all these poor proxies was a deliberate ironing flat of the Holocene. Steve MacIntyre shows how correct selection of high quality proxies should be done. But for Shakun and Marcott it was “the worse – the better”.
Actually a recent reconstruction of global average surface temperatures of the last 24,000 years finds no Holocene Optimum. See Figure 2 in:
“Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum.” Matthew B. Osman et al, Nature volume 599, 239–244 (November 10, 2021).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4
And of course they also found a hockey stick for modern times.
“Although tornadoes across the years do not appear to have become more common, an increasing percentage of them are occurring in outbreaks…. Here’s what we’ve also been seeing: A below average number of tornadoes this year; outbreaks becoming more common during cooler months in recent years; and tornadoes occurring more often across the Southeast compared with the Great Plains…. There is also evidence that tornadoes are getting stronger.”
“What is causing these changes in tornado behavior is still unclear, but global warming is probably playing a role through changes to the environments that support supercell clusters. Specifically, the extra heated moist air fueling the supercells on Friday was associated with an exceptionally warm Gulf of Mexico caused by climate change.
“Also, the interaction between the extra heating and increased wind shear is associated with larger outbreaks, which produce the strongest and longest-track tornadoes, on average. We found that tornado power, estimated using damage path characteristics, increased at a rate of 5 percent per year from 1994 to 2016. At least some of the upward trend can be associated with changes to the outbreak environment.”
— James B. Elsner, NY Times 12/15/21, “Was Climate Change to Blame for the Tornadoes, or Was It Just Really Bad Weather?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/opinion/tornado-climate-change.html
“Dr. Elsner is a professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee, where his research focuses on tornadoes, hurricanes and climate change.”
Or maybe the warmer Gulf has nothing at all to do with “climate change” and everything to do with the fact that La Nina causes warmth over the Gulf. Just sayin’.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/how-el-ni%C3%B1o-and-la-ni%C3%B1a-affect-winter-jet-stream-and-us-climate
Recent years means the AMO in its positive phase so we don’t know that is not a factor. We have zero knowledge, and will never have reliable knowledge, of what tornadoes have done during the Holocene. Zero. What did they do during the previous warm periods? What did they do during the LIA? We will never know.
the link from Appell “Also, the interaction between the extra heating and increased wind shear is associated with larger outbreaks, which produce the strongest and longest-track tornadoes, on average. We found that tornado power, estimated using damage path characteristics, increased at a rate of 5 percent per year from 1994 to 2016. At least some of the upward trend can be associated with changes to the outbreak environment.””
Appell – 5% increase per year for 22 years is approx a total increase of 260% (with the annual compounding indicated in the statement).
The increase in warming of that same 22 years is less than 1.0f (maybe 1/2 of 1% depending on what you use as the base temp)
that being said, the correlation between the supposed increase in tornado “power ” 260% vs maybe 1% or 2% is a very weak correlation.
The question I have for you is whether the conclusion from the esteemed professor at Florida State is even remotely credible.
“Increasingly Powerful Tornadoes in the United States,”
James B. Elsner, Tyler Fricker, Zoe Schroder
Geophysical Research Letters
First published: 14 December 2018 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080819
Abstract: “There is a clear upward trend in tornado power over the past few decades that amounts to 5.5% per year controlling for time of day, time of year, natural variability, and the switch to a new damage rating scale. Part of the trend can be attributed to long-term changes in convective storm environments involving dynamic and thermodynamic variables and their interactions.”
Appell – the question I proposed was whether a 260% increase in tornado power over those 22 years was attributable to GW credible in light of such a small increase in warming over that same period.
All you did was repeat his claim.
5.5% per year over 22 years is approx 260%.
can you explain why such a weak correlation would be credible.
I didn’t make any claims and tornadoes and global warming, I posted thoughts and statistics from a researcher who studies the topic.
Strong tornadoes in the US have decreased in number since 1950.
Not only that, Temperatures show absolutely no warming trend over the past 22 Years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/
Once again, how can you attribute 0.00 Warming over that past 22 years and falling tornadoes to the microscopic marginal energy supplied by CO2’s radiation of 13 to 18 Micron LWIR? Also, simply go to MODTRAN and change the setting to looking up from the surface and and use 410 PPM for the CO2. Save that to the background. That is the amount of energy coming back to the to the earth today. Then change the altitude to 1km. The difference is the change is W/M^2 over that 1km, The Change in W/M^2 is -53.07 W/M^2.
Then change the CO2 to 370 and do the same. Result is -53.83 W/M^2
So basically, a 0.76 W/M^2 change in backradiation in the lower 1km has resulted in basically no change in the global temperature, and depending on the data source you choose, a weakening of Tornadoes.
MODTRAN does not take into account changes in the earth’s radiant energy that occur with temperature change. It is strictly an atmospheric model. It only takes into account temperature changes in the atmosphere and radiation from atmospheric kinetic energy.
In other words, the results aren’t worth anything. The only thing it has going for it is that it’s free.
co2islife commented:
Not only that, Temperatures show absolutely no warming trend over the past 22 Years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/
Linear regression trend in UAH LT data over the last 22 years
= 0.16 degC/decade +/- 0.07 degC/decade at the 95% confidence level
co2.is.life commented:
Not only that, Temperatures show absolutely no warming trend over the past 22 Years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/
Linear regression trend in UAH LT data over the last 22 years
= 0.16 degC/decade +/- 0.07 degC/decade at the 95% confidence level
Posted a citation & abstract to Elsner’s paper supporting his 5.5%/yr claim but it didn’t appear. Must have used another forbidden term from the field of science that Judith doesn’t allow.
Maybe it’s because strong tornadoes in the US have decreased in number since 1950.
Wouldn’t we want to look at total tornado energy rather than the power of single tornadoes? After all, a tornado is just a feature of turbulent flow. Given the chaotic nature of turbulent flow, one would expect to find one bigger than the last from time to time. Just like “rogue” waves form seemingly of of nothing unusual in the turbulent ocean.
Or is it reasonable that tornado statistics of any kind could be expected to reflect global warming? As others have noted, humidity and a sharp temperature differential are some of the requirements for tornadoes. Those may change due to other factors.
In the paper cited by DA, the researchers just assume any they can’t account for is due to global warming. That’s just an unwarranted assumption.
Confirmation bias is marked by adherence to data which supports a case while dismissing data which contradicts one’s case. This can occur in many ways and we’re all subject to it, probably from genetic tendencies we evolved with. This bias is apparent with subset periods of analysis.
The paper examines the period 1994 through 2016. Regardless of the merits of the analysis, adhering to this result in the context of a longer term decline of strong US tornadoes probably reflects confirmation bias.
See the figure here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/strong-us-tornadoes
McGee commented:
The paper examines the period 1994 through 2016. Regardless of the merits of the analysis, adhering to this result in the context of a longer term decline of strong US tornadoes probably reflects confirmation bias.
I haven’t made any comments about the veracity of Elsner’s paper or about the subject of tornadoes & AGW, because neither is something I’ve studied or know much about.
I simply cited the paper as the source of the 5.5%/yr number. If you have problems with the paper you should direct them to the analysis in the paper.
I simply cited the paper as the source of the 5.5%/yr number.
Yes, that’s it – you cite the short term number because it confirms your preferred narrative and ignore the long term number because it disconfirms your preferred narrative.
The long term decrease exceeds the short term increase in:
duration, absolute magnitude and correlation.
McGee commented:
Yes, that’s it – you cite the short term number because it confirms your preferred narrative and ignore the long term number because it disconfirms your preferred narrative.
Someone asked if the 5.5%/yr number was credible. So I cited the paper that contains the analysis that derives it. That’s it.
I don’t even know what “long term number” you’re talking about.
I don’t have a “narrative” on tornadoes and AGW. It’s always seemed to me it’s unlikely there’s a link because tornadoes are such highly localized, short-term phenomena that require special conditions, but I’m willing to listen to those who know more than I do.
Those who are buying what the climate porn pushers of hot world Alarmism should know, it happens. That’s reality and there’s not much anyone can do about stopping a volcano, turn off a tornado, prevent a hurricane, make the sun burn brighter or shield the Earth from cosmic rays.
During this winter, we can expect to see tremendous turbulence in the jet stream.
https://i.ibb.co/c32ryN5/gfs-t100-nh-f48.png
https://i.ibb.co/s11FZVh/Screenshot-1.png
The animation shows how the jet stream is moving far north, bypassing the ozone patch over Europe where a large high is developing.
https://i.ibb.co/BrKnQgM/mimictpw-global-latest.gif
“When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
Here you can see in real time the effect of ozone distribution on the circulation in the upper troposphere in North America.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_toz_NA_f024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Doesn’t tornado formation require cold air too? The tornado “season” shifts north as the weather warms into summer and more south in winter. The strongest storms seem to happen when there are stronger differences in the clashing air mass temperatures. So if warming is the “cause” of anything, it might be less frequent outbreaks but that isn’t as scary….
Yes, this outbreak, like so many others, occurred with a strong cold front advance and its associated strong upper level winds.
Cliff Mass also tries to preserve reason over emotion here:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/
As I am writing this comment, I am listening on TV to a national expert on COVID19. He just said “ There is something we don’t understand about this.”
I would advise that climate scientists use this caveat more often in their reports and in their exchanges with the media. There’s no shame in admitting one’s ignorance. Sometimes facts are unknowable. Don’t feel like the deniers are going to score a point if you admit little confidence in some issue. Other sciences aren’t hampered by this apparent reluctance to come clean on what they don’t know.
This is from a link to a link (Shepherd) above.
“ It is now possible to estimate the influence of climate change on some types of extreme events, such as heat waves, drought, and heavy precipitation, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The relatively new science of extreme event attribution has advanced rapidly in the past decade owing to improvements in the understanding of climate and weather mechanisms and the analytical methods used to study specific events, but more research is required to increase its reliability, ensure that results are presented clearly, and better understand smaller scale and shorter duration weather extremes such as hurricanes and thunderstorms,”
“…..but more research is required to increase its reliability,….”
Very good. On the right track. But then this.
“ The most dependable attribution findings are for those events related to an aspect of temperature, for which there is little doubt that human activity has caused an observed change in the long-term trend, the report notes.”
“…there is little doubt that human activity has caused an observed change…”
Gee, after doing so well. They really haven’t hit the core controversy. It’s about how much. Some. Probably. But how much, is the Big Enchilada.
The only thing needed to gain a little more respect for the entire field of climate science is just put a few qualifiers. Add some caveats. Say, we just don’t know. Promise. It won’t hurt.
Ckid
I see three major problems with modern climate science:
(1) Repeated predictions of a coming climate crisis that I trace back to oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957. Although stated with uncertainty and not publicized with scary headlines in the media. There was a global cooling trend until 1975, so the global warming prediction would have been tough to “sell”
(2) Repeatedly claiming weather events are climate events.
Bad weather events and unusual heat are spun as “climate change”
Good weather and unusual cold is just “weather”, and
(3) Revising temperature measurements and truncating contradictory data.
Best example of “revisions”:
The 0.5 degrees C. of global cooling from 1940 to 1975
has been revised to no cooling at all.
Best example of truncating temperature data:
The Michael Mann “hockey stick” chart.
Honorable Mentions:
— Claiming to know a global average temperature in the 1800s
— Extrapolating short tern trends into long term forecasts
— Assuming the future climate can only get worse.
— Climate science uncertainty seems to have disappeared in the late 1980s
4) all “climate change” predictions are correct, especially when the opposite happens. If it’s record cold- they predicted that. Record warm? They predicted that. The prediction that snow “will be a thing of the past” quite obviously means increased snowfall, even record snow events. Ice-free arctic? That means higher than normal ice coverage.
More and more violent hurricanes forecast? That means they predicted a record hurricane drought and an absence of major hurricanes.
One lesson they learned from Ehrlich and the peak oil doomers is to avoid putting a date on predictions or any specificity. This is the catastrophe of the year 2100 that is happening now, but cannot be falsified by any actual observation, that you can only avoid by adopting their political outlook today. Because lawd knows we’re all looking back to physics papers published in the year 1921 to understand our regrets about not electing Eugene Debs.
jeff, when you’re fast and loose like this with “predictions” you can dismiss and abuse anything you want.
How about being specific?
Ice-free Arctic? Half of Arctic ice is gone since 1979. The world keeps warming. It was just announced that a new look at the data shows the Arctic warming four times faster than the globe.
https://www.science.org/content/article/arctic-warming-four-times-faster-rest-world
Is there any reason to expect there won’t be an ice-free Arctic in the future?
So sure, go ahead and make fun of the “prediction,” but I think it’s just your way of dealing with the reality of anthropogenic climate change you can’t disprove and you can’t dismiss — so like many here you settle for insulting people and tiny corners of the subject.
David
But then you get studies showing sea ice has been substantially lower than today at various times through the Holocene.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027737912100456X
The last ice maximum was 1000 years ago. Ice generally waxes and wanes, as we can also tell with variable sea levels. Rising sea levels caused the Romans problems in third century Britain when they had to relocate the port of London, whilst rising sea levels enabled the Vikings to progress further up rivers to sack towns.
tonyb
DA
Natural variability has recently become the go to theory in many papers, including these.
“ Specifically, Arctic surface air temperature increased rapidly over the early 20th century, at rates comparable to those of recent decades despite much weaker greenhouse gas forcing. Here, we show that the concurrent phase shift of Pacific and Atlantic interdecadal variability modes is the major driver for the rapid early 20th-century Arctic warming. Atmospheric model simulations successfully reproduce the early Arctic warming when the interdecadal variability of sea surface temperature (SST) is properly prescribed. The early 20th-century Arctic warming is associated with positive SST anomalies over the tropical and North Atlantic and a Pacific SST pattern reminiscent of the positive phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Atmospheric circulation changes are important for the early 20th-century Arctic warming.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/24/6227
“ Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Modulates the Impacts of Arctic Sea Ice Decline.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076210?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_medium=social&utm_content=buffer91269&utm_source=twitter.com
“ We find that the most prominent annual mean surface and tropospheric warming in the Arctic since 1979 has occurred in northeastern Canada and Greenland. In this region, much of the year-to-year temperature variability is associated with the leading mode of large-scale circulation variability in the North Atlantic, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation. Here we show that the recent warming in this region is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation….”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13260
DA
Here is more about natural variability affecting the Arctic.
“ Wavelet analysis results show the importance of the role of the internal climate variability on the multidecadal variability in the Arctic Area during the last centuries. The scales of variability found in the Alaska and subarctic North Atlantic sector are
25 linked with PDO and AMO internal climate fluctuations, and these two regional fluctuations are also linked with sea-ice cover fluctuations (Miles et al., 2014; Sha et al., 2015, Lapointe et al., 2016) which may have important feedback impact on climate variability.”
https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2017-33/cp-2017-33.pdf
“ Here a multiple regression model is developed for the first time, to the author’s knowledge, to provide a framework to quantify the contributions of three key predictors (Atlantic/Pacific heat transport into the Arctic, and Arctic Dipole) to the internal low-frequency variability of Summer Arctic sea ice extent, using a 3,600-y-long control climate model simulation. The results suggest that changes in these key predictors could have contributed substantially to the observed summer Arctic sea ice decline. If the ocean heat transport into the Arctic were to weaken in the near future due to internal variability, there might be a hiatus in the decline of September Arctic sea ice. ”
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4570
“ An intensification of the AMOC is associated with a sea ice decline in the Labrador, Greenland, and Barents Seas in the control simulation, with the largest change occurring in winter. The recent declining trend in the satellite-observed sea ice extent also shows a similar pattern in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic in the winter, suggesting the possibility of a role of the AMOC in the recent Arctic sea ice decline in addition to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas-induced warming.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/24/2011jcli4002.1.xml
DA
I’m glad to help you getting better informed. He is more natural variability.
“ Our results reveal two main variability modes: the Pacific sector mode and the Barents and Kara Seas mode, which together explain about two-thirds of the melt-season Arctic sea ice variability and more than 40% of its trend for the study period. The change in the frequencies of the two modes appears to be associated with the phase shift of the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/5/jcli-d-18-0301.1.xml
“ Observed September Arctic sea ice has declined sharply over the satellite era. While most climate models forced by observed external forcing simulate a decline, few show trends matching the observations, suggesting either model deficiencies or significant contributions from internal variability. Using a set of perturbed climate model experiments, we provide evidence that atmospheric teleconnections associated with the Atlantic multidecadal variability can drive low-frequency Arctic sea ice fluctuations.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/5/jcli-d-18-0307.1.xml
“ Observational data provide evidence that Atlantic water temperature, Arctic surface air temperature, and ice extent and fast ice thickness in the Siberian marginal seas display coherent low frequency oscillation.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/17/23/jcli-3224.1.xml
“ Through analyses of both observations and model simulations, we show that the contribution of sea-ice loss to wintertime Arctic amplification
appears dependent on the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/20995/Contribution%20of%20sea-ice%20loss%20to%20Arctic%20amplification%20is%20regulated.pdf?sequence=3
CKid:
Deniers never learn.
Do you remember the “surface hiatus” from about 2003-2013. Roughly.
It wasn’t really a pause in global warming, as ocean heating showed. But many deniers got all overexcited. CO2 doesn’t cause warming!!!!!!
Then what happened?
Same thing now with Arctic sea ice since 2012. Sometimes natural factors come together to temporarily slow or balance anthropogenic forcings.
Big deal. Completely expected. You never learn.
I’m not interested in every wiggle and turn in every climate index. I’m interested in the decadal changes and longer. You can keep focused on the little things if you want. Good luck with that.
02
AMO is 70-80 years. But I’m glad you are catching on. With my help of course.
“ The analysis suggests that the recent well-documented retreat of ice cover can partly be attributed to a manifestation of the positive phase of the 60–80 year variability, associated with the warming of the subpolar North Atlantic and the Arctic. ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JC002851
“ the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL038777
“ These results indicate the importance of natural modes of variability across a range of external forcing conditions for interannual melt variability and the emergence of widespread Greenland melt.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL079682
“Is there any reason to expect there won’t be an ice-free Arctic in the future?”
20 years ago team warm predicted the Arctic would be “ice-free” as of 15 years ago.
This is why I liken warmists to peak oil doomers- They insist in 1960s and 1970s that millions would starve in the US because of the absence of oil in the 1980s. They insist that only ignorance and greed would cause people to avoid the “necessary” government takeover of industry, child birth, everything, to avoid this awful catastrophe.
When nothing like that happens in the 1980s, this was merely proof that they were right, only ignorance and greed would cause one to doubt that oil will disappear some day and the guy who got it all wrong is a revered professor at one of America’s most prestigious universities.
Then they did it again ~2005- more peak oil doom! Followed by the fracking revolution that is causing Europe to switch electricity production from emissions-free nuclear to fossil fuels.
jeffnsails850 commented:
20 years ago team warm predicted the Arctic would be “ice-free” as of 15 years ago.
Do you have citations for that?
Ice-free arctic …
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/11/arctic-ice-free-by-2010/
Ice-free arctic …
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/arctic-ice-melt-by-2017-says-peter-wadhams/
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Ice-Report-Arctic/dp/0190691158
OK, two scientists opinions — not “Team Warm” — and published in the media, not peer reviewed journal papers.
Let’s see where the claim appears in the scientific literature and IPCC reports.
David Appell | December 20, 2021 at 10:48 am |
OK, two scientists opinions — not “Team Warm” — and published in the media, not peer reviewed journal papers.
“Let’s see where the claim appears in the scientific literature and IPCC reports.”
Appell – you do realize that the failure of honest climate scientists to police the dishonest climate scientists and the activists taints the honest scientists. Makes it difficult to ascertain who are the honest climate scientists. The credibility of honest climate scientists would be improved immensely if there was a proper level of policing.
Not a Scientist wrote:
you do realize that the failure of honest climate scientists to police the dishonest climate scientists and the activists taints the honest scientists.
Police?
As in tell someone on another continent who they may and may not speak to?
Force activists to say and do only what the scientist wants and nothing more?
Which scientist makes the rules?
How do they do that forcing?
Who decides what is “honest” and “dishonest” — you? LOL
Hardly ever allowed to reply to Joe. F it.
Joe:
“Police?” As in tell everyone who they may and may not speak to? What they may and may not say? Write a guide distributed to all scientists in the world? (Who writes the book?) Force all activists everywhere to say and do only what the scientists wants and nothing more? Which scientist makes the rules? How do they enforce the rules?
“OK, two scientists opinions — not “Team Warm” — and published in the media, not peer reviewed journal papers.”
Hilarious.
Doesn’t it make you a “denier” if you think warm “scientists” are encouraging the media to grossly exaggerate climate change? Or are you safe if you do it after the fact?
This, by the way, is the true source of “doubt.” Why do people assume the scientists in the news media are exaggerating the danger of climate change? Because the warm insist they are. But only when caught.
jeffnsails850 commented:
Doesn’t it make you a “denier” if you think warm “scientists” are encouraging the media to grossly exaggerate climate change?
Red herring. I don’t think any scientists are “encouraging the media to grossly exaggerate climate change.” Do you have any evidence they are?
A scientist gave his thoughts and opinion to a newspaper. From that you’re trying to construct a whole narrative about scientists, plural, who are trying to get the media to exaggerate climate change. That’s what’s hilarious.
This, by the way, is the true source of “doubt.” Why do people assume the scientists in the news media are exaggerating the danger of climate change? Because the warm insist they are. But only when caught.
Reflects poor critical thinking skills on the part of readers, who apparently cannot weigh (in this case) the opinion of one scientist against, for example, the work of the large group of the IPCC experts. Is that how you read the news on any subject? Or do you seek a diversity of sources?
Should this scientist have been gagged? Should those from Heartland or GWPF be gagged? There are always going to be outlying opinions. That’s life. Someone said something like ‘you can always find a PhD who will say anything.’
CKid:
“…there might be a hiatus…”
“…the possibility of a role…”
Neither contradicts the consensus that the main factor warming the Arctic and melting the ice is anthropogenic global warming.
David, What year is the baseline for the arctic ice observation?
J Anderton wrote:
David, What year is the baseline for the arctic ice observation?
Here’s the PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
CKid wrote:
that internal variability plays a role in the climate.
Everyone knows this. After all it was climate scientists discovered it.
ENSO, AMO, PDO, IPO, NAO, and on and on.
But these aren’t external forcings. Anthropogenic and volcanic GHGs are external forcings, adding heat to the planetary climate system. Internal variability doesn’t add such heat. They modulate global warming but they don’t cause it. They only last a few decades, then usually reverse in their cycle. In the long-term they average to zero, by energy conservation.
They aren’t control knobs, like CO2 is. Or the Sun would be if you could control its output.
So everyone knows all about interval variability.
No, you haven’t acted like the IPCC only needed to study it more.
I don’t know what the IPCC decided about the Thwaits Glacier overhang.
This is recent science and might now have been ready in time for the AR6. I don’t know.
If you were really concerned you could have made your opinion known as an IPCC Expert Reviewer, as can anyone.
It would have gotten more attention than commenting here.
Of course, then you would have had to comment under your real name, which I realize comes very difficult for many of those here, like you, for some reason. You don’t want to stand up behind your opinions.
CKid commented:
Here is more about natural variability affecting the Arctic.
Nobody says naturally variability disappears in an AGW world. Nobody.
And what’s more …. it is entirely possible that it’s not either/or.
It may come as a surprise to you Ckid – but they can/do act together.
No surprise at all. I’ve been trying to get 02 to understand that forever. I don’t understand his reluctance. Natural variability is our friend. Embrace it.
CKid wrote:
No surprise at all. I’ve been trying to get 02 to understand that forever. I don’t understand his reluctance. Natural variability is our friend. Embrace it.
I’ve understood that forever so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Nor is there anything inherently friendly about natural variability. It can reduce or augment the underlying anthropogenic trend.
Looking at the available estimates for temperatures over the Holocene (especially the recovery from the Little Ice Age), it appears natural variability rules, with estimates of anthropogenic effects being a minor afterthought. The Earth is not fragile.
Dave Fair commented:
(especially the recovery from the Little Ice Age),
There is no concept in climate called a “recovery.” Climate isn’t elastic. It changes when and only when it’s forced to change. To change there must be a causative agent(s). Always. Says physics.
I agree, David: All the ups and downs of global temperatures have causative agents. My problem with CliSciFi is they can’t deal with natural variations and won’t treat them seriously. Worse, they try to (1984-like) write them out of history when they are inconvenient to the CO2 control-knob theory.
Oh, BTW, UN IPCC CliSciFi models are bunk. Even after applying political lipstick, the IPCC reports have to adjust the outputs of those pigs with “expert opinion” because they run way too hot.
Dave Fair commented:
My problem with CliSciFi is they can’t deal with natural variations and won’t treat them seriously. Worse, they try to (1984-like) write them out of history when they are inconvenient to the CO2 control-knob theory.
In what way can’t they deal with them or treat them seriously?
In what way have they written them out of history?
Multiple statements in UN IPCC CliSciFi reports that models don’t do well on natural variations. Just one example: Missing early 20th Century warming period.
Michael Mann and his Hockey Team.
Team members plotting to get rid of the SST “blip.”
Dave Fair commented:
Oh, BTW, UN IPCC CliSciFi models are bunk. Even after applying political lipstick, the IPCC reports have to adjust the outputs of those pigs with “expert opinion” because they run way too hot.
How are model IPCC report model outputs adjusted with “opinion?” Where exactly in the AR6 is this done? Give me page numbers….
UN IPCC CliSciFi AR5 report had to arbitrarily reduce intermediate-term hot model predictions.
UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 excluding the high end ECS models.
You know all of this and more, David, but you insist on muddying the waters to support fundamental changes to our societies, economies and energy systems.
Appell
I’m glad you’ve come over from the dark side. Any time I can assist with enlightening someone I get a special sense of gratification.
There are some from the Truly Committed Flock (TCF) who haven’t been been able to admit what every self respecting skeptic knows is self evident, that internal variability plays a role in the climate. When the warming rate of the last 40 years is in the rear view mirror, and we are experiencing flattish to cooling temperatures for decades, I wonder how those afflicted with especially severe cases of terminal cognitive dissonance will fare psychologically, given the hysteria created over the last several decades. It could be a rough ride for them…..possibly even requiring intervention.
CKid commented:
that internal variability plays a role in the climate.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
ENSO, AMO, PDO, IPO, ….. Everyone knows about these. Climate scientists discovered them.
But they aren’t external forcings. They aren’t adding heat to the planetary climate system. GHGs are external forcings. They’re adding heat. That’s why the globe is warming steadily. Internal variability modulates that, sometimes for a decade or two, but in the long-term, many decades, it’s primarily anthropogenic GHGs that are changing the climate, with cooling from anthropogenic aerosols and a little from orbital forcing.
When the warming rate of the last 40 years is in the rear view mirror, and we are experiencing flattish to cooling temperatures for decades, I wonder how those afflicted with especially severe cases of terminal cognitive dissonance will fare psychologically, given the hysteria created over the last several decades. It could be a rough ride for them…..possibly even requiring intervention.
Assuming your prediction of the future is correct and then insulting people with it is amateurish and really quite pathetic.
CKid commented:
that internal variability plays a role in the climate.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
ENSO, AMO, PDO, IPO, ….. Everyone knows about these. Climate scientists discovered them.
But they aren’t external forcings. They aren’t adding heat to the planetary climate system. GHGs are external forcings. They’re adding heat. That’s why the globe is warming steadily. Internal variability modulates that, sometimes for a decade or two, but in the long-term, many decades, it’s primarily anthropogenic GHGs that are changing the climate, with cooling from anthropogenic aerosols and a little from orbital forcing.
Too many of my comments here just never appear. Where do they go, Judith?
It’s hardly worth the effort anymore.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS
Everyone except those who believe the warming from now to 2100 will continue unabated at the rate of the last 40 years and sea level rise will swamp cities across the globe. They apparently didn’t get the memo.
That is the main difference. Will the experience of the last 40 years continue or will internal variability change the trend line.
Good morning Kid (UTC),
Here’s the latest memo from the Arctic:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/12/facts-about-the-arctic-in-december-2021/#Dec-18
The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world:
“Everybody knows it is a canary when it comes to climate change,” says Peter Jacobs, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who presented the work on 13 December at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union. “Yet we’re misreporting it by a factor of two. Which is just bananas.”
CKid commented:
Everyone except those who believe the warming from now to 2100 will continue unabated at the rate of the last 40 years and sea level rise will swamp cities across the globe. They apparently didn’t get the memo.
That’s what the science says given the various scenarios.
PS: though not “unabated.” It depends on the scenario.
CKid commented:
When the warming rate of the last 40 years is in the rear view mirror, and we are experiencing flattish to cooling temperatures for decades, I wonder how those afflicted with especially severe cases of terminal cognitive dissonance will fare psychologically, given the hysteria created over the last several decades. It could be a rough ride for them…..possibly even requiring intervention.a
Assuming your prediction of the future is correct and then insulting people with it is amateurish and really quite pathetic.
Not insulting, just an accurate assessment of the lunacy that the brainwashed have become afflicted with.
CKid commented:
Not insulting, just an accurate assessment of the lunacy that the brainwashed have become afflicted with
What lunacy?
The effect of an increasing greenhouse effect?
The fact that ice melts and water expands as temperature increases?
Thanks for proving my point.
“What lunacy?”
Another believer displaying his inner nut. In public no less.
“ West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin just cooked the planet. I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense. I mean that literally. Unless Manchin changes his negotiating position dramatically in the near future, he will be remembered as the man who, when the moment of decision came, chose to condemn virtually every living creature on Earth to a hellish future of suffering, hardship, and death.”
Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone
CKid commented:
“What lunacy?”
You skipped over my questions.
I didn’t skip over your questions. You answered your own question with your question. Here is lunacy
Lunacy
1966 will run out of oil in 10 years.
Reality
We are awash in oi….oops, Biden was elected.
Lunacy
1969 North Pole might be ice free in a decade or two. Repeated again and again with total failure.
Reality
Still there in September 2021
Lunacy
1983 EPA says oceans will rise 10 feet in several decades
Reality
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410660
Lunacy
1987 Hansen says temperatures could rise by 3C by 2020
Reality
UAH November 2021 anomaly .08C
Lunacy
1988 Maldives will be covered by water in 30 years
Reality
Numerous studies show the islands are growing
Lunacy
1995 ski industry is threatened by AGW
Reality
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/namgnld_season1-2-1.png
Lunacy
2004 Pentagon says Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years
Reality
TonyB has left his snow shoes in the closet
Lunacy
2013 Great Lakes water levels are dropping to record lows because of AGW
Reality
Water levels at near record highs in 2021
CKid commented:
Lunacy….
No links, no citations…. Just a 1983 EPA link, LOL.
Typical.
Shall we go through all the denier predictions that have been wrong?
Remember this beauty? (Figure 3)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
It’s not worth my time to collate anymore, because I realize nothing you wrote disproves AGW or the serious problems we’re having and that science says lie ahead.
If you paid any attention to the world around you, then you wouldn’t need citations. That is the difference between you and most of the other denizens, we have real life experiences not living in some fantasy world. Get a life. Get in touch with the world. It exits without links and citations.
CKid – people like you never have citations. We’re supposed to believe whatever you say, without asking questions, without asking for proof.
You don’t have any proof. Like most everyone commenting on this blog. It’s far easier to just make accusations and insults.
It has nothing to do with links and citations. Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock should have known all these facts. No one should need a link to know that JFK was shot in 1963 or that the US had double digit inflation in the 1970s or the Fed caused the inflation of 1981-82 or that there was an Internet bubble in the 1990s. There are some things every thinking adult should know.
The real problem is you won’t admit you are wrong. I’m not going to spoon feed someone who doesn’t know the science or doesn’t just have the basic knowledge , which obviously you don’t.
The same thing happened on the geothermal thermal activity under the ice sheets. If you would have done the minimum amount of research over the last 10 years you would have known all about the studies. Instead you were completely unaware of the dynamics involved. You probably are as oblivious to the oceanic circulation dynamics because you have 1 thing on the brain, to the exclusion of the really complex issues of climate. Sad.
David, that link took me to a paper making a prediction that starts happening in about 20 years from now. A little early to crow on how wrong it was.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHTZdYoWUAAZxyd?format=jpg&name=large
A link
CKid commented:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHTZdYoWUAAZxyd?format=jpg&name=large
The classic response of b.s. artists who can’t back up their claims.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
David, that link took me to a paper making a prediction that starts happening in about 20 years from now. A little early to crow on how wrong it was.
No. It’s a 2012 paper that predicts total solar irradiance from then forward — see Figure 3. From 2010 to 2020 it predicts a 2.5 W/m2 decrease in TSI. In fact there’s been no decrease:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
You say they are wrong and as evidence for that position you provide a link to Greg’s TSI page where someone, I assume Greg, states ” Do please keep in mind though that this is a very “unofficial” TSI reconstruction based on my own judgements.” Seriously?
Steve, you may go to this paper then, where the result are essentially the same:
Solar Irradiance Variability: Modeling the Measurements
J. L. Lean et al, Earth and Space Science
First published: 18 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000645
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EA000645
So his paper where I assume he was using his model had actual data ending in 2011 and the paper you point to which discusses several models but the actual data ends in 2017. So how much was TSI supposed to go down in those 6 years that we are actually discussing and what sort of error bars are we talking about? It’s too early to say they were wrong. I told you that already.
Steve, you can read Figure 3 as well as I can. I see a 2.5 W/m2 decrease predicted from 2010 to 2020. He doesn’t bother to give error bars, it’s a model. And TSI is measured with high precision.
He’s predicting a HUGE decrease in TSI and nothing like that has ever been measured in centuries up to 2021. A 6 W/m2 decrease in 30 years would be unprecedented in the last several centuries and is no doubt bonkers.
Give it up.
BTW, I’m fine with accepting whatever the science says about the Thwaits Glacier.
But it DOESN’T say geothermal heating is contributing to melting there, that’s just your assumption based on the presence of geothermal heat there.
This is from August 2021 — you’ll have to go to the link to read the full quote, since it’s not copyable (for me at least):
“Based on their data, the geophysicists are unable to put a figure on the extent to which the rising geothermal heat warms the bottom of the glacier: ‘The temperature of the glacier is dependent on a number of factors….'” [type of rock, rock’s conduction properties, type of sediment]
https://polarjournal.ch/en/2021/08/21/does-geothermal-energy-promote-melting-of-thwaites-glacier/
Go read it. It’s still uncertain. That’s what the science says. Do you have science that says otherwise?
I didn’t know we’d been measuring TSI for centuries. Anyway, I’m not eyeballing the same thing to expect this early from his graphs that you are. I’ll just keep it in mind that according to you 6 years is long enough to prove a model wrong and save that for a future argument.
It’s 11 years Steve, 2010-2021.
Proxies for TSI go back thousands of years:
Revised historical solar irradiance forcing
T. Egorova et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Volume 615 (July 2018) 615
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731199
It’s easy to find many more studies on Google Scholar.
It appears to me that you are confusing the accumulated loss of TSI with a TSI change of that magnitude. Perhaps I am wrong but that is how I take it. Of course all I did was a quick scan of what he was talking about. You do that, a quick scan at least?
See Figure 3. It’s a plot of his predicted TSI over time.
So not measurements but reconstructions. Am I just being picky here or does that make a difference as to expected accuracy? Rhetorical question.
Yeah, that’s what I thought. You don’t know what you’re looking at. The one that shows where the predicted TSI would be right now is well within the range of measured TSI during recent solar cycles.
Reconstructions. With error bars.
You’re not being picky, you’re not even looking at the papers.
stevenreincarnated commented:
The one that shows where the predicted TSI would be right now is well within the range of measured TSI during recent solar cycles.
Prove it.
Prove it? If a chart shows a monthly average, an 11 year component, and a bicentennial component then why on earth would you think they were talking about a direct TSI measurement? Why don’t you try at least glancing at the paper you are making fun of and saying is wrong? Hmmm?
You’ve already wasted all my nap time today David by making fun of a paper you never bothered to read and now you want to increase my reading list? Start with your own lol.
steve, for 2021 that paper predicts a near minimum in the solar cycle with a TSI of 1363 W/m2, down from the late 20th century baseline of 1365.5 W/m2.
Figure 3.
Nothing of the sort is happening.
Figure 3 also shows the TSI has been at a below the predicted value many times over the last few hundred years so it is within a normal range. Not a particularly wild prediction. At least not according to the references they used it seems.
Figure 3 shows 2021 TSI 2.5 W/m2 below the baseline the author took for the late half of the 20th century and early 21st.
That’s wrong by any scale.
Here’s the full quote:
“Based on their data, the geophysicists are unable to put a figure on the extent to which the rising geothermal heat warms the bottom of the glacier: “The temperature on the underside of the glacier is dependent on a number of factors – for example whether the ground consists of compact, solid rock, or of metres of water-saturated sediment. Water conducts the rising heat very efficiently. But it can also transport heat energy away before it can reach the bottom of the glacier,” explains co-author and AWI geophysicist Dr Karsten Gohl.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/925529
02
Glad you are finally catching up on the science. There are several papers preceding your link. It’s not the melting per se that is the issue. Rather whether there is an acceleration of the ice stream movement and thus greater ice discharge. Remember the original discussion of mine was prompted by every IPCC neglecting to even mention the possibility of the geothermal activity having any impact on the contribution to SLR. This paper is just the latest identifying the need to know more about the processes at play. Several have said it is important toward building models of the ice sheet dynamics.
The concept is not difficult. Does the Subglacial heat reduce the viscosity enough to accelerate the ice stream. Maybe by the next IPCC report there will be an estimate of the impact.
Steve, I’ve been commenting about Figure 3 of the Abdussamatov paper.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
Ckid, look at you backtracking. You’ve gone from chastising me for not knowing about all the studies of geothermal heating under the Thwaites Ice sheet to now admitting we need to know more.
Earlier:
“The same thing happened on the geothermal thermal activity under the ice sheets. If you would have done the minimum amount of research over the last 10 years you would have known all about the studies. Instead you were completely unaware of the dynamics involved.”
Now:
“This paper is just the latest identifying the need to know more about the processes at play.”
Again I’ve been censored.
Again I’ve been censored.
Signing off — not putting up with Judith’s sh!t.
David, read the blog rules. Do not insult other commenters. Also, word press often puts messages into moderation for no apparent reason. I clear the moderation filter 2-3 times per day. I do not censor anyone here if they abide by blog rules.
David, yes, so? Like I said it isn’t very far into the prediction and the values predicted for right now fall well within the normal range. I think you are premature saying they are wrong much less appearing to ridicule them but do what you want. I’ll return the favor for someone else’s model that you don’t think is ridiculous some time and be more than happy to remind you what your standard is. It won’t change, will it? Your standard will remain rock steady, correct?
The further south the Arctic jet stream descends on the west coast, the stronger convection will be on the central plains. The strength of the winter front is tremendous.
https://i.ibb.co/sjRrpY0/Screenshot-1.png
Currently, heavy thunderstorms continue to attack the plains.
https://i.ibb.co/bbzkcwB/Screenshot-1.png
https://map.blitzortung.org/#6.16/35.864/-92.9
It is interesting to see what causes the ozone blockage in the lower stratosphere. It is changes in ozone during times of low solar activity that cause anomalies in the winter circulation.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
We have seen a faint increase in solar activity since the beginning of the cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/wCyFp30/onlinequery.gif
Depends on where the data comes from, who’s doing the counting, and what they are counting. Here’s data from NOAA for all tornadoes.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/tornadoes/2010/annual/2010annual_torncount.png
Looks like higher highs and higher lows to me.
And the F3 tornadoes are on a downward trend as shown in the post.
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Tornadoes-CCW-420.png
I don’t believe in data limited by type and geography. I like to use worldwide extreme weather events. I already posted the relevant data, so I won’t post it again.
The graph I posted was for all tornadoes in the US. Better than just F3+. Not as good as extreme weather events worldwide.
The upward trend in your all tornadoes graph might be a function of increased sophistication in the technology to detect tornadic activity with greater resolution, including that little dust devil in your backyard that picks up and blows the trash and tissue paper around. Or it might not.
Radar technology has advanced leaps and bounds since post WWII. It’s only been roughly 40 years, since mid 1980’s, that Doppler principles began to be used for weather detection; the technology has advanced significantly since its first use. It’s not surprising that NOAA data shows increasing numbers of tornadoes within the window of doppler radar technological advancement.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/nexrad
NEXRAD – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
M.K. Politovich, Margarida Belo-Pereira, in Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2019 Detecting Icing Conditions. Pilots generally have a poor view of the aircraft’s wings so they commonly use the ice accreting on windshields, wipers, or pitot tubes near the nose of the aircraft to assess the presence and amount of ice.
http://www.sciencedirect.com
Radar technology has advanced leaps and bounds since post WWII. It’s only been roughly 40 years, since mid 1980’s, that Doppler principles began to be used for weather detection; the technology has advanced significantly since its first use. It’s not surprising that NOAA data shows increasing numbers of tornadoes within the window of doppler radar technological advancement.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/nexrad
Prior post
Mr. Apple claimed in an earlier comment:
“Half of Arctic ice is gone since 1979.”
That statement is false,
and not even close to reality.
The current 2021 Arctic sea ice extent
is close to the 1981 to 2010 average.
Take your data-free climate alarm somewhere else !
You are not entitled to your own “facts”.
The last sentence from David’s linked article: “Before you realize it, you’re misinforming people by a factor of two.”
Let’s reduce global temperature back to what it was in 1974.
https://www.weather.gov/images/iln/events/19740403/fujita_bigmap.jpg
David Appell said, “Add heat to the planet and the average temperature will change. That makes the average temperature a meaningful and useful concept.”
I disagree. Without getting in to the problems of sample size and sample distribution (I am not a statistician), there is no utility in a global average temperature, as it means nothing to anyone anywhere. It would be just as useless as knowing average global rainfall, global average wind speed, or perhaps the global average color of the planet.
Climate and climate change are always local. I do not believe in a “global climate” or “global climate change.”
There is no utility in the global average temperature other than trying to support a poorly supported theory of co2.
666: if heat is being added to a planet, it’s called global warming. If it’s being added rapidly, like now, due to emissions of CO2, CH4 and other GHGs, it leads to rapid climate change, with has serious consequences for ecosystems and hence species on the planet. The best way to keep track of how fast heat is being added is by measuring temperature and keeping track of average temperature, especially in the ocean. But also near the surface and in the lower atmosphere.
BTW, far from being “poorly supported theory,” there is little uncertainty that CO2 and other anthropogenic gases are what are primarily causing our warming.
Appell: Ok, I guess we can get into the sample size and distribution problem, but first let’s get the religious assumptions out of the way.
You do not have any empirical evidence that co2 or GHGs control climate on decadal or centennial timescales which is what is relevant to humans. Even more so, you do not have any empirical evidence that changes in co2 or GHGs leads to “rapid climate change” (which is a subjective concept). If you do somehow have miraculously obtained some empirical evidence that supports your claim, I would love to see it. If your beliefs are based on models, please don’t.
Now with regards to sample size, distribution, and average temps. It is well accepted that when ENSO changes phase it affects the global average temperature. However, ENSO does not create or destroy heat, it only moves it around. This is a very clear indication that the global average temperatures suffer from poor sample distribution and size. Obviously, the accounting of heat on the planet has some shortcomings; it is not an accurate accounting.
BTW, the preponderance of evidence (botany, archaeology, geology, etc) indicates that GHGs are not responsible for the warming. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the 20,000 year warming trend of northern latitudes is due to orbital control. Also, the preponderance of evidence (botany, archaeology, etc) demonstrates that western North America has been warming and drying exponentially within that 20,000 year warming trend for the past 1,600 years due to changes in circulation/oscillations. Also, the preponderance of evidence shows that changes in climate are decoupled from changes in co2 or GHGs.
Where did you get your certainty? NYT? CNN? Mann? Actors? Politicians? Activists? Yeh, that ain’t science.
This is science:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/
See the earth’s spectrograph. The white area under the CO2 label is the amount of the earth’s radiant that CO2 is preventing from radiating into space. That’s about 18 W/m2 or 9000 TW.
The blue area is the amount of energy that the earth radiates into space. That’s about 240 W/m2 or 120,000 TW — that’s what the earth absorbs from the sun. If you calculated the earth’s temperature based on that, its temperature would be 255 K. The area under the red curve is the amount of energy the earth radiates if its temperature were 288K — its actual temperature. That’s about 390 W/m2 or 195,000 TW. The difference between what the earth radiates and what it should radiate is 150 W/m2 or 75,000 TW. That the amount of energy greenhouse gases prevent the earth from radiating into outer space.
That’s proof. Where’s yours? Maybe, you should rethink your position and withdraw your nonsensical arguments.
David Appell | December 17, 2021 at 5:33 pm:
– “The best way to keep track of how fast heat is being added is by measuring temperature and keeping track of average temperature, … also near the surface and in the lower atmosphere.”
Not really. The atmosphere has very little capacity to store energy and in fact cools significantly every night. Even a simple eclipse causes more cooling locally in a few hours that the increase in temperature since pre-industrial times. The land surface has even less capacity. Global warming of the lower atmosphere and surface means almost nothing without the ocean. It is the ocean that matters for global warming, and the ocean is warmed by the sun, not by the atmosphere, as the flux of energy is nearly everywhere nearly all the time positive from the ocean to the atmosphere. What the increase in GHGs does is to reduce the flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, as the atmosphere does not heat the ocean directly.
You have the science wrong. What GHGs do is recycle some of the earth’s IR. As far as the earth is concerned it is seeing solar radiation plus the recycled IR from GHGs. To get rid of the recycled energy requires the earth’s temperature to rise.
I rarely agree with Mr. Apple but the average temperature is a statistic that measures whether the planet is gaining or losing heat.
I don’t see a need to debate that.
I don’t agree with his claim that the current warming trend is rapid” or dangerous for our planet. Rapid is subjective — I don’t know Mr. Apple’s definition.
Dangerous” is speculation, after over 325 years of harmless global warming since the cold 1690s, which was beneficial, not harmful.
If there are enough accurate measurements, the average temperature is a useful statistic.
Based on what we know of Earth’s history, the average temperature is always changing. Changes in the past 120 years, with the addition of man made CO2 do not seem unprecedented, compared with natural climate changesin the previous 4.5 billion years.
While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more Co2 should cause some amount of global warming, the exact amount is an assumption, not a proven fact.
CO2 is an existential threat to life on the earth. You can take an IR spectrograph of the earth and perform some calculations to determine what the 15 mm CO2 absorption band is capable of. That band alone can raise the temperature of the planet by 30-50 C. It would take a 10-15 C temperature rise to trigger a mass extinction event. If we keep dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates, that is a certainty. The only question is how long it will take. To determine that requires modeling.
666: Satellites in Earth orbit measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths at which CO2 and other GHGs absorbs radiation. Moreover, this outgoing radiation is decreasing, and at the wavelengths predicted by greenhouse gas theory, just as expected since we are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models,” Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941–957 (2014).
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E., Proceedings of SPIE, (2004) 5543, 164 – 174. DOI: 10.1117/12.556803
https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/3006745/paper.pdf
“Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
(not sure how many links I’m allowed to provide)
Javier: Wow, you selectively quoted me to make it appear I didn’t say that ocean heating is the best metric of global warming.
I expected better of you. I won’t do that again.
crypto666 wrote:
Even more so, you do not have any empirical evidence that changes in co2 or GHGs leads to “rapid climate change”
Of course “rapid” is a subjective term.
It’s relative to historical changes. In that respect, our current change is indeed very fast.
For example, our current rate of warming is about 35 times faster than the average warming rate after the last ice age (glacial period) ended.
From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.5 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is about 1.0 C
so the average temperature change is 4.5 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.006 C/decade, compared to NOAA’s current 30-year trend of +0.21 C/decade
So that’s a factor of 35 now compared to then.
666: Why don’t you do the same exercise for the PETM, or any of the other hyperspikes back then, and compare their average warming rate to our’s today.
Start our warming rate in 1850 if you want.
666 wrote:
BTW, the preponderance of evidence (botany, archaeology, geology, etc) indicates that GHGs are not responsible for the warming. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the 20,000 year warming trend of northern latitudes is due to orbital control.
LOL.
We’re not talking about 20,000 years.
We’re not talking about a single cause over all that time.
If you don’t know that, I’m not here to train you to act reasonable. LOL.
666: What is the net orbital forcing right now?
I asked Appell for empirical evidence that co2 or GHGs control climate after I said he had none. He then provides papers concerning radiation.
IR radiation is not a measure of climate or climate change. Also, whatever estimated global average temperature you choose to believe in is also not a measure of climate or climate change.
Appell asks what the “net orbital forcing is right now?” This is a completely non-sensical question that gives the impression he doesn’t know what orbital control of climate is.
Then he goes on to “lol” at the last 20,000 years of warming as being irrelevant, while also claiming that the earth is warming faster than ever.
Yes, I think I will stop at this point; same old religious doctrin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
The above graph is the variation in planetary temperature over millions of years. You can see that over the last 10,000 years the temperature has been fairly constant. Notice the upward spike at the very end. That due to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Notice the projections if we do nothing to solve the climate crisis. I’d say that’s something to be concerned about.
Pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Here’s the reference for the graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
666: You avoided all the information I provided and slipped away without confronting any of the science. Extremely lame. So go ahead and run. I don’t expect you to stop or even look back over your shoulder.
666 wrote: Appell asks what the “net orbital forcing is right now?” This is a completely non-sensical question that gives the impression he doesn’t know what orbital control of climate is.
Of course it’s completely sensical. Orbital factors provide a forcing on climate, so many Watts per sq-meter of energy above or below some baseline.
What is that number right now?
Do current orbital factors say the Earth should be warming or cooling relative to some recent baseline?
666 wrote: Then he goes on to “lol” at the last 20,000 years of warming as being irrelevant, while also claiming that the earth is warming faster than ever.
We don’t live 20,000 years ago, we live now.
How fast is climate changing compared to average times over the last 20k years?
I provided an estimate.
You didn’t.
You don’t like my answer so you decided to leave the playground and go home.
You guys are always clowning around. Show me the sediment reconstruction that provides evidence the recent warming is unusual compared to the reconstructions of earlier times.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
Show me the sediment reconstruction that provides evidence the recent warming is unusual compared to the reconstructions of earlier times.
Why sediments?
The warming from the last glacial maximum was about 5 C in 10,000 years, an average warming rate of 0.005 C/decade.
NOAA’s 30-year global warming trend is now 0.21 C/decade.
That’s about 40 times faster.
So, yes, rapid warming.
stevenreincarnated:
Here’s an interesting graph that shows the relative warming scales:
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1473001373818052608
We’ve discussed this before, David. You can’t show there weren’t warming and cooling periods of equal magnitude and rapidity many times in the past because the proxies don’t have that resolution. If they did then it should be no problem showing today’s warming is unusual with those same proxies. Do it. You could also just average in the current warming period with the last 4 billion years and let us know how fast we are warming on average if you want. LOL You’re so funny!
stevenreincarnated commented:
You can’t show there weren’t warming and cooling periods of equal magnitude and rapidity many times in the past because the proxies don’t have that resolution. If they did then it should be no problem showing today’s warming is unusual with those same proxies.
I didn’t say today’s warming rate is unprecedented LOL. I said it was rapid. And it is. It’s rapid w.r.t. the PETM warming rate too and other such hyperthermals back then.
Are there times/events with high rates? Probably, such as (esp) cooling events associated highly unusual events like the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs. Or Younger Dryas cooling.
So what? The point is nature has rarely seen such rates of warming as is taking place now, and we don’t really know the consequences.
You can’t say it rarely happens. You have no clue as to how often it happens because of the poor resolution of the proxies. You really can’t say much about it at all in a historical context unless you just want to imagine it is so. Your imagination is convincing to you I’m sure. To me, not so much.
stevenreincarnated commented:
You can’t say it rarely happens. You have no clue as to how often it happens because of the poor resolution of the proxies.
You think the climate is rapidly warming and cooling between the time period covered by the proxies, but then during the time periods it’s covered it’s barely changing? Come on.
And if that were true it would be seen some of the time in the periods covered by the proxies. Yet it rarely is.
You’re grasping at straws.
I haven’t seen any studies that show the current warming period shows up in the proxies. Does it exist?
David Appell
Why sediments?
The warming from the last glacial maximum was about 5 C in 10,000 years, an average warming rate of 0.005 C/decade.
NOAA’s 30-year global warming trend is now 0.21 C/decade.
That’s about 40 times faster.
So, yes, rapid warming.
Sounds like Mike’s Nature trick to me.
Comparing instrumental record with massively smoothed proxies and finding shockingly that it’s changing faster now than ever before.
But you’re not being serious, are you 😁
What you believe doesn’t matter. You can determine the average temperature of a planet from the amount of energy it radiates or from the planet’s radiant profile. It’s done all the time and it’s accurate.
Dr. Curry, I notice on your blog that a lot of people quote studies and research, but rarely if ever do I see anyone reference MODTRAN or other objective means to make their case. Predicting the climate is like predicting the stock market. Everyone has their own model and none of them work very well, and yet Wall Street Firms make fortunes, regardless of their ability to predict market movements. Even interpreting obvious trends in charts seems to confuse people, or they will simply go and find some “researcher” that redefines how things are categorizes so they can turn a down trend into an uptrend. Simply look at how the Hockeystick and Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline was created. Note the sharp and immediate slope changes with the removal of Proxy data. Also note the lack of a Little Ice Age. Anyway, if people can argue that the slope of Tornadoes is up, and that it is due to CO2, there is no way to win those arguments. You are simply dealing with dishonest people. Trends are pretty easy to determine, and unless my eyes are lying, there is no uptrend in the Tornado data.
MODTRAN has been discussed. I have discussed it.
The model is an atmospheric only model. That means it doesn’t do a heat balance. It has a few other problems, and I wouldn’t use its results except in some very general situations.
Long term stock market versus long term climate predictions
have one similarity:
The investment industry predicts stock prices will rise.
And they are correct for the long run there is economic growth and.or inflation in the future. A safe bet.
The Climate Liars predict the climate will always get warmer.
Even though in the past there have been both long term warming trends
and long term cooling trends.
There’s a stock market saying that applies to climate predictions:
“The trend is your friend, until it ends”.
We really need to listen to the left and do what they say so we can become like Europe!
France may need to stop exports to Britain and Italy, according to Jean-Paul Harreman, an analyst at energy consultant Enappsys Ltd. If that happens, it will push up prices in the core markets across the continent.
The French grid operator had already said vigilance would be needed at the beginning of the year in the event of a cold snap. To cope with supply shortages, RTE increased contracts that allow it to briefly cut power of some large manufacturers. After that, it can reduce the voltage on the grid, and then utilize rotating regional power cuts of less than two hours as a last resort.
“I can see grid managers paying industrial companies to not run if it gets really cold in a short period, they have done so in the past and they can do it again,” COR-e’s de Vigan said.
Before this latest blow, markets were already under severe strain. Gas prices that are more than six times higher than usual have pushed up the cost of generating electricity, and Europe’s wide network of renewable energy sources hasn’t been able to fill the gap due to low wind speeds. High energy prices risk further industrial shutdowns, halts to cross-border power flows and even full on blackouts.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/europe-faces-dire-winter-as-nuclear-outages-deepen-energy-crunch-1.1696850
No, really! The best way to save the planet is to shut down manufacturing plants. Who needs jobs anyway?
Dec 17 (Reuters) – Shanghai zinc prices jumped up to 4.5% on Friday to their highest level in more than a month, after miner Nyrstar NYR.BR said it would shut its plant in France due to high power prices, exacerbating concerns of tightness in refined zinc supply.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/metals-zinc-soars-as-nyrstars-plan-to-shut-french-plant-fuels-supply-worries
Our planet doesn’t need saving.
I recommend muzzles on all Climate Alarmists.
So the rest of us can enjoy the best climate for humans and animals in at least 325 years. And green plants are happier too. Without hysterical predictions of climate doom from the Climate Alarmists.
In Mr. Apple’s lecture on outgoing energy measurements, he failed to discuss changes in water vapor. He also failed to discuss incoming energy reaching the surface. That would vary if solar power varies, and with changes of albedo and clouds.
Even more important is Mr. Apple’s attempt to define “rapid warming” by cherry picking a period from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago, and pretending that short period is representative of Earth’s 4.5 billion year climate history.
Leading to the weak conclusion that If the current warming is faster than the very rough estimate for that period, then it must be “rapid” warming
The dangerous warming claim is Mr. Apple’s speculations.
Mr. Apple conveniently neglects to define where the pattern (locations and timing) of recent warming, in the past 45 years.
The most warming was in the colder northern half of the Northern peninsula, mainly during the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night (higher TMIN).
That pattern is NOT dangerous.
Warmer winter nights in Siberia are good news, not a climate emergency.
Mr. Apple has no information to claim future warming will have a different pattern, and will be faster than in the past. That is speculation.
I would like Mr. Apple’s comment on the “unprecedented” global cooling from 1940 to 1975, originally reported as about -0.5 degrees C. over the 35 yea period.
That could be called rapid and dangerous global cooling, and a few scientists said that in the mid-1970s.
But that cooling period, as reported by NCAR in the mid-1970s, was mysteriously revised away, and now NASA-GISS reports no cooling in that period. How can we take the global average temperature statistic seriously after such arbitrary “revisions”?
I’ll wait patiently for Mr. Apple to explain why temperatures fell from 1940 to 1975, as CO2 levels rose, and then decades later the cooling was “revised away”.
Don’t try to throw that lame aerosols excuse at us — that was nonsense. Such a lame excuse that the global average temperature numbers were significantly “revised” — the global cooling “disappeared?
.Because that aerosols excuse fell apart faster than a cheap suitcase !
I should have typed “Northern Hemisphere”,
not northern peninsula. Must have been a computer error?
You could do this yourself. Here’s why temperatures fell from 1940-1975.
https://medium.com/climate-conscious/midcentury-global-cooling-fa77822cca69
Moral of the story. CO2 does not always control planetary temperature. Right now — it’s in the driver’s seat.
Would you like to revise your nonsensical argument?
The article at the link is nonsense.
First of all, it ignores the original measurements of -0.5 degrees GLOBAL cooling from 1940 to 1975 (NCAR) and only considers the arbitrary later “revision” to only -0.1 degree C. global cooling
Second, the article discusses air pollution and then provides a chart that proves air pollution is NOT a good explanation.
The article contradicts itself.
The chart shows a growing level of air pollution peaking in the 1970s.
The global cooling is blamed on air pollution
But a global warming trend began in 1975
WHEN AIR POLLUTION WAS AT IT’S PEAK !
Three choices:
(1) Air pollution causes global cooling AND global warming,
(2( All the air pollution fell out of the sky in 1975, or
(3) Air pollution was NOT the cause of global warming from 1940 to 1975
Choose one !
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
On the above graph it appears the temperature rise leveled off between 1940 -1975. Before that temperature tracks solar radiation.
Here the thing you don’t get. The effects are not mutually exclusives. CO2 can be acting to the warm the planet at the same time aerosols can be cooling it off. Whichever effect is dominant, has the most impact. It looks like between 1940 – 1975 neither was dominant. I think it was around 1970 that they started removing sulfur and lead from hydrocarbon fuels and placed SO2 scrubbers on coal fired plants. Aerosols only last in the atmosphere for days as opposed to CO2 which can stay in the atmosphere for decades. It’s not surprising that by 1975 CO2 was the dominant effect.
If Richard perseveres in his methodology, in another three years, he’ll only be a century behind the times:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/11/what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they.html
I have no idea what you are talking about and after reading the link,whoever wrote that article is in the same boat.
Russell
Science moves on and as a good scientist you should heed the motto of the Royal Society “take nobody’s word as final.”
I have a leather bound book ‘”History of science”. It is dated 1886. I would imagine that many of the things written in the book, might like your 1925 article, have been overtaken by events.
tonyb
Richard Greene
What you wrote is obvious to people who have lived 60 years (the whole cycle). The young can be easily fooled by claiming that global warming is causing a severe 2021-2022 winter in the northern hemisphere. It doesn’t matter that La Niña is not weakening.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
I think a lot of obvious things are not obvious to many people who believe everything they are told by the media … and they know nothing beyond what the media tells them. And not just on climate change.
Yesterday a very intelligent and wealthy couple we know did not believe it when I told them the US had more COVID deaths so far in 2021 (about 425,000), with vaccines, than in 2020, with no vaccines (about 375,000).
The same Michigan friends could not believe that I consider global warming to be great news for those of us living in Michigan, and I complained that 2021 has been too cold. They could not believe the future climate could get better, rather than worse, and that predictions could be completely wrong. Both are leftists in their 60’s.
I wonder what the deaths in 2021 would have been without vaccines. Since the vast majority of deaths have been among the unvaccinated in 2021, I suspect the numbers would make 2020 look trivial.
I think that such people will not be convinced even by a huge increase in energy prices.
Richard
My old leftist friends don’t want to discuss global warming at all. They accuse me of getting all my information from Fox News even though I have read hundreds of peer reviewed studies, I’m sure hundreds more than they have read.
I’m fascinated with the social psychological aspects of the issue because they all parrot the same narrative: We get our information from Fox News or Big Oil is paying off all denier scientists or we are flat earthers.
It’s clear they prefer not to do any independent research, preferring to be told what they want to be told.
Richard Greene wrote:
I just realized Mr. Apple doesn’t respond to my comments here
You persist in being personally disrespectful, as well as juvenile.
So your comments get sent straight to trash.
I just realized Mr. Apple doesn’t respond to my comments here, so I’ll explain “the aerosols prevented global warming myth” for the period from 1940 to 1975, originally reported by NCAR as about -0.5 degrees C. of global cooling.
The theory that air pollution aerosols blocked some sunlight, offsetting the warming effect of CO2, seemed to make sense.
But then a global warming trend began in 1975 and continued at least through 2020.
How would that be possible if the aerosols were still blocking sunlight?
It would not be possible unless the aerosols suddenly fell out of the sky in 1975.
That did not happen, so after 1975, the aerosol theory made no sense.
And that’s why the global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period had to be “revised away”.
Significant cooling over a 35 year period, with rising CO2, could not be explained — they were inconvenient data. So the global cooling just “disappeared”.
I suppose scientists in the 1940 to 1975 period were unable to read thermometers and compile an accurate global average temperature?
So the temperature data had to be “revised” decades later?
Obvious science fraud.
And the Climate Alarmists loved it !
Aerosols only last in the atmosphere a matter of days. Once we went on a crusade to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions, the aerosol problem was reduced to insignificant quickly.
BTW the only thing the aerosols did was slow the rate of warming from increasing CO2 emissions.
The story of the 30-year cooling is one ‘that should not be’. In a detective effort some folks determined the ocean temperature measurement methods changed from predominantly US derived during the war to other nations taking over. That is, the bucket vs. engine room readings. That was the tool to ‘correct’ temperatures. Alas, both methods have lousy accuracy, in the neighborhood of 1.5 degrees C.
And yes, the CO2 levels rose 6% during this time period.
Ocean tempertature measurement has repeatedly changed and the locations have significantly expanded from primarily Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes with buckets to global coverage with ARGO.
I have never seen a study where the same ocean location was measured with every different measurement methodology to determine whether repeated changes in measurement methodologies changed the trend.
I believe land surface temperature compilations are nearly worthless before the use of weather satellites in 1979, due to excessive infilling.
I believe ocean surface temperature compilations are nearly worthless before the use of ARGO floats, about 20 years ago.
There’s no doubt the planet warmed since the late 1600s.
And warmed in the past 20,000 years.
I believe the margin of error for the surface global average temperature measurements is no where near the claimed +/- 0.1 degrees C.
With so much infilling of surface measurements — guesses that can never be verified — I don’t see how anyone can claim to know ANY margin of error.
for the measurements.
Dr Curry, here is a great example of my above comment:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/16/tornado/#comment-966355
JJBrachilli wrote:
“CO2 is an existential threat to life on the earth. You can take an IR spectrograph of the earth and perform some calculations to determine what the 15 mm CO2 absorption band is capable of. That band alone can raise the temperature of the planet by 30-50 C. It would take a 10-15 C temperature rise to trigger a mass extinction event.”
https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/16/tornado/#comment-966365
The is easily proven or Disproven by simply using MODTRAN.
First, you don’t even need MODTRAN, you can look at the geological record. CO2 has been 17x higher than today and Temperatures were maybe 4C above today. BTW, sea life including coral thrived during that time period. Mass extinctions have never been caused by CO2, unless it somehow can change the path or meteors and frequency of volcanoes and disease. BTW, nowhere in 600 million years did temperatures vary by 30-50C, the max variation looks to be about 10C, and that took a meteor and huge plumes of sun blocking dust.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391
Second, lets take a look at MODTRAN and test that theory.
Set the CO2 to 0.00 PPM, and set it to looking up. Save that run to the background. Then set the CO2 to 400 PPM and enter -2C for the Temp offset. What you will see is that the change in W/M^2 is 0.00. So we can say CO2 increasing from 0 to 400 ppm maybe increased temperatures by 2C. Problem is, the W/M^2 attributed to CO2 shows a log decay.
Now remove the -2C temp offset, keep 400 PPM and save that to the background. Now change it to 800 PPM CO2, and change the ground offset by -0.45C. You will see that the difference is now 0.00 W/M^2, so doubling CO2 from this level may add 0.45C to the atmospheric temperature ASSUMING ALL ELSE HELD EQUAL.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Clearly the best tool we have for supporting or refuting such claims of catastrophic climate change is MODTRAN, and MODTRAN and the Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 Molecule simply don’t support many of the claims made on this Blog. I challlenge everyone to simply ask posters to explain how MODTRAN and the QM of the CO2 molecule (the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns) can cause the effect they are claiming it does. People simple seem to repeat what they have been told by some very unethical data sources, and they don’t seem to bother learning the basics.
MODTRAN is free and you get what you pay for.
Let me repeat what I said. MODTRAN is not a climate model. It is an atmospheric only model. It doesn’t do a heat balance. It doesn’t take into account the effect of temperature on earth’s radiant energy.
The only thing I have ever heard someone who actually understands science use it for is to show the impact of pressure and doppler broadening.
“Mass extinctions have never been caused by CO2, unless it somehow can change the path or meteors and frequency of volcanoes and disease.”
Really?
https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906
“First, you don’t even need MODTRAN, you can look at the geological record. CO2 has been 17x higher than today and Temperatures were maybe 4C above today.”
You put 17x the CO2 in today’s atmosphere into today’s atmosphere and temperatures are going to be way above 4 C higher. The point you ignore, and you continue to ignore, is that the conditions were a lot different when CO2 was a lot higher. CO2 is not always the driver. If the sun started putting out a significant increasing amount of solar radiation, increasing CO2 would be nothing more than a secondary cause — like methane is today. It would not be the driver of climate change. You’re pretending that conditions millions of years ago were the same as they are today. Unless you have PROOF of that, quit making frivolous arguments.
“I challlenge everyone to simply ask posters to explain how MODTRAN and the QM of the CO2 molecule (the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns) can cause the effect they are claiming it does.”
I accept the challenge. MODTRAN is not a climate model. It’s an atmospheric model. You don’t understand the science. The CO2 greenhouse effect depends on how CO2 absorbs and radiates energy. It also depends on the how the earth radiates energy. How the earth radiates energy is not static. That’s a fact you seem to have overlooked. Climate scientists have not. That’s why you’re not a climate scientist and your “arguments” get ignored.
JJBraccili says:
“MODTRAN is free and you get what you pay for.
Let me repeat what I said. MODTRAN is not a climate model. It is an atmospheric only model. It doesn’t do a heat balance. It doesn’t take into account the effect of temperature on earth’s radiant energy.”
Really? NASA and the Air Force developed it for the most challenging engineering problems in existence, and you downplay its importance? Really? If it doesn’t so heat balance, then what modeling system do you have to support your claims? It doesn’t take account of the effect of temperature on earth’s radiant energy? Just what does that even mean? The GHG is a measure of W/M^2, not temperature. How do you convert W/M^2 of 13 to 18 LWIR into temperature? Also, please explain how 13 to 18 LWIR can warm the oceans?
https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906
Let me get this straight. Catastrophic volcanic global activity, and you blame the extinction on CO2 caused warming? Subs have 10,000 ppm CO2, the highest level in the atmosphere was 7,000 ppm, life has no problem surviving in 10,000 ppm or our Nuclear Subs would be dead in the oceans. Boiling oceans being flooded with toxic volcanic exhaust and clouds filled with dust is by far the most likely cause. BTW, life returned when CO2 was still high. It wasn’t the CO2 it was everything else the Volcanoes did. Just look at the impact of Tamora, and that was just one Volcano. Also, the other mass extinction occurred during very low CO2 and low temperatures. Trust me, if we experience catastrophic volcanic activity, we won’t die from CO2.
“You put 17x the CO2 in today’s atmosphere into today’s atmosphere and temperatures are going to be way above 4 C higher. The point you ignore, and you continue to ignore, is that the conditions were a lot different when CO2 was a lot higher. CO2 is not always the driver. ”
Really? The physics of the CO2 molecule and atmosphere have changed over time? Oh, please explain…and how do you know this? Did you test the GHG effect 500 million years ago?
“If the sun started putting out a significant increasing amount of solar radiation, increasing CO2 would be nothing more than a secondary cause — like methane is today. It would not be the driver of climate change. You’re pretending that conditions millions of years ago were the same as they are today. Unless you have PROOF of that, quit making frivolous arguments.”
You are asking me for proof? You are claiming that somehow incoming radiation, something CO2 is transparent to, warmed the earth in the past, and CO2 wasn’t important? BTW, my understanding is that the sun is ,hotter today than 500 million years ago. Somehow CO2 of 7,000 PPM didn’t matter, even when you had more radiation warming the oceans and earth, but now, CO2 matters at 400 PPM? Did the QM of the CO2 molecule and other GHGs change?
“I accept the challenge. MODTRAN is not a climate model. It’s an atmospheric model. You don’t understand the science. The CO2 greenhouse effect depends on how CO2 absorbs and radiates energy.”
Last I checked, that is exactly what MODTRAN Does. Just what do you think those Planck Curves are showing? Just what do you think those Black Body curves are based on? (Hint: Note the Temperature associated with them). Problem is different wavelengths have different QM and properties, so some wavelengths will warm water, and others won’t. Converting W/M^2 to temperature change hasn’t really easy because 10 W/M^2 of 13 to 18 Micron isn’t the same of 0.4 to 0.7 W/M^2. One penetrates and warms the oceans, the other won’t.
“Really? NASA and the Air Force developed it for the most challenging engineering problems in existence, and you downplay its importance? Really? If it doesn’t so heat balance, then what modeling system do you have to support your claims?”
NASA had nothing to do with MODTRAN. NASA has its own more comprehensive model that considers the variations in earth’s radiant energy with temperature. MODTRAN did not break new ground. It is a program based on existing technology.
There are 5 or 6 models much more comprehensive than MODTRAN. The NASA model is available for download on the GISS website.
It doesn’t consider the effect of temperature on the earth’s radiant energy. Just what does that even mean?
The earth behaves similarly to a blackbody. As the planet’s temperature rises, it radiates more energy, and the radiant profile of the earth shifts toward shorter wavelengths. It currently means that the earth radiates more energy that CO2 can absorb every time the earth’s temperature increases. MODTRAN doesn’t account for that.
“Let me get this straight. Catastrophic volcanic global activity, and you blame the extinction on CO2 caused warming? Subs have 10,000 ppm CO2, the highest level in the atmosphere was 7,000 ppm, life has no problem surviving in 10,000 ppm or our Nuclear Subs would be dead in the oceans.”
I don’t blame mass extinction events on anything. What have subs have to do with climate change? As it’s always been, my point is that the past has no bearing on our current situation. The earth has no memory. It’s all cause and effect. What happened a million years ago or yesterday doesn’t matter.
“Really? The physics of the CO2 molecule and atmosphere have changed over time? Oh, please explain…and how do you know this? Did you test the GHG effect 500 million years ago?”
The physics of a CO2 molecule hasn’t changed, but the conditions may have. CO2 isn’t the only mechanism capable of driving climate change. It could be solar radiation or another greenhouse gas, etc. Once again — the past has no impact on what is happening now.
“Problem is different wavelengths have different QM and properties, so some wavelengths will warm water, and others won’t. Converting W/M^2 to temperature change hasn’t really easy because 10 W/M^2 of 13 to 18 Micron isn’t the same of 0.4 to 0.7 W/M^2. One penetrates and warms the oceans, the other won’t.”
Liquid water absorbs about 95% of ALL incident radiation. That energy converts into kinetic energy. It isn’t wavelength specific. Water absorbs IR in the CO2 15 mm absorption band.
I hadn’t looked at MODTRAN for a few years. When I last evaluated it, I rejected it. There should be a warning label for amateurs who have no idea what they are doing and try to use it to disprove climate science. Let’s see what its limitations are.
Let’s change the initial example they use and make it meaningful. Change Holding Fixed to Relative Humidity. Change the Locality to 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. What you should see is an Upward IR Heat Flux of 267.8 W/m2 and a Ground Temperature of 288.2. The ground temperature is about right, and the heat flux at TOA should be approximately 240 W/m2.
Now let’s lower the altitude to 0 km – the earth’s surface. The Upward IR Heat Flux changes to 382.1 W/m2, and the ground temperature doesn’t change. That’s about right. The IR heat flux from the surface should be 390 W/m2. Now change the CO2 ppm to any value you want, and the IR heat flux and ground temperature NEVER change. If you want them to change, you have to change the temperature offset. In other words, you have to know CO2’s impact on planetary temperature to use the model.
The bottom line is that MODTRAN is not a climate model. It is an atmospheric model. For a given ground temperature / IR heat flux, it predicts how CO2 absorbs IR. It can’t be used to predict ground temperatures. Climate models are time-dependent. MODTRAN is not.
Your analysis and example are amateur hour. It only proves that you do not have the scientific background to evaluate climate science.
JJBraccili says:
““You put 17x the CO2 in today’s atmosphere into today’s atmosphere and temperatures are going to be way above 4 C higher. The point you ignore, and you continue to ignore, is that the conditions were a lot different when CO2 was a lot higher. CO2 is not always the driver. ””
How could you possibly know that? Have the QM of the CO2 molecule changed? Last I looked W/M^2 shows a log decay with an increase in CO2. Has that somehow changed over the past 500 million years? Trust me, if you have to deny well established physical laws, you don’t have much of an argument. BTW, your claims can be tested experimentally. Have any of the Climate Scientists bothered to test that theory in a lab? I’ve outlined the experiment countless times. Why do Climate Scientists always avoid applying the scientific method to their research? It is a “Science” right?
“Last I looked W/M^2 shows a log decay with an increase in CO2.”
That’s only true for a static IR source. The earth is not a static IR source. The amount of IR that the earth radiates the CO2 can absorbs increases with increasing temperature.
A powerful high will block zonal circulation in Europe for a long period due to very weak solar wind. Overnight temperatures in the UK, Scandinavia, Central Europe may reach very low values. Energy demand will increase significantly.
La Niña will play a part in this.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Isle of Mull, Scotland, United Kingdom
Feels Like: 2 °C
Wind: 2 m/s ↑ from Southeast
Current Time: 18 gru 2021 17:04:35
Latest Report: 18 gru 2021 13:50
Pressure: 1040 mbar
The following was taken down from NOAA’s site, it can still be found using the Way Back Machine. Why was it taken down? The proactive methods used to hide historical data is sad testimony to how politics has corrupted the dissemination of science, and the historical record.
I referenced some of the following upthread using other sources; but this is how NOAA described the historical record only a few years ago:
…Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was very sparsely populated during the 20th century.
Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA’s Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by National Weather Service personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years EF-0 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.
With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200410134618/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
Tornadoes are weather events, not climate.
Unless you are a Climate Alarmist.
If you are a Climate Alarmist, you believe:
(1) All bad weather, or unusually hot weather, is “climate”
And all good weather, or unusually cold weather, is just “weather”,
(2) The future climate can only get worse, never better, and
(3) A climate crisis is coming is 10 or 20 years,
… and has been coming in 10 or 20 years, for the past 64 years,
and will be “coming” in 10 or 20 years, for the next 64 years !
AR6 WGI Chapter 12 has this to say, my emphasis:
Here’s the introduction to Elsner et al., 2019, emphasis mine:
TL;DR, plots showing decreasing numbers of tornadoes by damage rating *are* potentially misleading because there’s no clear relationship between those statistics and total damage done during the course of a single event.
Also one may or may not appreciate the recurring irony of Dr. Curry implying that her uncertainty monsters are exclusively an IPCC problem.
Tornado power is a matter of the cube of wind speed.
I think you will find that with the decrease of powerful tornadoes since 1950, tornadic power also decreased.
To be sure, there can be variations of size, shape, and path length.
But these complications are matters of multifactoral dynamics which take one even further away from global average temperature.
It is probably a matter of confirmation bias that people even consider what effect global average temperature might have if other factors are much more significant.
I don’t know how to define McGee’s ‘Tornado power’ being to the cube of wind speed. Over decades I designed many structures to withstand high winds and always used the force exerted by wind to be the square of velocity. My structures have survived well by the ‘square physics’, not crumbled by the cube.
See equation 1 in the Elsner paper.
I just ran a few numbers on the NOAA strong tornado counts.
1950 through 2019: Slope= -0.45 per year [r=-0.41]
1994 through 2016: Slope= +0.04 per year [r=0.02]
So, the results of the shorter period of the paper are not at all inconsistent with the longer term decrease of strong tornadoes.
McGee,
> To be sure, there can be variations of size, shape, and path length.
Exactly. From the paper:
I think they’re being a little sloppy with their use of power to refer to both energy released per unit time (which is correct) and the time integral of power (which gives total energy). In any case their conclusions are clear enough.
> 1994 through 2016: Slope= +0.04 per year [r=0.02]
Very good. Just remember that the IPCC places a overall low confidence in tornado trends, so we can’t say with any degree of certainty that tornadoes are getting weaker or stronger as a function of global temperature. And one of my main points is that Judith has done exactly that while simultaneously insisting that any any conclusions about increasing strength or power in tornadic storms is “data d*n*al”. She can’t have it both ways.
Dietrich,
I agree that it’s velocity squared which does the damage, however notice, according to my citation, that longer lasting/longer track tornadoes on average generate the highest wind speeds. The combined factors add up to greater energy dissipation, and if I’ve read the paper correctly they are arguing that this gives a better estimation of damage done during an event that simply tallying up the EF ratings of the involved storms.
Thank you both for taking the time to review the paper and respond to my comments. Cheers.
It’s probably confirmation bias to adhere to the short period in the context of the longer term decrease of strong US tornadoes.
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/strong-us-tornadoes
McGee,
> It’s probably confirmation bias to adhere to the short period in the context of the longer term decrease of strong US tornadoes.
It looks more to me like the authors were biased toward higher quality data than were available prior to the beginning of the interval they studied:
This section of the opening paragraph also leads me to believe that the researchers are not biased by some predetermined conclusion about the relationship between warming and tornadoes.
Denizens should also be discouraged against charges of confirmation bias by noting some of their favorite indicators of internal variability did not escape the authors’ notice:
Denizens should also be discouraged against charges of confirmation bias
We’re all human.
Biases, which I also harbor, are the rule, not the exception,
and we can all benefit by having them pointed out.
Citing the short term, low significance, small increase of strong US tornadoes while ignoring the longer term, more significant, larger decrease of strong tornadoes is an example of confirmation bias.
I’m not a fan of so called “skeptical science” but they produced this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u1ghwtZZpo
Those emphasizing short term temperature decrease while ignoring longer term temperature increase exemplify confirmation bias.
The same process appears to be at work with response to the longer term tornado decrease.
McGee,
> Citing the short term, low significance, small increase of strong US tornadoes while ignoring the longer term, more significant, larger decrease of strong tornadoes is an example of confirmation bias.
Your faith in the 1950-present tornado count trends may be misplaced. Anderson, et al. 2007, Population Influences on Tornado Reports in the United States:
“Your faith in the 1950-present tornado count trends may be misplaced.”
“worthy of F2–F5 rating but were classified as F0–F1”
Early reports were probably more prone to this error, certainly than those of the doppler radar era. If so, the effect would be an even sharper decrease of strong tornadoes, though there will never be a counter-factual against which to assess such an idea.
McGee,
> Early reports were probably more prone to this error, certainly than those of the doppler radar era. If so, the effect would be an even sharper decrease of strong tornadoes
Yeah oops, I quoted the wrong bit of the paper. Here’s the correct quote:
Weather Underground has a nice article which says effectively the same thing in slightly plainer language and gives some further details:
> though there will never be a counter-factual against which to assess such an idea.
… other than modeling based on other metrics related to tornadogenesis for which there is higher quality data. That said, hopefully you’re beginning to understand why the doppler radar era beginning in 1994 is preferred over older records when trying to better understand how tornadoes vary with climate changes, natural or otherwise.
“… other than modeling based on other metrics related to tornadogenesis for which there is higher quality data. “
Models are not a counterfactuals.
McGee,
> Models are not a counterfactuals.
I agree; models are a way to probe the truth value of a counterfactual:
Causal Models
I should have been more careful in my answer to you. A counterfactual can be anything you want it to be. This may be a point of disagreement depending on your definitions.
Very good.
Time for x-mas cheer!
brandonsmithrobinson: Also one may or may not appreciate the recurring irony of Dr. Curry implying that her uncertainty monsters are exclusively an IPCC problem.
I don’t think she has ever implied the exclusivity you mention.
She did it in this very post.
Brandon – post the quote from this post where Dr. Curry states the uncertainty monster applies only to the IPCC. I don’t see it.
jim2,
Of course she didn’t come right out and say that, it’s *implied* by her rather strongly worded assertion that Dr. Mann is suffering from “data d*n*al”.
You should lay off the eggnog, Brandon.
Speaking of tornados and Michigan in the same sentence:
https://www.mlive.com/weather/2021/12/strong-storm-recap-michigans-highest-gusts-tornadoes-and-heavy-snowfall.html
The storm in the Midwest has produced some almost unbelievable types of severe weather for mid-December.
The storm has obviously created a large area of high wind gusts, including through much of Michigan. The storm also produced some heavy snow, which isn’t a surprise with a December storm system. But the big shocker is 25 tornado reports were logged in Nebraska and Iowa. Severe thunderstorms also made damaging winds in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which are areas covered with snow.
I’m not entirely sure why an article entitled “TORNADO” has gathered quite so many references to the Arctic. However since that’s my alter ego’s specialist subject I feel sure that the assembled throng will be as delighted as I was to discover that Ray Bates and the GWPF have recently echoed one of my long standing criticisms of Steve Koonin’s “Unsettled”:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/12/the-gwpf-boldly-go-where-steve-koonin-feared-to-tread/
Prof. Bates confidently asserts that:
Although Unsettled covers a broad spectrum of climate topics, it does not treat in depth the issue of recent polar sea-ice trends, which are key indicators of changes in the global climate.
What can you say about polar ice this year? What relationship do you see with tornadoes in December?
https://i.ibb.co/d0mjY8R/masie-all-zoom-4km.png
Presumably that question was addressed to Judith, and only appeared under my own comment by some strange coincidence?
Here is a simple (a compatible with GHE theory) question:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy.
Earth’s surface is warmed up +33C from Te=255K to Tmean=288K because of the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere.
Moon’s measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220K. Diviner gives for Moon Tmean=193K.
What cools Moon’s surface down -50C from Te=270K to Tmean=220K, or, according to Diviner, what cools Moon’s surface down -77C from Te=270K to Tmean =193K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas commented:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy.
No it doesn’t.
This is a great example of your incorrect, sloppy thinking.
The Moon absorbs sunlight at each point, depending on the angular flux.
The Earth absorbs sunlight all across the disc facing the sun, pi*R^2, R=Earth’s radius.
The Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon doesn’t.
There’s no reason to engage your silly physics, Christos, with errors like this.
The “new” David Apple 2
is definitely not new and improved,
compared with the “old” David Apple 1.
I’m getting tired of hearing about the moon. How about Mars, Saturn and Uranus? After all, climate science of Earth is already settled, and the future climate is known with great accuracy, so it’s time to study other planets.
And then other solar systems !
Mr. Apple made a few good points in an earlier comment:
he wrote:
“Do you remember the “surface hiatus” from about 2003-2013.” …
“Same thing now with Arctic sea ice since 2012”
As a Climate Realist, I was the first to complain about those data mining short periods and claiming they were new long term trends — similar to making long term climate predictions (climate predictions are almost always wrong),
In the mid-1970s, a few climate scientists looked at the global warming from 1940 to 1975 (prior to the arbitrary temperature “revisions” in later decades), as CO2 levels rose, and predicted a coming global cooling crisis.
They got a huge amount of media attention (scary predictions always do). but before the ink was dry on their predictions, a global warming trend began, and continued at least through 2020. The history of climate predictions is one of inaccurate predictions.
We are not climate “deniers” as Mr. Apple calls us.
And he is not a climate alarmist.
He is a believer in a coming climate crisis, based on predictions of future global warming, much faster than the warming from 1975 through 2020.
There is actually no way to know what the climate will be like in 50 or 100 years. And no logical reason to assume the future climate can only get worse not better. But some people just love predictions. Especially predictions of doom. I bet they loved hearing scary stories as children?
Yes, there are a few real deniers. Science deniers. The other day i read a comment that there is no greenhouse effect, humans have not added CO2 to the troposphere, CO2 can not warm the planet, and there was no climate change. If that’s not a real science denier, I don’t know what is.
But real science deniers are rare.
On the Climate Alarmist side, there are science deniers who believe in a coming extinction, which is a complete fantasy, an imaginary crisis created entirely with computer games.
There some are science deniers on both sides of the climate debate … and lots of data miners too.
davidappell02:
“”Christos Vournas commented:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy.”
No it doesn’t.
This is a great example of your incorrect, sloppy thinking.
The Moon absorbs sunlight at each point, depending on the angular flux.
The Earth absorbs sunlight all across the disc facing the sun, pi*R^2, R=Earth’s radius.
The Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon doesn’t.
There’s no reason to engage your silly physics, Christos, with errors like this.”
davidappell02:
“The Moon absorbs sunlight at each point, depending on the angular flux.
The Earth absorbs sunlight all across the disc facing the sun, pi*R^2, R=Earth’s radius.”
An umbrella and a flat shade of the same diameter cast the same shade, but umbrella reflects more solar energy than a flat shade.
Thus, for the flat shade the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*(1 -a)S (W)
And for the dome shaped umbrella (spherical) the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S (W)
where Φ =0,47
…………………..
davidappell02,
Yet you didn’t answer the initial question:
“What cools Moon’s surface down -50 C from Te=270K to Tmean=220K, or, according to Diviner, what cools Moon’s surface down -77 C from Te=270K to Tmean =193K ?”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is the left capable of rational thought? Doesn’t appear to be the case.
‘Supply just can’t keep up’: Don’t look now, but Europe is in the midst of a full-blown energy crisis
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2021/12/19/supply-just-cant-keep-up-dont-look-now-but-europe-is-in-the-midst-of-a-full-blown-energy-crisis/
I keep wondering what will be the wake up call for them. Maybe there never will be if they can’t put 2 and 2 together. Just like some here can’t make the connection between higher inflation and expansionary monetary and fiscal policy.
None of it is difficult. But there has to be a little cognitive effort.
Leftyland – where every day is an exercise in Creative Writing.
More good news for Europe.
Europe is bracing for energy shortages as freezing weather sets in, boosting demand and sending prices surging at a time when supply just can’t keep up.
Temperatures are forecast to fall below zero degrees Celsius in several European capitals this week, straining electricity grids already coping with low wind speeds and severe nuclear outages in France. To make matters worse, Russia is limiting natural gas flows through a major transit route to Germany Monday after capping supplies over the weekend. The route is set to be only partially used in January.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-19/europe-braces-for-energy-crunch-this-week-as-deep-freeze-sets-in?srnd=premium
Afternoon’ Jim (UTC),
I’m not sure what this has to do with tornados either, but here’s my own (professional!) view on the UK “energy crunch”:
https://V2G.co.uk/2021/12/will-the-energy-transition-only-benefit-the-few/
After quoting the CEO of Enel with approval:
No doubt there are also other factors at work, but one way and another we here in the United Kingdom seem be losing “this game” by many a mile at the moment.
Those “most vulnerable customers” are currently feeling the impact, as indeed are we when perusing our own electricity bills. I’ve been documenting that impact via videos of our own local friendly neighbourhood wind turbine at Upper Tremail.
Pingback: TORNADO – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: TORNADO - Western Highlights
Pingback: TORNADO – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: TORNADO |
Anyone wading into data like this should be familiar with this seminal work: http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/TverskyKahneman1971.pdf
This is like checking one’s microscope slides for cleanliness. I.e., am I looking at signal or noise?
Pingback: TORNADO – Watts Up With That? – ChicHue.com
Pingback: TORNADO – TECH LIFE
Pingback: TORNADO - Grow with that? - News7g
Dr. Curry, many more research reports are being published supporting the claims I’ve been making on your blog.
2 More Studies: The Climate’s CO2 Sensitivity Is Low…Models Erroneously Overestimate CO2 Warming
https://notrickszone.com/2021/12/20/2-more-studies-the-climates-co2-sensitivity-is-low-models-erroneously-overestimate-co2-warming/
If you accept that the oceans control the climate, which I believe the IPCC supports, it should be relatively easy to do experiments to at least demonstrate the very basics.
1) Antarctica is a natural control for the UHI, Water Vapor and Uniform Albedo. Antarctica is a natural control for isolating the impact of increasing CO2 on temperatures. Every major data set I’ve seen shows no warming at all in Antarctica over the last 100+ years. Also, you can download the Polar Data set from UAH, and create your own monthly temperature graphics, and you will find absolutely no warming, and in some months cooling, since the start of the data.
2) Simply put a bucket of water in an insulated container with 400ppm, and another bucket in a container with 800ppm, and see if one cools faster than the other. There is no way it will warm, contrary to what many people choose to believe. The Insulated containers should be filled with air of 0.00 Humidity, and a hydrophilic material to absorb any absorption should be put in the container.
3) Lately, the best way to test this is to simply have 2 buckets of water, separate them by an IR Reflective Barrier, and use a Long Pass Filter to shine additional amounts of 13 to 18 Micron LWIR the equivalent of about 1 W/M^2 onto one bucket and measure the temperature differentials between the two buckets.
Those are very easy experiments to run, and yet, in this “settled” science, no one seems to have run them. I’d love to see some of the posters on this blog to run some of those experiments. That way we have actual experimental evidence to evaluate.
co2.is.life wrote:
2) Simply put a bucket of water in an insulated container with 400ppm, and another bucket in a container with 800ppm, and see if one cools faster than the other. There is no way it will warm, contrary to what many people choose to believe.
Meet Eunice Foote and her experiments of the 1850s:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/happy-200th-birthday-eunice-foote-hidden-climate-science-pioneer
David Appell highlights this research as evidence to support his position:
“Using glass cylinders, each encasing a mercury thermometer, Foote found that the heating effect of the Sun was greater in moist air than dry air, and that it was highest of all in a cylinder containing carbon dioxide.”
If you think this supports your claim, you clearly don’t even understand the basics. Not even close.
1) CO2 is 410 ppm, not 1,000,000 ppm.
2) Incoming radiation is transparent to CO2 at 400 ppm, it clearly isn’t at 1,000,000 ppm.
3) Using glass in these kinds of experiment don’t work, it absorbs and thermalizes IR
Once again, the purpose is to isolate the warming caused by CO2 at 410 ppm thermalizing OUTGOING LWIR between 13 and 18 Micron LWIR. The GHG Effect has absolutely nothing to do with visible radiation warming 100% CO2, none, nada, zip. You can look at Venus to see that a CO2 soup like atmosphere being warmed by incoming visible radiation. CO2 is so dense that the visible radiation doesn’t even reach the surface if I remember my facts straight. They have an inverted temperature atmosphere, which proves it isn’t “trapping” outgoing LWIR, it is thermalizing incoming visible radiation.
Once again, I outlined experiments that isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature, and you have yet to provide evidence that Climate Scientists have performed even the most basic of experiments. The 200 year old experiment you highlighted makes my point, not yours. Show me something done recently in a controlled university lab. The fact that you can is truly shocking for a credible “science.” I highlighted the starting point experiment for any real science, and yet, you have to go back 200 years for an experiment that proves my point, not yours.
Weren’t you the guy who didn’t understand MODTRAN and tried to use it to discredit climate science? Science and scientific analysis are not your thing.
Let’s see what else you don’t understand about science. Your lack of knowledge appears to be limitless.
“You can look at Venus to see that a CO2 soup like atmosphere being warmed by incoming visible radiation.”
The atmosphere is not being warmed by incoming visible radiation. About 80% of all solar radiation is reflected by Venus’s highly reflective sulfuric acid clouds. Another 10% gets reflected off the surface. Venus absorbs less solar radiation than the earth does.
“if I remember my facts straight. They have an inverted temperature atmosphere, which proves it isn’t “trapping” outgoing LWIR, it is thermalizing incoming visible radiation.”
Since when do you ever have your facts straight? Certainly not in this case. Venus does not have an inverted temperature profile.
http://thumbnails.illustrationsource.com/huge.101.506600.JPG
Look at Venus’s troposphere. Temperature is highest at the surface and decreasing steadily with altitude. That means the atmosphere is being heated by the planet — not vice-versa. Solar radiation is not doing that. It’s the CO2 greenhouse effect. That disproves your conclusion.
“Once again, I outlined experiments that isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature, and you have yet to provide evidence that Climate Scientists have performed even the most basic of experiments.”
Climate science is settled science. It is up to you to disprove it. Perform your own experiments. That ought to be good for a laugh.
co2.is.life commented:
CO2 is so dense that the visible radiation doesn’t even reach the surface if I remember my facts straight.
Here’s a picture of the surface of Venus. It’s not dark there.
https://www.techeblog.com/surface-of-venus-venera-mission/
Yes David, it does look like some yellow light does reach the surface of Venus. The Atmospheric Pressure of Venus is 100x that of earth. Their atmosphere is basically 100% CO2, and it is more of a soup than atmosphere. Just look at how a small change below sea level and the increase in air density can increase Death Valley. Now imagine an atmospheric pressure of 100 atm and move that planet closer to the Sun.
“Now imagine an atmospheric pressure of 100 atm and move that planet closer to the Sun.”
Venus absorbs less energy from the Sun than the earth. Atmospheric pressure and the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun has ZERO impact on its temperature. I’d explain it to you, but why bother? You wouldn’t understand it.
JJBraccili | December 22, 2021 at 4:16 pm |
“Now imagine an atmospheric pressure of 100 atm and move that planet closer to the Sun.”
“Venus absorbs less energy from the Sun than the earth. Atmospheric pressure and the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun has ZERO impact on its temperature. I’d explain it to you, but why bother? You wouldn’t understand it.”
Closer to the sun has zero impact on temperature? Really
JJ – The amount of energy reaching a planet vs the amount of energy absorbed by the plane/atmosphere are two separate and distinct items.
Venus only absorbs 10% of the solar energy incident at TOA. The 400 C temperature rise over what the temperature should be is solely due to CO2s greenhouse effect. Put Venus where Mars is, and nothing changes.
The reason what I said is true has to do with how blackbodies radiate energy. It’s a long story.
JJBraccili | January 3, 2022 at 7:19 pm |
“Venus only absorbs 10% of the solar energy incident at TOA. The 400 C temperature rise over what the temperature should be is solely due to CO2s greenhouse effect. Put Venus where Mars is, and nothing changes.
The reason what I said is true has to do with how blackbodies radiate energy. It’s a long story.”
JJ – you said “the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun has ZERO impact on its temperature.”
Your response is a clear distortion of the facts and a distortion of what you said. You get caught making an obviously incorrect statement and then distort what you said to claim what you said was correct – is honesty that hard
Pingback: TORNADO – Watts Up With That? - Blue Anon News
Thank you Judith.
Tornadoes come in all sorts and sizes
December 20th, 2021:
11,938,139 km2, a century break increase of 146,410 km2.
It ain’t easy bein’ green …
U.K. households are set for an 18-billion-pound ($24 billion) increase in energy bills next year, potentially squeezing consumer spending and adding pressure on the Bank of England to increase interest rates, according to Investec Plc.
A surge in gas prices has left the energy price cap — the ceiling for what firms can charge for a unit of power — on course to increase by 56% in April, to an average of 2,000 pounds per household a year, analysts Nathan Piper, Sandra Horsfield and Martin Young wrote in a report.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/u-k-households-face-a-24-billion-increases-in-energy-bills
France has to do unexpected maintenance on four nuclear reactors. Due to the large quantity of non-dispatchable energy sources in Europe, there is no clean capacity, like natural gas or clean coal, to make up the shortage.
France, usually an exporter of power, is boosting electricity imports and even burning fuel oil. The crunch comes after Electricite de France SA said it would halt four reactors accounting for 10% of the nation’s nuclear capacity, straining power grids already coping with cold weather. A total of six oil-fired units where turned on in France on Tuesday morning, according to filing with Entsoe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/energy-crunch-sends-european-electricity-prices-to-fresh-record?srnd=premium
European gas prices jumped to a record high after Russian flows via a key route reversed direction.
Futures surged as much as 11% as Russian gas was flowing eastward from Germany to Poland, according to network operator Gascade. The change in flows probably reflects lower orders from German buyers due to the holiday season, said Katja Yafimava, a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
Lower supplies into Germany will force Europe to keep withdrawing gas at high rates from its already depleted storages. As freezing temperatures spread across the continent this week, more gas will be needed to keep the lights on as Europe’s vast network of renewable sources also can’t fill the gap, with German wind output at the lowest in five weeks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/european-gas-surges-as-russian-flows-via-key-route-drop-to-zero
If the European governments want to take credit for people having reliable energy, they have to take responsibility for screwing that up. There are indications their energy market systems are a mess. But they’ll attempt to shift the blame.
Some people there say there are problems because there isn’t enough wind and solar!!! Unbelievable. I read the EU is trying to get natural gas classified as green, nuclear also.
Here is another simple (a compatible with GHE theory) question:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy.
Earth’s surface is warmed up +33 C from Te =255 K to Tmean =288 K because of the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere.
Moon’s measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220 K. Diviner gives for Moon’s mean surface temperature Tmean =197 K.
Thus it is very much reasonable to ask:
If Earth’s surface devoid of atmosphere and ocean (like Moon) and having absorbed 28% less solar SW energy, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be Tmean =210 K,
or, if according to Diviner’s version, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be Tmean =192 K
What warms Earth’s surface up +45C from Tmean=210K to Te =255 K,
or, according to Diviner’s version, what warms Earth’s surface up +63C from Tmean =192 K to Te =255 K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere (which directs the jet stream in winter) has clearly taken aim at Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/VCMn6h1/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
Let’s look at the extent of ice in the Arctic. Hudson’s Bay is freezing fast.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
Virginia’s new Governor-elect is taking a very hard line against green energy policies. A struggle worth watching!
See my https://www.cfact.org/2021/12/21/how-and-why-youngkin-should-quit-the-rggi/
He ran as a moderate. Now you’ll find out how moderate he is as he gears up for a presidential run. He’s going to go full MAGA to compete with DeSantis. I feel sorry for the residents of the state of VA.
Not doing anything about climate change is not a moderate position. Just another conservative whose conservative policies will destroy another state.
Curiosity Stream has a Documentary Series titled “How Climate Changed History.” It is a wonderful series, and it points out that Climate Change is the norm, and goes through many non-anthropogenic periods of dramatic climate change. Anyone that thinks we are experiencing climate change today simply has never bothered to study history. It also accidentally debunks the Hockey Stick and its Denial of the Little Ice Age. The take home message is that we should be thanking God that we are living during a highly beneficial warm period because when the next ice age starts, Civilizations will collapse on an Biblical scale. What are we doing to prepare for the next highly probable climate catastrophe? Building Wind and Solar Farms than won’t work. We are shutting down Coal and Nuclear Facilities, and funding projects that are 100% certain to fail when they are critically needed. That will be the true legacy of this Climate Change Hysteria. An unprepared Civilization gets destroyed because they failed to prepare for the real threat it faced, that being a coming ice age. Simply look at any ice core. An ice age is almost 100% certain to happen. Catastrophic warming has NEVER happened. We are preparing for the wrong threat. It is that simple.
LOL!!
The past means NOTHING! If we keep dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate, it will all be over within 200 years. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the next ice age.
Mr. Broccoli posted the following 200 year climate prediction, based on “because I say so science”, meaning wild speculation, in an effort to show us that he believes science is wild guesses about the future climate:
” It will all be over within 200 years. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the next ice age.”
Why do people make such predictions and have such beliefs?
This is very popular among Climate Alarmists — I call it “fear porn”.
Let’s demonstrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon on the:
Earth’s /Moon’s example
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon.
It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC – its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
(Nearth /Nmoon)*(cp.earth /cp.moon) = (29,53/1)*(1/0,19) =155,42
…………………………………..
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
Let’s compare:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Maybe the left should just shut down industry by Diktate. That would be faster than death by a thousand cuts due to windmill and solar plants.
Electricity for delivery next year surged as much as 6.4% to an all-time high in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market. France, which usually exports power, will need to suck up supplies from neighboring countries to keep the lights on as severe nuclear outages curb generation in the coldest months of the year.
The crunch is so severe that it’s forcing factories to curb output or shut down altogether. Aluminium Dunkerque Industries France has curbed production in the past two weeks due to high power prices, while Trafigura’s Nyrstar will pause production at its zinc smelter in France in the first week of January. Romanian fertilizer producer Azomures temporarily halted output.
https://news.yahoo.com/europe-power-crunch-shuts-down-112516006.html
jim2 commented:
Maybe the left should just shut down industry by Diktate. That would be faster than death by a thousand cuts due to windmill and solar plants.
What you posted, and previous comments, say the shortages are due to nuclear outages and Putin putting the squeeze on natural gas delivery.
So why are you now blaming wind and solar?
If gas and coal plants had been built in lieu of wind and solar, there would be no energy crisis in Europe. The Green lefties have caused this problem. When the wind doesn’t blow, which has been the case there lately, you have to have other energy sources, and they don’t have those because of their loony policies. Shutting down nuclear is id-eeee-ooot-ic!!! But that also is the loony left policy.
davidappell02 | December 22, 2021 at 9:22 am | Reply
jim2 commented:
Maybe the left should just shut down industry by Diktate. That would be faster than death by a thousand cuts due to windmill and solar plants.
Appells comment – “What you posted, and previous comments, say the shortages are due to nuclear outages and Putin putting the squeeze on natural gas delivery.”
Appell’s comment – “So why are you now blaming wind and solar?”
Because the wind doesnt always blow
In Fact, there are often long periods when the wind doesnt blow. Remember the Texas Feb 2021 when gas electric generation lost 35%-40% electric generation for 24 hours and 20% loss for another 48 hours, from Feb 15th to Feb 17th.
From Feb 12th through Feb 19th, 9 Days, not only did Texas lose 70% -90% of electric generation from wind, The entire north american continent lost electric generation from wind – That is 9 days for the entire North american continent.
Below is a link to the US gov website – you can pick any time period any grid or the entire United States –
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
Get your facts straight!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis#:~:text=February%207%2C%20before%20February%2016%2C%20after%20Satellite%20…,severe%20winter%20storms%20%203%20more%20rows%20
The main reason for the outage is that conservatives can’t be trusted to run a lemonade stand. Conservatives isolated Texas from national power grids making importing power from neighboring states impossible. The reason they isolated themselves was to avoid government regulation. They decided they wanted an unregulated power market. A major tenet of conservatism is ideology over common sense.
The unregulated market meant that capital investment was non-existent. That mean no winterization of equipment. Frozen natural gas lines were the primary cause of the outage. Wind and solar made up about 7% of the power in Texas. Those weren’t winterized either. Wind turbines work just fine in Iowa because they are winterized.
In other words, it was the typical conservative screwup from implementing their idiotic ideology. Of course, the Republicans, being the party of personal responsibility, went looking for a scapegoat. They zeroed in on renewable energy and the Green New Deal. Looks like you drank the Kool-Aid.
The loony left also disincentivizes oil and gas production including fracking. If Europe had developed natural gas fields locally, they wouldn’t be at the business end of Putin’s shiv.
jim2 commented:
The loony left also disincentivizes oil and gas production including fracking.
What’s loony about not wanting to change the climate for the next 100,000 years, melt all the ice on Earth, eventually drown all coastal cities, degrade health and ecosystems and prematurely kill 1 in 5 humans?
It’s loony because cold kills people and a lack of energy shuts down industry and people lose jobs.
The local DA opines: “why are you now blaming wind and solar?”
Weak energy throughput is the issue. Hint: before your next exam think along the lines of intermittent capability, it may show up as an essay question, so be prepared.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Because the wind doesnt always blow
What happened to our discussion on the tree stumps under the melting Mendenhall glacier? I had several scientific questions for you….
jungletrunks commented:
Weak energy throughput is the issue.
So you build more of it.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Remember the Texas Feb 2021 when gas electric generation lost 35%-40% electric generation for 24 hours and 20% loss for another 48 hours, from Feb 15th to Feb 17th.
So you’re saying gas generation isn’t reliable.
I see.
So then why didn’t Texas get electricity from elsewhere?
OH, THAT’S RIGHT — being Texans, they were too stup…. {strike that}, stubborn to connect to the regional grid.
I have to agree with Mr. Apple about Putin cutting gas supplies flowing into Germany, perhaps in an effort to accelerate Nordstream 2 completion.
Putin is a ruthless leader, and he is “putting the squeeze” on Europe. The high natural gas futures prices are his goal:
https://thesoundingline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/russia-gas-exports-to-eu-400×330.png
But the UK also has had lower than expected wind energy.
That happens with wind energy — that’s why 100% fossil fuel backup is needed.
France having maintenance on four nuclear reactors at the same time seems unusual, but they have enough other sources electric power for France. You can’t expect France to skip maintenance simply because neighboring nations may have wanted to buy some electricity from those four reactors.
Climate Alarmists seem biased in favor of wind and sun, while Climate Realists seem biased against wind and sun (which was obvious after the Texas blackouts in February 2021).
davidappell02 | December 22, 2021 at 11:03 pm |
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Remember the Texas Feb 2021 when gas electric generation lost 35%-40% electric generation for 24 hours and 20% loss for another 48 hours, from Feb 15th to Feb 17th.
So you’re saying gas generation isn’t reliable.
I see.
Apple man – You are showing complete ignorance on the subject matter
True the last event in the string of events was the failure of gas – yet you seem unable to comprehend the strategic failures leading up to the last triggering event.
You are also complete ignorance on the solution.
40% of Electric generation from gas failed for 48 hours while at the same time 90% of electric generation failed for 9 days.
The failure from gas generation occurred twice in 11 years.
The failure from wind generation fails 2-3 times every year.
JJBraccili | December 22, 2021 at 2:21 pm |
Get your facts straight!
Agree you should absolutely get your facts straight
Braccili – your partisan commentary undercuts any credibility you may have had.
just a few of your numerous errors in your commentary –
Electric generation from Wind is approx 25%-30%, not the 7% you incorrectly referenced
Windmills did not work in Iowa during 4 of those day in February for the same reason they did work in Texas – There was no Wind! I gave you the cite where could have done some due diligence – but No
I have linked to a prior discussion which gives a significantly better insight than possible from the Wikipedia
Ie From someone who has actual knowledge of the subject matter
“your partisan commentary undercuts any credibility you may have had.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Blaming progressives for conservative policy failures — isn’t that your thing?
“Electric generation from Wind is approx 25%-30%, not the 7% you incorrectly referenced”
Not at that time of year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/climate/texas-blackouts-disinformation.html#:~:text=However%2C%20wind%20power%20was%20not%20chiefly%20to%20blame,mix%20of%20power%20generation%20this%20time%20of%20year
“Windmills did not work in Iowa during 4 of those day in February for the same reason they did work in Texas – There was no Wind! I gave you the cite where could have done some due diligence – but No”
They are not “windmills”. They are wind turbines. From you, not surprising.
According to you the “windmills” failed because there was no wind. Then what? Fossil fuels failed because they couldn’t make up the difference? The cold temperatures had nothing to do with it. Really?
Iowa’s wind turbines worked just fine during TX’s problems:
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2021/02/19/iowa-wind-turbines-equipped-to-handle-extreme-cold-ice-is-another-matter/
Here what factcheck.org has to say about the TX power outage:
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/wind-turbines-didnt-cause-texas-energy-crisis/
Here’s what conservatives have done to remedy the situation:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002277720/texas-lawmakers-passed-changes-to-prevent-more-blackouts-experts-say-its-not-eno
That’s a typical conservative solution. Pretend you’re doing something to fool the public, while actually doing nothing to solve the problem.
joe – the non climate scientist commented:
Windmills did not work in Iowa during 4 of those day in February for the same reason they did work in Texas – There was no Wind!
That’s why Texas needed to be connected to the regional (smart)grid — so power could be sent to Texas from where it WAS being generated.
The blame lies on ideology and politics, not wind. And because of that hundreds of people died. The natural gas industry made $11 billion in profit, and the biggest profiteer gave Gov Abbott a $1 million campaign contribution.
https://www.texasobserver.org/after-kelcy-warrens-energy-transfer-partners-made-billions-from-the-deadly-texas-blackouts-he-gave-1-million-to-greg-abbott/
JJ’s comment – Iowa’s wind turbines worked just fine during TX’s problems:
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2021/02/19/iowa-wind-turbines-equipped-to-handle-extreme-cold-ice-is-another-matter/
Complete comprehensive reality check for JJ –
No Iowa’s windmills did not work just fine during Feb 15-18th
So what if the Iowa’s windmills didnt freeze – there was no wind – most of the north american continent went without wind for those 9 days, The entire MSO grid produced close to zero electricity from wind during 4 of those days
I had previously given a link to the actual source data.
New of other brilliant moves from the lefty “greens.”
Olaf Scholz’s coalition government is going ahead with this long-planned closure despite pleas for a stay of execution from a chorus of global climate campaigners, including Bill Gates and Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist who first alerted Washington to global warming. Another three reactors will go at the end of 2022.
It is closing good plants just as Vladimir Putin prepares an invasion force on Ukraine’s border, and restricts flows of natural gas as a tool of strategic leverage.
The Kremlin calculus is by now obvious: Europe has manoeuvred itself into such a vulnerable position on energy security that it will have to accept Russia’s core demands, essentially the Finlandisation of Ukraine and certification of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline – on Mr Putin’s monopolistic terms, and in breach of EU energy law and the Treaties.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/europes-energy-crisis-fast-turning-political-strategic-disaster/
Low wind power generation is largely to blame for Europe’s ongoing energy crisis and scramble to import more fossil fuels, according to a Reuters report.
Wind farms across Europe produced just 14% of their capacity from July-September compared to the previous average of 20-26%, market data from Refinitiv showed, according to Reuters. As a result, European energy providers have been forced to purchase more coal and natural gas which have skyrocketed in price as demand has increased.
“If we had high winds or just reasonable winds over that period, we wouldn’t have seen these price spikes,” Rory McCarthy, a senior analyst at the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, told Reuters.
Germany, which boasts Europe’s largest wind power infrastructure, saw its total wind energy generation plummet 16% over the last 12 months, said Germany-based Fraunhofer Institute researcher Bruno Burger, according to Reuters.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/22/wind-power-european-union-energy-crisis-fossil-fuels-russia/
As we know, blackbody emission intensity J(W/m²) is proportional to fourth power of its absolute temperature σT⁴
where
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Let’s compare the Te =255K emission intensity with the Tmean =288K emission intensity.
(288 /255)⁴ (1,1294)⁴ = 1,6271
We came up with a number (1,6271) which cannot be attributed to the Earth’s atmosphere GHE on the Earth’s surface!
The above calculation assumes Earth has a uniform surface temperature 288K and the brightness (also uniform) temperature 255K.
According to this calculation Earth’s surface receives an amount of radiative energy
1,6271 – 1 = 0,6271 or plus 62,71% over the actual solar irradiance of 1362W/m²(1-a) = 945W/m²
945W/m²*1,6271 = 1538W/m²
When averaging on the entire surface by dividing by 4
1538W/m² /4 = 384,5 W/m²
Which corresponds to the uniform blackbody temperature 288K emission intensity.
In other words, Earth’s surface has to emit 384,5 W/m² in order to get rid of the incident solar 945W/m²/4 = 236W/m²
or
384,5 W/m²-236W/m² = 148 W/m² more radiative energy.
According to the brightness temperature Te =255K Earth’s atmosphere should “re-radiate” back towards the surface an amount of energy equal to the 62,71% of the incident on the surface primer solar radiative energy.
It is like getting on the planet surface plus 62,71% solar energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is La Niña weaker?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202112.gif?fbclid=IwAR3knUgbPxaPL1wLIaHS3woTRY02-IiDKtu8e2msUzlRJu-Q5hlOyKcFTuQ
The “green” energy fantasy that induced countries to build out wind and solar plants is inducing real-world pain today. And that pain is spreading faster than Omicron.
(Bloomberg) — Record-high power and gas prices have crippled energy suppliers worldwide, leaving some running at a loss and causing many to collapse altogether. Energy providers are closing down in the U.K., the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland and Singapore. That’s reducing choice for consumers, triggering government intervention and threatening innovation.
Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/energy-supplier-collapses-go-global-as-prices-keep-rising
Copyright © BloombergQuint
https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/energy-supplier-collapses-go-global-as-prices-keep-rising
jim2 commented:
The “green” energy fantasy that induced countries to build out wind and solar plants is inducing real-world pain today. And that pain is spreading faster than Omicron….
Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/energy-supplier-collapses-go-global-as-prices-keep-rising
You’re being deceptive. The first company that article mentions is Enstroga, which has collapsed.
“Enstroga is heavily reliant on natural gas, which, at 72%, makes up a sizeable amount of its energy supply. It also uses almost more coal (6.3%) than the national average, while renewables make up just 8.3% of its fuel mix.”
https://selectra.co.uk/energy/providers/enstroga-uk
You’ve been deceptive before, blaming wind and solar when the problem is nuclear shutdowns in France and Putin squeezing his gas pipeline to Europe. You blame everything on wind and solar without having any facts, even when the facts look to be against you.
Enstroga failed due to high wholesale natural gas prices. NG prices are high due to scarcity and high demand. Demand is high because wind and solar are failing to supply energy. Scarcity is high due to high demand around the world – for similar reason. It is you, David, who is deceptive.
Like your continual whining about being censored. We should be so lucky!
I had mentioned this elsewhere, but since you continually try to twist the facts, I have to bring it up again. The EU has done more than one thing to bring on their energy crisis. They have built out wind and solar, but they have also discouraged exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Had they secured local sources of fossil fuels and built natural gas and maybe even some coal electricity plants, they would be OK today energy-wise. In the final analysis, it’s “green” policy that’s the problem in the EU. They need to elect more rational and pragmatic politicians and yet they seem incapable of that.
Under President Trump, the US government encouraged the development of oil and gas, including fracking. It also encouraged the development of LNG terminals and facilities. President Trump’s efforts will now help Europe which is now in the throes of an energy crisis. Ironically, this will tend to boost the image of the very EU leaders who disparaged Trump behind his back.
Analysts are watching nearly 10 vessels that have changed course as diversions have increased in recent days along with a rally in European prices. Europe’s leading natural gas benchmark, the Title Transfer Facility (TTF), jumped nearly $2 on Tuesday, when the January contract closed above $50/MMBtu, breaking the record set Monday.
Prices were again volatile Tuesday as January TTF swung to an intraday high of nearly $55. February prices finished at nearly $60, up by more than $11 from Monday’s settle. Bullishness again dominated trading after Russian gas flows through the Mallnow compressor station in Germany were halted and reversed. Flows through the Velke Kapusany entry point on the Ukrainian/Slovakian border also declined by about 5 million cubic meters.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/lng-tankers-diverting-mid-voyage-for-premiums-in-europe-where-prices-keep-setting-records/
Simple Question to all Commenters: What are we doing to prepare for the inevitable Ice Age? Are you willing to risk everything to fight global warming when every single ice core ever drilled is telling you to prepare for the coming ice age? The Ice Cores are a warning that everyone is ignoring, just like Socialists ignore Animal Farm, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. All societies have regretted their decision to believe in the Socialist Religion.
CO2 is life:
Here in Michigan, we are celebrating the mild warming since the mid-1970s, and hoping for a lot more. The warmer the planet, the longer it will take for the next glaciation to affect us. Knowing that my Michigan property was under an ice glacier 20,000 years ago. i have have considered learning how to ice skate.
You are losing perspective of what geological time means. Just five centuries mean 20 human generations. Whoever cares dearly for what might or might not happen in 20 generations is completely detached from reality. Most people don’t even care for what might happen by 2100.
co2islife commented:
Simple Question to all Commenters: What are we doing to prepare for the inevitable Ice Age?
There’s not going to be a next ice age, unless we pay mightily to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. We’ll have ruined the climate long before then. We have much bigger things to worry about. In any case:
“…our analysis suggests that even in the absence of
human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would
occur within the next several thousand years and that the current
interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years.”
“Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception,” A. Ganopolski et al, Nature v529 14 Jan 2016. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494
co2.is.life wrote:
Simple Question to all Commenters: What are we doing to prepare for the inevitable Ice Age?“…
Snarf. We have much bigger and more immediate problems to worry about, namely 2-3 C of global warming ahead of us this century and after. In any case:
“…our analysis suggests that even in the absence of
human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would
occur within the next several thousand years and that the current
interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years.”
“Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception,” A. Ganopolski et al, Nature v529 14 Jan 2016. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494
Mr. Apple stated, with great certainty:
“We have much bigger and more immediate problems to worry about, namely 2-3 C of global warming ahead of us this century and after. In any case”
You have no idea whether the global average temperature will be colder or warmer in 100 years.
No one knows that.
Not one scientist on that planet knows what the climate will be like in 100 years, or in 50 years, or in 10 years.
The claim of +3 degrees C. warming is wild speculation — yet another prediction of doom — coming after 60 years of predictions of environmental doom … THAT WERE 100% WRONG.
Repeated always wrong wild guesses of the future climate are not real science — they are climate astrology — and you love climate astrology.
But the climate science versus climate astrology argument is moot.
Most nations on our planet could not care less about Net Zero.
China does not care. India does not care. African nations do not care.
And almost every undeveloped nation does not care.
After 26 COP climate parties and lots of “Blah, Blah, Blah”, the CO2 level just keeps rising and every nations except the US fails to meet it’s CO2 reduction targets.
The claimed “solutions” to global warming seems to have been developed by The Three Stooges!
Opposition to clean, efficient nuclear energy makes no sense.
And proposing the largest expansion of mining and manufacturing in world history, to build windmills and solar panels, will INCREASE CO2 levels, at great expense, and leave less reliable electric grids.
The wild guess 100-year climate predictions are anti-science.
The opposition to nuclear power is anti-science.
The real science deniers are the Climate Alarmists / Green Zealots !
“ …. yet another prediction of doom — coming after 60 years of predictions of environmental doom … THAT WERE 100% WRONG.“
This comment always amuses me.
Mr Greene: just what “predictions of doom” did the IPCC convey for 2021 that were “100% wrong” (shouting in caps).
I said the IPCC from as far back as FAR.
Not some random scientist shooting his mouth off with a personal opinion that the media pounce on because of sensationalism (it sells).
Or alternatively tell us which ones you have seen be “100% wrong” on the basis of the time machine you must have employed to come up with that stupid statement.
Any possibilities of “Doom” lie decades to centuries away, as any common-sense consideration of the science makes obvious
Javier commented:
Most people don’t even care for what might happen by 2100.
I think you’re wrong — many people care, and the young people today care very much, which is why they’re the ones leading the strongest activist movements. Hence the appeal of Greta Thunberg. As the world continues to warm they will only grow in power and soon more of them will attain political power. In 20 years the effects of climate change will be even more apparent and they’ll be prominently placed, especially in Europe. Perhaps not in the U.S., but the U.S. is in decline anyway, partly because it refuses to face the future, and by then is unlikely to be a significant player in world affairs, in my opinion.
Greta Thunberg has appeal? Who knew!
When a movement has a 15 year old savant as their spiritual and intellectual leader you know it is in trouble.
What an absurd example of validation. A great howl on Christmas Eve.
Of course you all’s need to denigrate Greta Thunberg is — as with all denigrations — a sign of her effectiveness.
PS: Actually she’ll be 19 yrs old in less than two weeks
PPS: She has over 5M followers on Twitter.
Well, I see, Greta Thunberg has 15 million followers on Twitter. Move over Micheal Mann.
Jim, you’re off by a factor of 3.
You never get anything right.
I’m done with your comments.
davidappell02 | December 24, 2021 at 11:10 am:
“I think you’re wrong — many people care, and the young people today care very much, which is why they’re the ones leading the strongest activist movements.”
Nothing new. French May 1968 was also a young people cause. Young people grow and new young people have new causes. The only constant is that young people don’t like the old causes of their elders.
“they will only grow in power”
“In 20 years the effects of climate change will be even more apparent”
“they’ll be prominently placed, especially in Europe”
“the U.S. … by then is unlikely to be a significant player in world affairs”
Lots of predictions. You must be rich from winnings at the horse races. I am convinced Europe is the one that is winning the race to irrelevancy, the climate policies you so much approve have not been decided by the people, they have been imposed by the bureaucrats without people saying. Let’s see what happens if the energy crisis continues.
Merry Christmas
I think Jim might have meant 15 million followers on on instagram and 5 million on twitter. Both figures pretty impressive.
Tonyb
02
“You never get anything right.” I was speaking about when she first became the second coming for the spiritual defectives. But nice try at trying to correct me.
Pretty sad statement about the quality of UN representatives when they have an adolescent lecture them. And pretty pathetic that so many so called climate scientists would defer to her, apparently in hopes she could gin up support for their message when they failed so miserably.
But then you go ahead and worship who you see fit.
Climate, of course, is not subject to controlled study, so attributing causal factors would appear to be fraught with uncertainty.
The apparent decrease of strong tornadoes in the US is interesting because of the implications.
———————————————————————————————-
Is this trend in anyway related to global warming?
Global warming might act to increase strong tornadoes,
but other factors have caused the decrease.
Or, global warming might have little effect on the number of strong tornadoes,
but, again, other factors have caused the decrease.
Or, global warming might act to decrease strong tornadoes,
and global warming may be imposing the observed trend.
———————————————————————————————-
Strong tornadoes are multifactoral but they involve convective instability in an environment of strong vertical wind shear.
The strong vertical wind shear is most often a result of strong advancing cold fronts and associated strong jet stream.
It would be in error to conflate the instantaneous and the local from annual mean and the global. However, it is worth considering global warming in terms of the two important factors of strong tornadoes:
Convective instability. Climate models tend to predict the so called hot spot of warming aloft from roughly 60S to 60N. Such a hot spot ( greater warming aloft than near the surface ) would tend to decrease convective instability. Since 1979, observations are somewhat contrary, though the tornado record begins before the RAOB era.
Strong vertical wind shear as a consequence of advancing strong baroclinic waves may also be subject to global warming. The thesis of Francis and Varvus (2012) was that so called Arctic Amplification was leading to a decrease of thickness gradients, implying weaker Northern jet streams. Also, Manabe and Strickler (1980) found that with global warming: “The reduction of the meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere.”
Now, Barnes (2013) demonstrated that using daily data instead of monthly data indicated no significant change of jet stream strength or waviness, reminding us of the perils of duration and scale. Further, NASA’s GISS Model E seems to indicate an increase of zonal wind speed aloft at mid-latitudes with global warming.
So the picture is not clear. Models would seem to indicate decreased convective instability but increased vertical wind shear ( NASA GISS), or not (Manabe and Strickler).
Observations seem to indicate increased convective instability (at least from 1979 through 2020 which doesn’t include most of the strong tornado decrease from 1950), and no significant change of jet stream speed associated with vertical wind shear.
Climate, of course, is not subject to controlled study, so attributing causal factors would appear to be fraught with uncertainty.
The apparent decrease of strong tornadoes in the US is interesting because of the implications.
———————————————————————————————-
Is this trend in anyway related to global warming?
Global warming might act to increase strong tornadoes,
but other factors have caused the decrease.
Or, global warming might have little effect on the number of strong tornadoes,
but, again, other factors have caused the decrease.
Or, global warming might act to decrease strong tornadoes,
and global warming may be imposing the observed trend.
———————————————————————————————-
Strong tornadoes are multifactoral but they involve convective instability in an environment of strong vertical wind shear.
The strong vertical wind shear is most often a result of strong advancing cold fronts and associated strong jet stream.
It would be in error to conflate the instantaneous and the local from annual mean and the global. However, it is worth considering global warming in terms of the two important factors of strong tornadoes:
Convective instability. Climate models tend to predict the so called hot spot of warming aloft from roughly 60S to 60N. Such a hot spot ( greater warming aloft than near the surface ) would tend to decrease convective instability. Since 1979, observations are somewhat contrary, though the tornado record begins before the RAOB era.
Strong vertical wind shear as a consequence of advancing strong baroclinic waves may also be subject to global warming. The thesis of Francis and Varvus (2012) was that so called Arctic Amplification was leading to a decrease of thickness gradients, implying weaker Northern jet streams. Also, Manabe and Strickler (1980) found that with global warming: “The reduction of the meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere.”
Now, Barnes (2013) demonstrated that using daily data instead of monthly data indicated no significant change of jet stream strength or waviness, reminding us of the perils of duration and scale. Further, NASA’s GISS Model E seems to indicate an increase of zonal wind speed aloft at mid-latitudes with global warming.
So the picture is not clear. Models would seem to indicate decreased convective instability but increased vertical wind shear (NASA GISS), or not (Manabe and Strickler).
Observations seem to indicate increased convective instability (at least from 1979 through 2020 which doesn’t include most of the strong tornado decrease from 1950), and no significant change of jet stream speed associated with vertical wind shear.
Isn’t it obvious?
If we had perpendicularly oriented towards Sun:
1. A smooth surface disk with radius r.
2. A smooth surface sphere with radius r.
3. A smooth surface cone with base radius r pointing to the sun.
Disk would have absorbed the most solar energy.
Sphere would absorb less than disk.
Cone would absorb less than sphere.
Isn’t it very much obvious?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, they will all absorb the same amount as the shadow of all those shapes is a DISK.
(assuming the same albedo)
Thank you Tony.
They have intercepted the same amount of energy, but a smooth surface sphere reflects more than a smooth surface disk. Thus a smooth surface sphere is left to absorb less solar energy than a smooth surface disk of the same diameter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, how do you tell the difference between the circular shadows cast by sphere’s discs, and cone bases of identical radius?
Russell
“Christos, how do you tell the difference between the circular shadows cast by sphere’s discs, and cone bases of identical radius?”
Thank you, Russell.
Sphere, disk and cone cast the same circular shadow, because it is based on identical radius.
The Total amount of incident on those objects solar SW EM energy is calculated (for the same albedo) as:
π*r²*S (W)
An umbrella and a flat shade of the same diameter cast the same shade, but umbrella reflects more solar energy than a flat shade.
Thus, for the flat shade the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*(1 -a)S (W)
And for the dome shaped umbrella (spherical) the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S (W)
where Φ =0,47
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“An umbrella and a flat shade of the same diameter cast the same shade, but umbrella reflects more solar energy than a flat shade.”
Let’s say both the flat shade and the umbrella are perfect reflectors — they reflect 100% of solar energy. According to you the umbrella reflects more solar energy than the flat shade. Really? That’s a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Why not? Your theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, and you have no problem with that. That why they call what you’re trying to peddle junk science.
On a sphere there is more reflective surface, but the solar energy is spread out over that surface. The impact on the amount reflected is zero.
The albedo is the fraction of solar radiation reflected and the shape of the object doesn’t matter. For the earth, most of the albedo is due to clouds and has nothing to do with the shape of the planet.
JJBraccili
““An umbrella and a flat shade of the same diameter cast the same shade, but umbrella reflects more solar energy than a flat shade.”
Let’s say both the flat shade and the umbrella are perfect reflectors — they reflect 100% of solar energy. According to you the umbrella reflects more solar energy than the flat shade. Really? That’s a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Why not? Your theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, and you have no problem with that. That why they call what you’re trying to peddle junk science.
On a sphere there is more reflective surface, but the solar energy is spread out over that surface. The impact on the amount reflected is zero.
The albedo is the fraction of solar radiation reflected and the shape of the object doesn’t matter. For the earth, most of the albedo is due to clouds and has nothing to do with the shape of the planet.”
“Let’s say both the flat shade and the umbrella are perfect reflectors — they reflect 100% of solar energy. According to you the umbrella reflects more solar energy than the flat shade.
For the flat shade the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*(1 -a)S (W)
And for the dome shaped umbrella (spherical) the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S (W)
where Φ =0,47
A perfect reflector reflects 100% of solar energy. A perfectly reflecting planet has Albedo value of a =1.
When substituting the a =1 in the above equations for flat shade and for the dome shaped umbrella the not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated in both cases as 0.
“On a sphere there is more reflective surface, but the solar energy is spread out over that surface. The impact on the amount reflected is zero.”
It is a very mistaken point of view.
“The albedo is the fraction of solar radiation reflected and the shape of the object doesn’t matter. For the earth, most of the albedo is due to clouds and has nothing to do with the shape of the planet.”
It is also a very mistaken point of view.
JJBraccili, please don’t call my theory junk science. My theory doesn’t violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili
On a sphere there is more reflective surface, but the solar energy is spread out over that surface.
Good!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Meaning there is no change in the amount of energy reflected.
You have your own equation wrong.
π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S
That should be 4π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S for a sphere.
Don’t just say “It is a very mistaken point of view.” Prove what I said is wrong.
Your “theory” does violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. You can’t raise the temperature of a planet without energy. Your theory has no energy source to drive a planet’s temperature higher.
You’ve been at this for how long? A couple of years? Your theory has not gained traction except among the scientifically illiterate. If it hasn’t been accepted by now, it never will be. It’s junk science no matter how you try to spin it.
“You have your own equation wrong.
π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S
That should be 4π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S for a sphere.
Don’t just say “It is a very mistaken point of view.” Prove what I said is wrong.”
JJBraccili, it is very simple:
The not reflected solar SW EM energy is estimated as:
π*r²*Φ(1 -a)S (W)
where Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your “theory” does violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. You can’t raise the temperature of a planet without energy. Your theory has no energy source to drive a planet’s temperature higher.
What I do is to compare different planets surface temperatures. The faster rotating planets (everything else equals) are warmer planets.
Of course there is energy source to drive a planet’s temperature higher.
You’ve been at this for how long? A couple of years? Your theory has not gained traction except among the scientifically illiterate. If it hasn’t been accepted by now, it never will be. It’s junk science no matter how you try to spin it.
Of course there is energy source to drive a planet’s temperature higher.
For the same exactly solar irradiance a faster rotating planet reduces its daytime IR EM emission (the energy losses) and, therefore, accumulates more and happens to be warmer!
JJBraccili, the key word here is “reduces”. When planet, for the same exactly solar irradiance, is capable of reducing its energy losses it is a warmer planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Europe’s natural gas prices are coming down a bit after hitting stratospheric levels.
1. LNG ships are on the way.
2. Traders are closing out their futures positions to eliminate exposure over the holidays.
3. The weather forecast is for a bit warmer weather.
With all that said, high energy prices will persist most likely even through the Summer. That’s how bad the “green” energy nightmare is.
“The weather forecast is for a bit warmer weather.”
I think some people here will be very upset with that, especially those constantly forecasting bitterly cold weather based on their pet theory to do with planets or other unknown factors based on 60/100/500/million/whatever year cycles!
All I know is that it is too warm for this time of year…
The spike in price on this chart is known as “what we’re we thinking.” The precipitous drop on the far right is known as “Americans to the rescue “ or “thank you Trump for being so prescient.”
https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/gas-prices-dec-2021.gif
A Tony Blanton criticized my earlier comment for stating the obvious:
“ …. yet another prediction of doom — coming after 60 years of predictions of environmental doom … THAT WERE 100% WRONG.“
I have been listening to these predictions since the 1960’s.
You, apparently, have not been listening.
These are from scientists, I didn’t say
they were all from the IPCC..
However (“code red”) IPCC climate projects
ALL imply a coming climate disaster
even if they do not state a specific date.
If you want to pretend environmental doom predictions
and implications never happened, that means
you are detached from reality.
The entire Climate Alarmist movement
is based on predictions of climate change doom.
How could you possibly miss their primary message?
The IPCC is a nearly worthless political organization set up
to prove humans are causing dangerous climate change.
Real science does NOT start with the conclusion.
The current climate on our planet is the best climate
for humans and animals in over 300 years.
Plants are happier too, with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Predictions of doom are meaningless climate astrology.
Below are two links to ists of failed environmental predictions of doom.
We Climate Realists like to read them for amusement.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/
Oh my, it seems that every other pay new research is published vindicating the claims I’ve been making on this blog. Either I have a crystal ball between my ears, or I understand the climate, science, statistics, modeling and common sense far better than the Climate “Experts.”
I’ve been saying on countless posts, most of which were attacked and mocked, that is you understand why the oceans are warming, you understand why the climate was changing. Just study climate history, change the ocean currents and/or temperature and you change the climate. The Sahara used to be a rain forest. I even pointed out that if you go to Climate4You you can find data on the cloud cover over the oceans and it correlates well with recent temperatures. Understanding the oceans should have been the #1 priority for climate science, but it isn’t. The #1 priority of climate science it to invert the scientific method and find arguments that can attribute the warming on CO2. They start with a conclusion and work backwards. That is why they totally ignore the most obvious reasons for climate change. That is also why they want to build wind and solar farms even when if is creating an energy crisis in Europe and soon will in the US. People will literally die this winter in Europe because wind and solar will fail them. Any patient in a hospital or nursing home powered by wind and solar had better think twice about staying through the winter.
New Study: Absorbed Solar Radiation Increased From 1998-2017…Explaining Ocean Warming
https://notrickszone.com/2021/12/23/new-study-absorbed-solar-radiation-increased-from-1998-2017-explaining-ocean-warming/
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Merry Christmas you Europeans! When will you vote in some rational politicians who shun “green” energy?
Europe Faces Rolling Blackouts Amid Energy Crisis
Posted On : 25 Dec 2021 Published By : Tom Whipple
Europe’s energy crisis worsened this week when Kosovo introduced rolling blackouts to most of its two million citizens, according to Bloomberg . On Thursday, the Kosovo Energy Distribution Services (KEDS) announced rolling two-hour power blackouts for 2 million people due to an “overload” of its electrical grid. KEDS asked customers to reduce power given “insufficient internal generation to cover consumption and the global energy crisis.” The Balkan country, Europe’s poorest nation, experienced a technical issue at its largest coal-fired power plant that had to shut down last month, which forced the government to import electricity at high prices.
https://daily.energybulletin.org/2021/12/europe-faces-rolling-blackouts-amid-energy-crisis/
Curiosity Stream has a wonderful documentary titled “How Climate Made History.” It is a must watch for anyone seeking the truth about the climate. Here are some take home messages from the series:
1) The Hockeystick is a complete joke. The series provides pretty much irrefutable evidence of the Medieval warming and little ice age.
2) Climate change is the norm, there has ever been an extended period without climate change.
3) The Sun and the Milankovitch Cycles are major drivers of the Climate
4) Volcanoes and Ocean Currents are other major contributors to climate change
5) We are unbelievably fortunate to be living during a warming period
6) The series doesn’t treat religion with disrespect, and points out it was held society together during extremely difficult times
7) The archaeological, geological and actual written/recorded historical records completely debunk the Hockeystick
8) The Carthigian dry dock is far from the coast, demonstrating that sea levels have fallen (globe cooled) since 200 BC.
9) The Romans easily crossing the Alps was fascinating
10) The collapse of Rome was largely due to uncontrolled and unwanted immigration as invading hordes no longer needed bridges to cross the rivers that were frozen
11) Viking were trapped by a frozen N Atlantic until it thawed, allowing them to travel to Europe and eventually farm in Greenland
12) None of violent ancient dramatic climate change can be blamed on man made CO2
13) A single volcano can cause far more climate change than all of the man made CO2 could ever hope to cause
14) The Ilopango eruption was fascinating
15) Societies thrive and expand during warming periods
16) Societies collapse during cold periods
17) Uncontrolled immigration and wars for scare resources occur during cold periods
18) Wind and Solar have very little chance of powering our society during the next ice age
19) Ice Cores show that an ice age is almost inevitable, no ice core shows catastrophic warming
20) The “consensus” of climate “scientists” have their conclusions completely debunked by the real climate history
21) Historical events like the the Punic War, Thermopylae, Romans crossing the Alps, Hannibal crossing the Alps, the invading Hordes crossing frozen rivers, etc etc etc all totally debunk the Hockey Stick and the “Consensus.”
I haven’t finished watching the last 20 minutes when it covers the modern era where is may go off the rails, but what I’ve seen so far completely destroys the Consensus and AGW theory.
Ugh!!! The Documentary covers unbelievably catastrophic natural climate changes, and then in the last 5 minutes goes off the rails and claims that man made CO2 is causing the recent climate change which isn’t even close to the climate change of the past that they document.. Ignore the last 5 minutes and it is a great documentary. The “expert” at the end of the documentary claims that the Government can stop the climate from changing. He claims that we have the ability to control the climate. That isn’t a joke, but it show you how unbelievably clueless these climate scientists are. They think man can control nature on a global scale.
co2.is.life wrote:
4) Volcanoes and Ocean Currents are other major contributors to climate change….
13) A single volcano can cause far more climate change than all of the man made CO2 could ever hope to cause
Not even remotely true.
First, ocean currents don’t add heat to the climate system, they just redistribute it. How many times do you have to hear this??
Second, fossil fuels burned by man emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes:
“Volcanic vs Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide,” T Gerlach, EOS v92 n24, June 14, 2011.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/epdf
https://news.agu.org/press-release/human-activities-emit-way-more-carbon-dioxide-than-do-volcanoes/
According to that paper, the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 —one of the three largest eruptions of the twentieth century—had an estimated CO2 release of about 0.05 gigaton.”
By contrast, humans emit about 40 gigatons CO2 per year — 800 times more.
You are just terrible on the facts and the science.
“First, ocean currents don’t add heat to the climate system, they just redistribute it. How many times do you have to hear this??”
1) Simply watch the documentary, my claims are pretty much irrefutable.
2) The Sun adds the energy, the oceans store it
3) The oceans are by far the largest energy sinks on the planet, and the IPCC agrees with me
4) Claiming that volcanos and oceans don’t impacts the climate in nonsensical
5) CO2 doesn’t add heat to the system either, it simply thermalizes outgoing LWIR which already exists in the system.
Simply look at the geological record for CO2 and Temperature. Just what do you think causes those spikes in CO2? Hint, Google “Mercury Rising: New evidence that volcanism triggered the late Devonian extinction”
David, you really should do your homework before you post. Your comments aren’t even close to being defensible.
Google Tambora, Krakatoa, Ilopango eruption, etc etc etc. Anthropogenic CO2 never triggered a Little Ice age, or caused a year without a Summer.
Also, I said Volcano and climate change, I didn’t say Volcanoes release a lot of CO2, even though they do, and the geological record demonstrates it.
Storing energy isn’t adding energy to the system.
Volcanic aerosols drop out of the atmosphere.
I don’t need to watch your documentary to know you’re wrong. I don’t have TV anyway,
Climate change consists of some real climate science, plus a lot of climate astrology, and climate scaremongering, by scientists who should know better. I never agree with Mr. Apple when he is climate scaremongering (not science), but in his science comment (December 25 at 7:49), everything he wrote is correct. Aerosols from volcanoes are temporary. Ocean currents, and even El Ninos / La Ninas, only redistribute heat, they don’t create heat.
The sun creates heat.
The atmosphere determines Earth’s ability to cool itself.
CO2 inhibits that cooling — the exact amount is unknown, but it has not been large, or dangerous, so far. Especially with most of the warming affecting TMIN of colder climates during the six coldest months of the year. The real debate is over the future effect of CO2 (either the same as the harmless1975 to 2020 warming, or not)
MY TWO CENTS:
Continuing to burn so much coal, and build new coal plants, when a clean, safe, new nuclear power plants can generate electricity for 60 to 80 years, makes no sense. That France took the lead on nuclear power so many decades ago, proving the safety, and no one followed their lead, makes no sense. That “environmentalists” oppose nuclear power, in favor or windmills and solar panels, makes the least sense.
I want to disagree with two more of CO2 is Life’s points:
( 3) “The Sun and the Milankovitch Cycles are major drivers of the Climate”
MY COMMENT:
Maybe tiny changes over a 50 or 100 year period
“(16) Societies collapse during cold periods”
MT COMMENT:
That’s an exaggeration, and also does not apply in 2021
Climate science is science. It is not astrology. Climate scientists are not scaremongers. They allow themselves to be beat up by the frauds and the snake oil salesmen who the fossil fuel industry promotes because they cannot win on the facts. Climate scientists need to be more outspoken — not less.
“The atmosphere determines Earth’s ability to cool itself.”
A planet cools itself with or without an atmosphere.
“CO2 inhibits that cooling — the exact amount is unknown, but it has not been large, or dangerous, so far. Especially with most of the warming affecting TMIN of colder climates during the six coldest months of the year. The real debate is over the future effect of CO2 (either the same as the harmless1975 to 2020 warming, or not)”
Doesn’t matter the size of the CO2 effect. The point is that it inhibits the ability of the earth to radiate energy. Even a small energy imbalance integrates over time because energy cannot be destroyed. We’ve been dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for over 70 years and its only recently the impact is becoming noticeable.
That is a two-edge sword. By only causing changes over a long period of time, we have time to correct the situation. The downside is that it takes a long time before we see the impact of a correction.
Richard Greene Says:
I want to disagree with two more of CO2 is Life’s points:
( 3) “The Sun and the Milankovitch Cycles are major drivers of the Climate”
MY COMMENT:
Maybe tiny changes over a 50 or 100 year period
My comments were simply repeating the claims made in the Documentary. If those experts chosen for the Documentary because they represent the field of Climate Science are wrong, then you are disagreeing with the experts highlighted in the Documentary. Given this entire fireld of climate science essentially focuses on the industrial age, that 50 or 100 year cycles is highly relevant, and it can be even more pronounced in the ice cores.
“(16) Societies collapse during cold periods”
MT COMMENT:
That’s an exaggeration, and also does not apply in 2021
Societies do collapse during cold spells, and we have absolutely no case studies to understand how a highly developed/advanced society will function during an ice age. We have absolutely nothing to stop a glacier from crushing all of Canada and the Northern Part of America and Europe. Many major cities used to be a mile under ice.
Once again, the Documentary reviews societies collapsing due to cold. Some of the societies lost 75% of their population. I count that as a collapse. Neanderthals survive in ice ages, homo sapiens didn’t outside Africa.
Once again, watch the Documentary, I am only the Narrator.
” I never agree with Mr. Apple when he is climate scaremongering (not science), but in his science comment (December 25 at 7:49), everything he wrote is correct. Aerosols from volcanoes are temporary. Ocean currents, and even El Ninos / La Ninas, only redistribute heat, they don’t create heat.
The sun creates heat.
The atmosphere determines Earth’s ability to cool itself.
CO2 inhibits that cooling — the exact amount is unknown”
That is a Strawman by Mr. Apple, I never said any of that, or even implied it.
1) CO2 and its back radiation is measured in W/M^2. A Watt is a rate of energy. If CO2 adds 1 Joule a minutes, and a Volcano blocks 1,000 W/M^2 Joules per minute from reaching the earth, you can easily convert if to CO2 years or other relative metrics.
2) The energy blocked by a single volcano can be the equivalent of a hundred or more years of CO2’s additional W/M^2. That can easily be proven with MODTRAN. I have no interest in arguing with a calculator.
3) Clouds, orbits and solar cycles determine the energy input. The amount of energy reaching the oceans determines the energy stored in the oceans. More solar radiation reaching the oceans will warm and cool the oceans and increase of decrease the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas
Once again, simply use MODTRAN. A single El Nino can reduce the sea surface temperature by multiple degrees. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. Believing that CO2, a molecule that is claimed to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 degree, can somehow warm the oceans is absurd. Water has the highest specific heat of all common elements. If CO2 can barely warm the thin atmosphere, it will have no impact on high specific heat water.
Before you say CO2 slows the heating of the oceans, the air above the oceans are saturated with H2O. H2O absorbs 100% of the spectrum radiated by the oceans (H2O in the air is the same as H2O in the oceans). With or without CO2 the wavelengths radiated by the oceans will be absorbed in the atmosphere because H2O is present. You only see the CO2 signature once H2O precipitates out of the air, and that is way above the level necessary to warm/slow cooling of the oceans. Once again, simply use MODTRAN to demonstrate these concepts. Just because Climate Scientists choose not to study the basics, doesn’t mean the basics are important.
CO2 is Life wrote:
“we have absolutely no case studies to understand how a highly developed/advanced society will function during an ice age”
MY COMMENT:
We are living in the pleasant interglacial of an ice age.
There is plenty of ice in Antarctica, and it is not decreasing
There is plenty of sea ice in the Arctic, currently near
the 1981 to 2010 average.
The rough estimates of climate change in the
past 1,000 years do not form a straight line but the changes
are not large enough to be harmful if they happened again.
The one exception might be the 1690s during the coldest
decade of the Maunder Minimum.
If Canada is ever covered by an ice glacier again,
that would be a different story!
If a documentary says things you believe are false, then why would you repeat them here? And why would you recommmd a documentary whose
conclusion you disagree with?
To the consistently annoying Mr. Broccoli:
The greenhouse gas content of our atmosphere determines how well
our planet is able to cool itself.
And your statement: “Doesn’t matter the size of the CO2 effect”
is ridiculous. The entire climate change debate is over
the size of the CO2 effect in the past and future. It does matter!
Always wrong predictions of the future climate are not science.
Science requires data.
There are no data for the future climate.
Science requires accurate predictions.
We don’t have those either.
We have lots of climate astrology used for climate scaremongering.
We have false claims that the future climate can be predicted and
can only get worse, never better.
The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.
That’s my prediction from 1997.
The only climate prediction I ever made.
To you I would be annoying because I keep correcting your mistakes because you don’t understand the science.
“And your statement: “Doesn’t matter the size of the CO2 effect”
is ridiculous. The entire climate change debate is over
the size of the CO2 effect in the past and future. It does matter!”
The size of the effect, whether big or small, is determined by how fast we dump CO2 into the atmosphere. That is important only in terms of how long it takes us to destroy the planet. Where the planet winds up is the same whether the effect is big or small.
“Always wrong predictions of the future climate are not science.
Science requires data.
There are no data for the future climate.” blah, blah, blah …
We have data. They are called spectrographs. Another area you know nothing about. They show what CO2 can do to the planet. They show how CO2 is impacting planetary temperature and how high CO2 can drive the temperature of the planet. The only thing they can’t tell us is how long it will take. That’s what the models are for.
Mr. Ellison has a way with words.
This is a classic thought:
“That natural variability stopped in the 20th century is an idea so absurd as to raise suspicions on the mental stability of adherents”
Perhaps “natural variability” was worn out after 4.5 billion years
of being the only cause of climate change, and then retired?
Mr. Ellison is a pure genius, it can’t be stated in any other way. Pure Genius. The infinite resolution clarity of this statement captures the purest essence of real science.
“That natural variability stopped in the 20th century is an idea so absurd as to raise suspicions on the mental stability of adherents”
Your lack of understanding of science can never be overestimated.
MODTRAN cannot do what you claim. MODTRAN is not a climate model. It is a limited atmospheric model. It does not do a heat balance. Quit trying to use it to make nonsensical points.
“CO2 and its back radiation is measured in W/M^2. A Watt is a rate of energy. If CO2 adds 1 Joule a minutes, and a Volcano blocks 1,000 W/M^2 Joules per minute from reaching the earth, you can easily convert if to CO2 years or other relative metrics.”
For how long do volcanoes block solar radiation? The only long-term effect that volcanoes have on climate is by releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
“The energy blocked by a single volcano can be the equivalent of a hundred or more years of CO2’s additional W/M^2. That can easily be proven with MODTRAN. I have no interest in arguing with a calculator.”
Here’s what you are blissfully unaware. The radiation blocked by a single volcano is short term. As the blocking stops the solar radiation heats the earth right back to where it was before in the same time frame. You should have an interest in learning something about science. That way you’d stop posting nonsense.
“Clouds, orbits and solar cycles determine the energy input. The amount of energy reaching the oceans determines the energy stored in the oceans. More solar radiation reaching the oceans will warm and cool the oceans and increase of decrease the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas”
It’s the energy radiated from a planet that determines the amount of energy stored in the oceans. That’s impacted primarily by solar radiation and the greenhouse effect. That other things you mention are secondary effects. Right now, CO2 is driving climate change.
“A single El Nino can reduce the sea surface temperature by multiple degrees. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. Believing that CO2, a molecule that is claimed to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 degree, can somehow warm the oceans is absurd. Water has the highest specific heat of all common elements. If CO2 can barely warm the thin atmosphere, it will have no impact on high specific heat water.
El Nino’s, as all other weather events, have ZERO impact on planetary temperature.
CO2 reradiates most of the energy it absorbs. Only a small fraction goes to heating the atmosphere. Your comment is irrelevant.
The specific heat of water has NOTHING to do with it. If CO2 causes a sustained 1 W/m2 difference in earth’s energy balance. That alone — given enough time — would cause the earth to approach the temperature of the sun.
“Before you say CO2 slows the heating of the oceans, the air above the oceans are saturated with H2O. H2O absorbs 100% of the spectrum radiated by the oceans (H2O in the air is the same as H2O in the oceans). With or without CO2 the wavelengths radiated by the oceans will be absorbed in the atmosphere because H2O is present. You only see the CO2 signature once H2O precipitates out of the air, and that is way above the level necessary to warm/slow cooling of the oceans. Once again, simply use MODTRAN to demonstrate these concepts. Just because Climate Scientists choose not to study the basics, doesn’t mean the basics are important.”
Climate scientists already know the basics. It’s you who do not. Water vapor in the air does not absorb 100% of the spectrum radiated by the oceans. How water vapor absorbs and reradiates energy is different than how water in the oceans do. Water in oceans absorbs energy like a blackbody. The energy is converted into kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is reradiated according to Planck’s equation. Water vapor absorbs radiated energy from the earth at specific wavelengths and reradiates at the same wavelengths. A small fraction of the energy it absorbs heats the atmosphere.
CO2 blocks part of the earth’s radiation from escaping to outer space. That heats the planet. The atmosphere’s temperature rises as the planet’s temperature rises — increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. You can always see CO2’s “signature” by looking at an IR spectrograph taken from space. Doesn’t matter whether it is raining or not.
Mr. Broccoli claimed:
“El Nino’s, as all other weather events, have ZERO impact on planetary temperature.”
MY COMMENT:
El Ninos have a significant effect on the Pacific Ocean temperature and the global average temperature. No one is measuring “the planetary temperature”. The primary measurement for the climate change zealots is the SURFACE global average temperature, based on surface measurements and too much infilling of missing data.
El Nino’s certainly affect the global average temperature statistic.
It is assumed that over a 30 year or more period, the effects of El Ninos and La Ninas will offset each other, because that has happened in the past.
But that’s just an assumption for the future.
The Climate Alarmists NEVER miss an opportunity to scare people during the peak heat release of an El Nino, as in 1998 and late 2015 / early 2016, without explaining the peak is temporary and unrelated to CO2.
In fact, the global average temperature at those peaks was temporarily most likely close to the dreaded peak of +1.5 degrees C. No one noticed/
Mr. Broccoli states, with great confidence:
“CO2 is driving climate change”
MY COMMENT:
That claim REQUIRES arbitrarily dismissing all other causes of climate change as “noise”, which the dishonest IPCC did in 1995.
Mr Broccoli claimed:
” Climate science is settled science”
MY COMMENT:
No science is ever settled.
That is the dumbest statement that can be made about science.
And you made it, Mr. Broccoli, congratulations.
“El Ninos have a significant effect on the Pacific Ocean temperature and the global average temperature. No one is measuring “the planetary temperature”. The primary measurement for the climate change zealots is the SURFACE global average temperature, based on surface measurements and too much infilling of missing data.”
Planetary temperature, Planetary radiating temperature, Average surface temperature don’t vary from each other very much. I already explained why. Since I doubt you’ll be able to figure it out for yourself, go look up what I said. I’m not here to give you science lessons.
“That claim REQUIRES arbitrarily dismissing all other causes of climate change as “noise”, which the dishonest IPCC did in 1995.”
The IPCC is right, and you are wrong, again. I assume you mean all the idiotic theories that gets discussed on this site. None of that can cause climate change. All of it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. They require energy to be created out of thin air.
Somebody said that wind turbines seed tornadoes. That’s not any nuttier than the planet rotation theory or the ocean current theory, or the weather events theory. All of it is junk science. The IPCC knows it and so does anyone who is literate in science.
“No science is ever settled.
That is the dumbest statement that can be made about science.”
Climate science is settled science. There is only a very small minority of quacks who claim otherwise. The possibility that something other than dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is causing our current situation doesn’t pass the laugh test.
“No science is ever settled.
LOL
NASA used settled science to get to the Moon and back.
NASA scientists weren’t quaking in their boots worried that Newtonian physics was wrong and might fail just when they needed it most to get their rockets and ships from point A to point B, then to point C and finally to D.
For Gods’ sake.
One thing that happens as trench warfare becomes entrenched is that the simpler, truth-seeking characters simply lose interest in a debate they know that is now not organised for truth seeking, but organised to see who has the greatest stamina to win, the truth be damned….
The arguments have been debased so many times over so many years that people start to say: ‘there are better things to do with my time.’
The problem with a topic like ‘climate change’ is that those trench warfare practitioners who do damn the truth have the capability to impose all kinds of intolerable restrictions on ordinary decent people, as the Covid scaremongering has proven all to easily.
What we have are hierarchical power structures which coerce the weak-willed into supporting their party lines for no better reason than earning money.
The really interesting question is what will cause an Armistice of this trench warfare and whether the new syntheses so much needed will emerge from groupings who have deliberately stepped out of the foghorn diplomacy cycles….
Good comment. What will stop the climate change entrenchment? I think we are starting to see what. Renewables are failing the promises. I think the truth of the matter is what has worked still works for the electrical grids. The opponents of renewable energy whose objections are based on what happens in practice have had to be in the trenches or had given up. What else were their choices? I suppose I am trying to say, the answer came from somewhere. Not the opponents, not the proponents. It came from the grids. It came from natural gas, coal and wind turbines. It was this truth of physics or economics that was always there, just buried under B.S. My answer I suppose is about climate change responses, not the actual questions of the GMST 30 years from now, or of sea level change. Policy is hard. With or without truth. Bult people who know how to play that game have been around for centuries.
Ragnaar wrote:
“What will stop the climate change entrenchment?”
It’s very difficult to refute something (the predicted climate crisis) that is always “coming in the future”, but never shows up,
But here are my guesses:
A serious blackout that can’t be blamed on fossil fuels, or unusually cold weather for a few years, or a new boogeyman that scares people more than “climate change”.
The “armistice” will come when the majority of voters get fed up with paying for virtue signaling and crony capitalist profit taking. Old Abe said you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Time for a new thread.
‘Pure fluid dynamics may be at the core of the AOS modeling problem, but nature combines fluid physics with other processes, and we must look to more comprehensive model formulations to be able to assess simulation accuracy against the relevant empirical reality. Thus, we can consider the many comparison studies that show a substantial spread among the results from AOS models created by different groups, as well as in the degree of correspondence with observations. Because each of the models is created independently, such model ensembles are more opportunistically assembled than systematically designed. Furthermore, the compared models are typically being reformulated by their creators faster than they can be compared with each other. So the comparisons are more like snapshots of model differences than careful, enduring assessments’
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/104/21/8709/F2.medium.gif
‘Examples of simultaneous, late-time vorticity fields plotted as elevation in a two-dimensional, spatially periodic domain for freely evolving turbulence. The initial conditions and the vorticity-amplitude scale are identical in each case. (Left) Three different discrete monotone advection operators (i.e., UTOPIA and ELAD without and with an extremum discriminator; see ref. 15) on a 2562 grid. (Right) The same operators on a 5122 grid. The right-corner spike in each figure represents the largest minimum at the initial time.’
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
Validation requires statistics of sufficient power to confirm or reject a hypothesis. Climate is immensely – and I ration qualifying adjectives – variable at all scales. That natural variability stopped in the 20th century is an idea so absurd as to raise suspicions on the mental stability of adherents. The source of that variability is the turbulence of ocean and atmospheric flows. Fluid dynamics nonlinearly feeds back into cloud, ice, vegetation, dust, biology etc driving global climate change. Changes in sea surface temperature in turbulent spatiotemporal chaos drive positive cloud feedback responsible in satellite data for much of the warming of the last 40 years. Attributing changes in recent times in tornado – for instance – frequency and intensity based on 100 years of spatially sparse data is not powerful enough statistically to be compelling science. Climate is what emerges from shifts in patterns of internal dynamics. Shifts are triggered by orbits, solar variability and greenhouse gases – but they act on a very powerful chaotic system that integrates these influences – and internal feed back – into a system that is too complex and dynamic to convincingly predict or.
‘The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in
geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
Scientific paradigms evolve – and science is doing pretty well – unlike the stories told by activists on both sides of climateball. The latter mostly simplistic nonsense driven by dogmatic ideologies without benefit of any statistics. And that are repeated endlessly. Physical reasoning they call it – I call it the most ridiculous and impossible absurdity imaginable.
The answer to a risk of abrupt climate change – change evident in both history and Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamical theory – that might be triggered by anthropogenic pressures – is obvious and has been for a long time. Factory fabricated fast neutron fission reactors combined with conserving and restoring global ecosystems. Some may object but it is time for the adults to take charge.
Thanks for reminding us of vorticity. Wind turbines, introducing vorticity in a mostly laminar air flow, may be ultimately seeding tornados.
WOW!! Gibberish taken to the next level.
The “models” are about the time frame of climate change and its effects — not about whether it is occurring. From an IR spectrograph you can see the impact of CO2 and determine the temperature it could drive the earth to if we do nothing. That is indisputable.
If there are long term cycles, they have no impact on our current situation, and will have no impact on the outcome of our dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Absolute nonsense and scurrilous posturing from JJ of course. There is little else in his comments.
The satellite record shows cloud changes anticorrelated to sea surface temperature over the eastern Pacific. That caused much of the planetary warming of the past 40 years in the familiar multidecadal pattern. The longer tern evolution of Pacific Ocean circulation shows variation at many scales.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
Where this goes after the 20th century Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation max is an interesting question. Data suggests that it is related – inter alia – to solar activity and Pacific Ocean gyre circulation.
JJ can hand wave and disparage and insult all he likes. He is an activist with a very limited understanding of Earth system science and a delusion that he can waffle his way through to a fixed conclusion. He should first of all decide which climate paradigm best explains data but he cannot. He is far from alone of course.
e.g. https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain. Making the conceptual leap into this new theoretical frame of dynamical complexity – by now entrenched as the dominant climate paradigm – is a bit difficult.
JJ might demonstrate – either by reference to literature or by some exciting new analysis – that climate is not a globally coupled, spatiotemporal chaotic system. But he can’t. I accept the inevitable truth and explore the consequences. JJ rejects ideas he doesn’t understand with hand waving and insults.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The satellite record shows cloud changes anticorrelated to sea surface temperature over the eastern Pacific. That caused much of the planetary warming of the past 40 years in the familiar multidecadal pattern. The longer tern evolution of Pacific Ocean circulation shows variation at many scales.
What caused the cloud changes and evolution of the Pacific Ocean circulation?
—
JJ knows what he’s talking about. And you shouldn’t be criticizing anyone else about insults.
One has to go back in time 16 years to 2004 to find a Christmas Day with more Arctic sea-ice than this year’s.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Looks like the Ghost of Christmas Past has come to the Arctic. Santa must be happy in the North Pole.
Thanks for that, Javier, I wondered if the level was unusual compared to the last few years. I also noticed over the last few weeks that sea ice had been forming in latitudes lower than I could remember but wasn’t sure if it was anything out of the ordinary. Might be an interesting winter, one that I will enjoy following from 1,000 miles south. All of a sudden shoveling snow has no appeal.
And during the second week of December it was neck-and-neck with 2012 (the lowest yearly extent on record). Santa must have been worried then. Actually, I’m sure he’s still worried, like the rest of us.
Hakuna matata Murphy
Javier commented:
One has to go back in time 16 years to 2004 to find a Christmas Day with more Arctic sea-ice than this year’s.
“Christmas 2021 hottest on record in the U.S., National Weather Service says,” 12/26/21
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/christmas-2021-hottest-on-record-in-the-us-national-weather-service-says.html
I thought you said you were done with the blog.
The US is just a small part of the world. Other parts have been very cold.
https://strangesounds.org/2021/11/brutal-cold-wave-europe-low-temperature-record-sweden-norway-uk.html
40-year record cold in some places
Local or regional is not global. You should learn that.
David, your comment implied that the total (average) U.S. had the highest Xmas temperature ever. In fact, it was a local weather report for Rio Grande Village, TX at 94 F.
The actual report said: “According to the National Weather Service office in Midland, Texas, that was the warmest temperature on Dec. 25 in both Texas and the entire United States. The previous record was 92 degrees, set again in Texas. This time it was McAllen and the year was 1964 (and it was tied in 2015).”
Global warming … not.
https://twitter.com/VeBo1991/status/1475284321485348866/photo/1
Javier commented:
Local or regional is not global. You should learn that.
Same for the Arctic you’re crowing about.
I thought you were more into trendology, Javier:
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1475624618845220866
That should put your “other parts” into some perspective.
Dave Fair commented:
David, your comment implied that the total (average) U.S. had the highest Xmas temperature ever. In fact, it was a local weather report for Rio Grande Village, TX at 94 F.
Yes, you’re right; I was wrong, thanks for the correction.
Looking around, I see record temperatures on Christmas Day for Dallas FW, Houston, Tennessee, Kentucky, and I’m not sure where else. But I don’t see anything saying it was the warmest Christmas Day for the national average. In fact, here in Oregon we received 3″ of snow, which is unusual this early in the season.
Javier:
While your Arctic was making ever-so-much ice – this was the air temperature it was doing it with …..
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
– “Same for the Arctic you’re crowing about.”
Not really David. The Arctic is special because the axis of rotation goes through the North Pole and because it is tilted with respect to the ecliptic. It is special because of Arctic amplification. It was important when it was melting and it is important when it is not.
Something that I saw coming already in 2016:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/07/evidence-that-multidecadal-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/
https://i.imgur.com/BUdm1lX.png
Those days most folks were convinced the Arctic has entered a “death spiral.”
Resorting to weather in the US has always been a bad argument from ignorant skeptics, but also from ignorant believers.
Javier commented:
The Arctic is special because the axis of rotation goes through the North Pole and because it is tilted with respect to the ecliptic. It is special because of Arctic amplification. It was important when it was melting and it is important when it is not.
I don’t know what the axis of rotation or ecliptic has to do with anything, but in any case looking at Arctic ice by only looking at extent is only looking at 2 of 3 dimensions and so leaving out a great deal of information. It’s misleading.
Annual Arctic sea ice extent set a record low in 2020 (average of the monthly averages) according to NSIDC data.
The 12-month moving average set a record low in March 2021 (again, average of the monthly averages) according to NSIDC data.
Making conclusions about Arctic climate, or global climate, based on a few years’ results is always misleading. It’s the long-term trends that matter, when natural variability averages close to zero.
data source:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/
davidappell02:
– “I don’t know what the axis of rotation or ecliptic has to do with anything”
Of course you don’t. Few people does. The conditions of the planet determine that the more Arctic amplification takes place, the less the planet will warm.
Climate is a lot more complex than most people imagine. Plenty of climate scientists believe they have it figured out only to see climate make a fool of them. Like Mark Serreze, director of NSIDC:
Serreze M (2010) In: The Telegraph UK. Arctic ice could be gone by 2030. September, 16. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8005620/Arctic-ice-could-be-gone-by-2030.html
“Our thinking is that by 2030 or so, if you went out to the Arctic on the first of September, you probably won’t see any ice at all. It will look like a blue ocean, we’re losing it that quickly,” he said.
Ridiculous.
The ONLY thing that matters in climate change is the imbalance between the amount of radiation the earth absorbs from the sun and the amount it radiates into space. Anything else is NOISE.
Show me how “Arctic amplification” has anything to do with what I just said? Internal energy transfers in a closed thermodynamic system have zero impact on the systems energy balance.
If you want to waste your time learning about and discussing that nonsense, knock yourself out.
“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem, which it was intended to solve.”
Karl R. Popper, 1972. Essay: Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge. In: Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach.
Javier commented:
“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem, which it was intended to solve.”
Karl R. Popper, 1972. Essay: Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge. In: Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach.
What did Karl Popper ever calculate?
We are all born ignorant, to remain ignorant is a choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Javier commented:
We are all born ignorant, to remain ignorant is a choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Javier, you are completely free and welcome to develop a theory of climate that doesn’t include greenhouse gases.
Have at it. Calculate until your hand hurts. Until your eyes bleed. Until you fall asleep at your keyboard. Present what you find.
But know that you will be held to the same exacting standards that climate scientists have been held to for the last 200 years, since Fourier.
Your theory will need to be developed in the same mathematical detail, explain the same things, make the same predictions, and defended rigorously against all incoming arguments and questions by real, expert scientists, who are the worst skeptics you could ever imagine encountering. They will seek to skin you alive.
Many have tried. All have failed.
So please, Javier, have at it. We could all learn something, and that would be wonderful. But don’t expect it to be easy. And don’t quote Karl Popper every time you get in trouble.
davidappell02 | December 29, 2021 at 9:54 pm:
– “Javier, you are completely free and welcome to develop a theory of climate that doesn’t include greenhouse gases.”
Thank you, I didn’t think I needed your permission.
– “know that you will be held to the same exacting standards that climate scientists have been held to for the last 200 years, since Fourier.”
The standards are variable. Standards are very low for defending the dominant hypothesis.
“… is there any reason, really, to think that our modern science may not suffer from similar blunders? In fact, the more successful the fact, the more worrisome it may be. Really successful facts have a tendency to become impregnable to revision.”
Stuart Firestein, 2012. In: Ignorance. How It Drives Science
– “Your theory will need to be developed in the same mathematical detail, explain the same things, make the same predictions”
Not really. Alfred Wegener:
“…today he is most remembered as the originator of continental drift hypothesis by suggesting in 1912 that the continents are slowly drifting around the Earth (German: Kontinentalverschiebung). His hypothesis was controversial and widely rejected by mainstream geology until the 1950s”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
No mathematical model. No credible mechanism. The only important thing in science is to be right. He had the evidence that continents drifted. He presented it. Sticking to the evidence is the only way to make sure you are right in science.
– “Many have tried. All have failed.”
If they failed is because they didn’t stick to the evidence and got espoused to their hypotheses. Science is a harsh mistress. Many are called but few are chosen.
Appell
You said, “But know that you will be held to the same exacting standards that climate scientists have been held to for the last 200 years, …”
If that were only true in modern times! It is rare to see uncertainty ranges appended to measured or calculated nominal values used to support a supposition. When they are appended, the authors often fail to specify whether one or two sigma is being used; usually it is only one sigma and still sometimes larger than the nominal value. Propagation of error seems to be a totally foreign concept to those who call themselves climate scientists.
I suspect that your “exacting standards” imply avoiding anything that implies anything but exactitude, and makes forecasts based on possibilities that are so far in the future that no one will remember them, even if they are still alive.
Clyde Spencer commented:
It is rare to see uncertainty ranges appended to measured or calculated nominal values used to support a supposition
Examples?
I’m not going to waste time creating a compilation that you can just ignore. I stand by my claim. Myself, the Gorman brothers, Monte Carlo, and many others over at WUWT have criticized the lack of due diligence with respect to uncertainty ranges.
Most recently I have had exchanges with Marsupial and Rasmusson about mass balances where (these two academics) totally ignored uncertainties until I pressed them.
Javier, you aren’t Alfred Wegener. If you think you can just throw out ideas and people will prove them decades later you will be sorely disappointed and moreover seen as a crackpot. Developing and supporting hypotheses is extremely difficult work, so you better get started, because you have many thousands of expert scientists to convince, and that’s even if you get into their journal pages, which is highly doubtful, as you’ve displayed very little scientific acumen here. You’ll need to do much more than put forth quotes and links.
davidappell02 | December 30, 2021 at 1:48 pm |
Clyde Spencer commented:
It is rare to see uncertainty ranges appended to measured or calculated nominal values used to support a supposition
David ‘s response – “Examples?”
how about all those Hockey sticks that have been replicated using multitudes of different techniques
davidappell02 | December 30, 2021 at 1:54 pm:
– “Javier, … you’ve displayed very little scientific acumen here.”
What would you know. My scientific articles have over 1200 citations according to Google Scholar. This is above average for a scientist.
How many citations have your articles? Oh, wait, you are not even a scientist.
Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
how about all those Hockey sticks that have been replicated using multitudes of different techniques
Which in particular don’t have uncertainty ranges?
How about we start with James Hansen’s 1988 presentation to Congress where he shows his various scenarios as though there is no uncertainty in any the graph lines.
Javier: a paper I published in graduate school has 74 citations, and another I was co-author on has 67. Researchgate.net says the articles I’ve written as a freelancer, that it knows about, have 561 citations.
But no, Javier, I don’t see your demonstrating much knowledge of climate science here. Perhaps your specialty isn’t closely related to physics.
What you see or don’t see is of no consequence. The amount of time and effort I have put into climate science would be more than sufficient to obtain another university degree, or a second doctorate if I had put it into a more narrowly focused part of climate science.
My merit is to be judged collectively, not by someone who disagrees with me.
Clyde Spencer commented:
I’m not going to waste time creating a compilation that you can just ignore.
I’m not asking for a compilation. I’m asking for a few examples to back up your claim.
Clyde Spencer commented:
How about we start with James Hansen’s 1988 presentation to Congress where he shows his various scenarios as though there is no uncertainty in any the graph lines.
Please give a line to his presentation.
Then explain why a “scenario” would have an uncertainty band. It’s an assumption about the future.
In a decade or so we might look back at this Arctic Sea Ice recovery as the point when the natural variability baton was passed from the skeptics to the AGW afficianados. That will become the go to excuse why more and more failed predictions add up and Arctic Sea Ice is above the 1981-2010 median and temperatures diverge from the AMO induced warming rate of the last 40 years.
There might be a saving grace, however. If the polar see saw phenomenon plays out as many paleo papers have found, there will be a new trend for the worry warts to obsess about.
CKid wrote:
In a decade or so we might look back at this Arctic Sea Ice recovery….
Annual Arctic sea ice extent set a record low in 2020 (average of the monthly averages) according to NSIDC data.
The 12-month moving average set a record low in March 2021 (again, average of the monthly averages) according to NSIDC data.
Still very weak solar wind, as evidenced by high galactic radiation levels (above 6700 counts at Oulu).
https://i.ibb.co/jhZL5t9/monitor.gif
I’m not sure that climate scientists understand what a Watt is:
watt, unit of power in the International System of Units (SI) equal to one joule of work performed per second, or to 1/746 horsepower.
A Watt is a rate. If you block the sun your W/M^2 decrease. A Watt is quantifiable. CO2 adds very very little W/M^2 to the system. The sun adds a whole lot. Block the sun for a year, like Tambora did, and you negate possibly thousands of years of radiation from CO2. All those claims are quantifiable, yet no Climate Scientist does that kind of science. If you think of the climate like a tipping bucket at the water part, CO2 would be like a straw adding water to the giant bucket, whereas the Sun would be like a fire hose. El Ninos would be the bucket tipping and releasing all the energy. If you think of the climate as a system with a safety valve attached you will understand that CO2 can’t cause catastrophic warming as long as El Nino’s exists. The only thing CO2 could possibly do is trigger the safety valve more frequently.
Climate scientists don’t have a problem understanding basic science. You do!
What matters the earth’s energy balance is not the size of the source, its which source is increasing. Solar radiation is not increasing. Currently, it’s doing just the opposite. Only CO2 is significantly increasing, and that’s what’s causing the temperature of the earth to rise.
“If you think of the climate as a system with a safety valve attached you will understand that CO2 can’t cause catastrophic warming as long as El Nino’s exists.”
LOL!!!
JJBraccili, you don’t even seem to understand the basics. Even if I cede the point that the Sun is unchanging (disproven by the sun spot record), you still don’t understand the issue. It isn’t the output of the sun, it is the W/M^2 from the sun that reaches the earth. Clouds block the incoming radiation. Fewer clouds allow more radiation to reach the oceans and that is exactly what has happened over the past few decades. That was covered in another thread.
Anyway, you can quantify the additional W/M^2 from CO2 at the surface over the past 100 years. You can use MODTRAN to quantify that value. It is a very small amount of about 1.5 or 2.0 W/M^2 of LWIR between 13 and 18 Microns. Those wavelengths won’t warm water to any extent.
Now, an Al Nino can reduce the temperature of the Ocean by a few degrees. Water has the highest specific heat of any common material. You can calculate out the energy required to warm the oceans to return the oceans to the pre El Nino values. You can estimate the volume of the top 10 m of the ocean and calculate out how much energy is required to warm the oceans. What you will find is that it will take hundreds if not thousands of years for CO2 to provide the energy needed to warm the ocean by a degree or more. Simply go to MODTRAN and do the calculations yourself. CO2 simply doesn’t provide much energy, the Sun does. That can all be demonstrated with MODTRAN. Please prove me wrong. You posted LOL to my comment. Please prove me wrong, and demonstrate that you understand the basics.
I understand the basics. It’s you who don’t understand scientific basics. What exactly is your background in science?
MODTRAN is not a climate model. It is a limited atmospheric model. It can’t prove what you say.
You sound like CV. You have no idea what you are talking about. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over — whether it makes sense or not.
El Ninos are weather events they cannot impact planetary temperature.
Specific heat is an inertial term. All it does is tell you for a given mass how much the temperature of water will rise for a given amount of energy. It has nothing to do with the planet’s energy imbalance that causes the planet’s temperature to rise. If CO2 is causing an energy imbalance, the planet’s temperature will rise regardless of the oceans specific heat, and regardless of the size of the imbalance.
If hundred of millions of years of life on Earth doesn’t convince you that the climate has safety valves that preserve the conditions for life, I don’t know what will?
Doesn’t matter.
It’s all cause and effect. Building up energy on the planet is not a good idea. All those safety valves didn’t do a thing for Venus. They won’s save us either.
Add enough CO2 to our atmosphere and we become Venus, but it will take a long time to get there. CO2’s impact is not to be taken lightly.
Ragnaar commented:
If hundred of millions of years of life on Earth doesn’t convince you that the climate has safety valves that preserve the conditions for life, I don’t know what will?
Is that all we’re trying to do here, just insure that some kind of life, of some form, any form, propagates into some future millions of years from now?
Because there’s no denying that past episodes of climate change have caused significant extinctions of species.
Or are we trying to preserve our way of life, and for our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren, and for all species currently on the planet, so they are not threatened or made extinct with the very rapid climate change we have created?
co2islife wrote:
Now, an Al Nino can reduce the temperature of the Ocean by a few degrees.
“Al Nino” LOL.
And you’re someone who dismisses experts. LOL
Please show the evidence that El Ninos reduce the temperature or the ocean by a few degrees. The actual data. Link to it.
CO2 if life said:
“CO2 adds very very little W/M^2 to the system.”
CO2 does not add anything. It creates a partial barrier between Earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of space.
Whatever CO2 does, there is no evidence that MUCH higher CO2 levels in the past ever caused runaway global warming. The CO2 being added to the atmosphere now was originally in the atmosphere. Then it was stored underground for a long time as the carbon in coal, oil and natural gas.
We are now “recycling” CO2 and plants love it.
As our planet greens, it can support more life. Anyone who is anti-CO2 is anti-life. The current level of CO2 is far under the level when our C3 plants evolved (about 1000ppm) which is also the level inside CO2-enriched greenhouses (1000 to 1500ppm). CO2 is the staff of life, not an evil satanic gas.l
Richard Greene, I disagree partially. The earth emits 13 to 18 Micron LWIR. That radiation will pass unhindered to outer space if it doesn’t hit a CO2 molecule. If it hits a CO2 molecule, that EM Radiation is converted into thermal radiation by causing a vibrational state caused by the CO2 molecule bending. The GHG Effect converts energy in form. It converts EM energy to thermal energy and back. Other than that, I agree with what you say. My comment assumes no H2O in the atmosphere.
You don’t know anything about science. Why do you bother?
When photons that CO2 can absorb strike a CO2 molecule it causes the molecule to vibrate. That you have right. What you have wrong is it does not convert all of that to thermal energy (kinetic energy) only a small fraction becomes transferred kinetic energy. The rest is reradiated as photons.
All you do is spread misinformation.
co2.is.life commented:
The earth emits 13 to 18 Micron LWIR.
You keep getting this basic fact wrong. The Earth emits from about 3 to 25 microns. It peaks at 10.4 microns.
Your range doesn’t even include the peak.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/375487687654844841/
An atmospheric front in the northern United States with extreme cold temperatures (C) will slowly move eastward.
https://i.ibb.co/8YgLbRZ/Screenshot-3.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f048.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f048.png
Ireneusz
having a warm wave in the SH for next 5 days.
Predicts a very cold spee in the Arctic next 5 days.
Watch the ice go or grow!
Also due for a big earthquake soon?
People like JJ and DA take themselves far too seriously. They are activists with a socialist agenda in which capitalism and democracy are the problem. I think they are the solution. This is not a problem for science.
Tipping points are at the core of climate science. The ubiquity of state transitions in the system provides the justification for the 1.5 degree C trigger meme. Rapid and extreme climate change is possible. The secondary question is how much anthropogenic warming has there been. I put it at about 0.3 degrees rising at some 0.1 degrees C/decade. So no urgency then. But then one has to factor in uncertainty.
So what are the pragmatic responses that balance global aspirations?
The difference here is I understand the science and you don’t. The only agenda I have is to take action to solve our CO2 problem because there will come a time when nothing can be done about it.
To Mr. Broccoli, who claims to understand science !
Science is not always wrong wild guesses of the future climate.
That’s climate astrology and you love it.
Extra CO2 in the atmosphere so far has not caused ANY problems.
It has been good news:
– Warmer winter nights in the colder nations in the Northern Hemisphere, and
– Greening of our planet, boosting yields of C3 plants used for food, which supports more life on our planet. Are you anti-life?
The predicted future climate, imagined to be bad news,
is nothing more than a product of your over-active imagination
Predictions are not reality.
Wrong predictions are not science.
You don’t need predictions to know that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad idea. Just look at an IR spectrograph of earth’s radiant energy. That pretty much shows you that and what the future is going to look like. The only thing it can’t tell you is how much time the human race has left.
That’s actual science — not the junk science you wallow in. You’re the go-to-guy when junk science is involved.
JJ has some understanding of radiative physics and imagines that is all the relevant science. It is not
“JJ has some understanding of radiative physics and imagines that is all the relevant science. It is not”
It is the only relative science in climate change.
Here’s a list of energy sources for the earth:
Solar: 120,000 TW
Human Production: 20 TW
Geothermal: 50 TW
Only solar radiation is significant. The others are a round off error.
The only way energy is removed from the planet is by radiation to outer space. Only by an imbalance between the incoming and outgoing radiation can the energy and temperature of the planet increase
Back radiation caused by greenhouse gases is 75,000 TW. That is the reason that the earth is 33 C higher than it should be.
Radiative physics is the only relevant science — unless you believe in energy fairies.
That the sun dominates the global energy dynamic is evident. Equally evident is the complexity of internal responses that modulate – in Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics – the energy budget.
‘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
JJ has has a far too narrow view of climate science and is aggressively obdurate.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
That the sun dominates the global energy dynamic is evident. Equally evident is the complexity of internal responses that modulate – in Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics – the energy budget.
How’s your calculation of the Hurst exponent for the HadCrut5 time series going?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/12/climate-models-vs-skeptic-models.html
Robert I. Ellison commented:
‘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.’
Natural variability does not lead to planetary warming, because it does not introduce heat into the climate system.
As JJ keeps saying, if it did it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Ok, I see this argument very often here, about natural internal variability not leading to planetary warming. The large scale ocean circulations redistribute heat within the ocean, which can lead to higher or lower temperatures at the surface. Further, the ocean circulations interact with atmospheric circulations (ENSO is an obvious example); changed atmospheric circulations alter the cloudiness pattern, which changes the amount and location of solar radiation that heats the surface. So regional and even global average surface temperature can be changed by natural internal variability
None of that contributes to global warming.
Moving energy from here to there is a zero-sum game. Add to that that weather is transitory and any changes to global temperature are temporary and you have a big nothing.
The imagery is impressive, but that’s all it is.
The Hurst exponent – derived from 1000 years of Nile River level records – shows the tendency for hydroclimatic events of similar size to cluster. It is pretty dopey to apply it to the surface temperature series.
As for models, sea surface temperature and cloud.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
David has an intellectual superficiality he is inordinately proud of.
Wallowing in the past has nothing to do with current conditions. Let me say it again. Climate change is all cause and effect. What happened 10 years, or 10,000 years ago has no impact.
Climate is the superposition of forced change on powerful internal variability that involves shifts in ice, cloud, vegetation, biology, dust… Not something JJ can get his head around – for reasons of cognitive dissonance I assume.
No. For the reason that you can’t violate the First Law of Thermodynamics no matter how you try to spin it.
You need to pick up a copy of “Thermodynamics for Dummies.” I know it’s a stretch, but you might learn something.
The energy comes from the sun. With less cloud – less is reflected.
No energy is created or destroyed. There is simply more or less reflected SW. The data is in and the peer reviewed science persuasive.
But JJ again reveals his essential character.
If there one thing you are, it’s consistent. Consistently wrong.
The discussion was about moving energy from one place on the planet to another and what the impact would be.
“The data is in and the peer reviewed science persuasive.”
Only to you. The climate science community — not so much. I suspect Nature’s peer reviewers aren’t the same quality as a more mainstream climate science journal. That how it goes with the pay-to-publish journals.
Norman Loeb and his team at NASA are in charge of the data. And he dismisses on some seriously spurious grounds.
Based on what? He doesn’t agree with you and a paper printed in a pay-to-publish journal? I’m shocked! Shocked!
I didn’t change anything. I’ve been saying the same thing all along. The discussion was about moving energy from one place to another on the planet and the impact. The impact is no impact.
Your limited notion was on energy moving around the planet – our point had to do with more or less energy entering the system.
I don’t know what discussion you’re having, but the one I’m having is about the impact of moving energy from one point to another. I never said that if you change the albedo, it wouldn’t affect the energy balance. What I said is that if you change the albedo in one place due to energy movement the place the energy came from now has an energy deficit that offsets the impact of the any albedo effect. Since these effects are also transitory, they can’t impact planetary temperature.
I originated this discussion on clouds. JJ changed the topic to ocean circulation. Not the same thing at all.
The discussion was on ocean circulation. You decided to start talking about clouds.
Stop rewriting history – and on such a trivial point. I have been discussing cloud here for more than a decade.
e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/
But the entire field of Earth system science beyond simple radiative physics appears to be a deep mystery to JJ.
Reflected sunlight – thus albedo – changes dramatically in the satellite data. And of course they are inordinately recalcitrant on anything other than CO2.
Really? Where? In your pay-to-publish paper. I don’t think the climate science community would agree.
That satellite data comes from NASA. The same NASA you just said doesn’t know how to take an IR spectrograph. So, which is it?
The science community agrees? With you? I doubt it.
Here’s earth’s IR spectrograph from satellite data by NASA:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d75b0d49b696ecedec244862e1d2ac47
The graph is in wavenumber. The graph in wavelength will be a mirror image. See how it compares with your graph based on Planck’s equation.
Wavenumber is 10,000/wavelength. For 15 microns it is 666. What is more important is the 8 to 12 micron atmospheric window.
You can fool some of the people…
Whatever my knowledge of radiative physics, it towers over your grasp of the subject.
Earth system dynamics have nothing to do with climate change. They respond to climate change. They don’t cause it.
So he claims – take it with a ton of salt.
JJ and Appell need to listen up to what Judith just said.
It’s clear neither JJ nor Appell understand this. Basic climate science.
I understand it just fine. You on the other hand are clueless.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The Hurst exponent – derived from 1000 years of Nile River level records – shows the tendency for hydroclimatic events of similar size to cluster. It is pretty dopey to apply it to the surface temperature series.
Why?
RIE wrote:
As for models, sea surface temperature and cloud.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
David has an intellectual superficiality he is inordinately proud of.
What you continually fail to understand is that Loeb et al are just closing the energy budget.
They aren’t saying that clouds or the ocean spontaneously rearrange themselves to create energy out of thin air.
If they manage to add energy to the climate system, something somewhere else is subtracting energy from the climate system.
It is required by the 1st law of thermodynamics, as JJ keeps pointing out.
What about the 1st law don’t you understand?
JJBraccili commented on TORNADO.
“in response to Robert I. Ellison:
The Hurst exponent – derived from 1000 years of Nile River level records – shows the tendency for hydroclimatic events of similar size to cluster. It is pretty dopey to apply it to the surface temperature series. As for models, sea surface temperature and cloud. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705 David has an intellectual superficiality he is inordinately proud […]”
Wallowing in the past has nothing to do with current conditions.
Of course.
Robert likes to make a big deal about “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamical theory.” He doesn’t understand any of it but it’s a buzz term he discovered recently that he thinks makes him look smart.
In particular, he has absolutely no suggestions about how climate modelers should incorporate such dynamics into their models. He’s all talk.
He likes to talk about future tipping points but has no suggestions about what climate modelers – who discovered tipping points – should do to their models to reveal future tipping points.
Robert is all talk but no action.
That’s why I linked to this cartoon, which describes him and his ilk perfectly:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/12/climate-models-vs-skeptic-models.html
My original point about the Hurst exponent is that Robert can’t even calculate the Hurst exponent for a simple time series like HadCRUT5.
Instead he plays games and tries to pretend it’s not important.
But it’s just a series of numbers, and a challenge for him to calculate another number from them. Pure mathematics.
And actually Robert, many scientists are calculating Hurst exponents from temperature time series:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,38&qsp=1&q=%22hurst+exponents%22+surface+air+temperature&qst=br
Just do it, pal.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Climate is the superposition of forced change….
Forced by what?
Over the past 40 years cloud changes in the Pacific resulted in reduced reflected shortwave radiation warming the planet by as much as 0.3 degrees C.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
‘We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.’
Not a lot of data on albedo, but here’s what I was able to find.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=9uc7UGbX&id=F5C853EECA75A31790DAF23D1DA9D8555F3FAE83&thid=OIP.9uc7UGbX55JgApQfQU0PvQHaFo&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.f6e73b5066d7e7926002941f414d0fbd%3frik%3dg64%252fX1XYqR098g%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.friendsofscience.org%252fassets%252fdocuments%252fFOS%2bEssay%252fearth_albedo_bbso.jpg%26ehk%3d5eFFCXAYePpgFNGyH9yrI%252ftMpkBGGEwuorqs1aGlqjo%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0%26sres%3d1%26sresct%3d1%26srh%3d800%26srw%3d1052&exph=380&expw=500&q=albedo+of+the+earth+by+year&simid=608038335605842781&FORM=IRPRST&ck=56FA02B2A9785AFB4FD5223529DC23C8&selectedIndex=17&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
That kind of insignificant meandering change is not going to cause the temperature of the planet to rise and will not cause climate change.
You should read your own source:
“… which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.’”
They lump albedo in with the greenhouse effect increase.
The Nature open access journals are pay to publish. My experience is that type of journal will print just about anything. This paper hasn’t caught on in the scientific community. It could be the “cabal” at work, or the paper is junk science. I suspect it’s more the latter than the former.
The Earth isn’t a closed system so I’m not sure how the first law proves anything. Having more or less energy entering the Earth’s system due to a change in cloud patterns isn’t creating or destroying energy, it is only changing the location. In this case the choices of location are the Earth and the rest of the universe.
The earth is a closed thermodynamic system. Matter does not flow across the system boundary, but energy flows freely.
BTW the first law applies to systems where matter flows freely across the system boundary. It’s called an open system and enthalpy is used instead of internal energy to measure energy content. Enthalpy accounts for the flowing work.
Weather variations do not change the internal energy of the earth. They have zero impact on climate change.
If you’re looking for something to discredit climate science, ocean currents and weather variation is not going to do it.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Over the past 40 years cloud changes in the Pacific resulted in reduced reflected shortwave radiation warming the planet by as much as 0.3 degrees C.
What caused the cloud changes?
Asking the same dopey questions long after the data and peer reviewed science has been provided and cited comes down to a problem of culturally motivated ignorance.
stevenreincarnated commented:
The Earth isn’t a closed system so I’m not sure how the first law proves anything.
What adds heat to the Earth’s system besides the Sun, greenhouse gases, human production or internal geothermal?
David, what energy is created or destroyed if clouds reflect it back into space? Keep on topic. Show that mentioning the 1st law is pertinent to the argument.
stevenreincarnated commented:
David, what energy is created or destroyed if clouds reflect it back into space?
What creates the cloud?
Do they pop out of thin air?
How much energy does it take to create a cloud?
Calculate it.
A change in location of warm water can change the clouds. You know that, climate scientists know that, the models show it, common sense demands it, so again, explain how the 1st law is pertinent.
That’s pretty easy to explain.
The warm water came from somewhere else on the planet. That location now has an energy deficit as required by the First Law of Thermodynamics. That will mitigate the impact of the warm water. You want to believe that the energy of the warm water came out of nothing.
Maybe, the location of the energy deficit decreases cloud cover. In the end, it’s all a wash and ocean currents cannot cause global climate change. They can change the local weather, but that’s about it.
stevenreincarnated commented:
A change in location of warm water can change the clouds.
Would it be a net global change?
How would it add energy to the Earth system without violation the 1LOT?
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
The energy comes from the sun. With less cloud – less is reflected.
What causes the change in cloud cover?
Clouds reflecting more or less energy is not creating or destroying energy. This isn’t complicated. Tell me you understand the 1st law better than the average underwater basket weaver and you can understand this simple concept.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Reflected sunlight – thus albedo – changes dramatically in the satellite data.
What evidence supports this claim?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
No energy is created or destroyed. There is simply more or less reflected SW. The data is in and the peer reviewed science persuasive.
What data, and what peer reviewed science, specifically?
Cite it. With links.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Norman Loeb and his team at NASA are in charge of the data.
They’re not “in charge” of any data, LOL.
You and I have access to all the data they do.
They’re just trying to close energy budgets.
That’s all.
Why don’t you write to Norman Loeb and ask him if there are any forcings governing today’s climate other than aGHGs.
I dare you.
Report his reply back here.
I talked to him about 5 years ago, for an hour, in his office at NOAA in Boulder.
He’s a very smart, pleasant guy, not some wild radical, believe me. Totally on board with AGW. OMG.
JJBraccili at one point wrote “Maybe, the location of the energy deficit decreases cloud cover. In the end, it’s all a wash and ocean currents cannot cause global climate change. They can change the local weather, but that’s about it.”
What you are missing is the time scales over which these things happen. Local climates can change and be changed for many decades. That doesn’t mean somewhere else needs to have changed to compensate because that area equally can change slowly itself. The earth is really big.
Take Greenland for example. The local climate changed for long enough for it to warm up and be settled by the Vikings. GCMs wont replicate that. And you believe that somewhere else on the planet froze to compensate. But there is no evidence of a warm Greenland and a cooler “rest of the earth”
You can’t create energy out of nothing. Moving energy from one part of the planet to another part of the planet does not create energy.
You may have missed my post yesterday where I debunked the idea that climate variability can change the temperature of the planet.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Look at what temperature does before 1960. Between 1880 and 1960 temperature change tracks with solar irradiance. After 1960 it doesn’t. You want me to believe that temperature change after 1960 is the result of climate variability? What happened before 1960? Where is the evidence that climate variability had an impact on temperature? There is none. What happened? Did climate variability hibernate for 80 years?
That’s why the climate variability argument is nonsense.
JJBraccili wrote “You may have missed my post yesterday where I debunked the idea that climate variability can change the temperature of the planet.”
I think you’re really new to this. Do you think (or have any evidence) solar irradiance tracked the temperature during say, the little ice age? Lots of people have tried to make solar irradiance a causal factor for warming but its not enough in, and of itself.
Natural variability isn’t about creating energy from nothing. That you even mention this sequitur speaks volumes about where you’re coming from. Natural variability moving energy around the planet happens at all levels temporally. Atmosphere movement is quick, ocean movement is slow and deep ocean movement and upwelling is very slow but they all involve changes in cloud cover and precipitation (and more) for regions that can last for many decades and longer.
That isn’t particularly controversial, there’s an enormous amount of incontrovertible archaeological evidence that regions experience long term climate change.
And as I mentioned, the earth is really big. What happens on one side of the earth is independent to what happens on the other side in the short and medium terms. They interact but not like you imagine. That’s why the earth *has* climate change.
The current crop of warming enthusiasts like yourself have this idealised view of the earth as though it was some giant bathtub. Warm one end and the other warms too and it heads towards equilibrium. The reality is the the earth is too big for that.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
People like JJ and DA take themselves far too seriously. They are activists with a socialist agenda in which capitalism and democracy are the problem.
Baloney. Stick to climate science and avoid personal disparagements.
The secondary question is how much anthropogenic warming has there been. I put it at about 0.3 degrees rising at some 0.1 degrees C/decade.
What calculation gives this number?
Capitalism is the problem according to DA. I reject his socialist nonsense absolutely.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Capitalism is the problem according to DA. I reject his socialist nonsense absolutely.
Where’s the calculation that gives your anthropogenic warming of 0.3 C with a rate of 0.1 C/decade?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Capitalism is the problem according to DA. I reject his socialist nonsense absolutely.
The problem isn’t capitalism per se, it’s rapacious, monopolistic, crony capitalism where billionaires and large corporations pay no taxes and destroy the environment while making the public pay their external costs. The privatization of profits and socialization of costs. Plundering resources unsustainably while, for fossil fuels, polluting the planet in a way that prematurely kills one in five people, changes the climate for the next 100,000 years, destroys ecosystems and species, drowns all coastal cities and acidifies the ocean. That kind of “capitalism” is a dangerous menace, as we’re now beginning to see.
In the US at least, billionaires and corporations have their fat hands out for all kinds of socialism — government subsidies, tax breaks, tax cuts, and usually pay less taxes (if they pay any taxes) than the middle class. All while corrupting politicians with large payments in order to get their way, often despite the public’s overwhelming preferences. And there are problems that only socialism can solve, such as affordable universal health care, such as you benefit from in Australia. Capitalism can’t provide that. Socialism provides affordable public education, police and fire services, military defense services, aid to the poor, and more, all of which would disappear under pure capitalism.
Nobody expects the state to take over the production of computer chips, medical equipment or corn chips, as you seem to imagine. (The farmers sure do get a lot of socialism though, huh?) You have a hazy, blind, theoretical view of capitalism, perhaps because you’ve never really competed in a capitalistic market — have you?
“The problem isn’t capitalism per se, it’s rapacious, monopolistic, crony capitalism where billionaires and large corporations pay no taxes and destroy the environment while making the public pay their external costs.”
I believe you make grand statements are generally unsupportable. Show examples in the US where you believe this has actually happened. You sound like Liz Warren describing Musk…inaccurately
What he is said is not unsupportable. I wrote a piece on Quora explaining how the scam works:
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-say-about-Republican-tax-policies-now-that-Kansas-has-failed-the-%E2%80%9Ctax-experiment%E2%80%9D?top_ans=175205275
Here’s a write up on the 100-year failure of conservative economic policy:
https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-was-the-Great-Depression-the-product-of-President-Hoovers-policies?top_ans=23083055
It is a very difficult calculation.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/hadcru.png
Satellites reveal changes in planetary energy dynamics related to decadal spatiotemporal patterns of sea surface temperature.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1171255
The size of the effect has been estimated from comparison between models – that lack the variability of the Earth system – compared to reassessment products.
Rants peppered with disparagement is DA’s only resort. I had a thought yesterday that trading on Wall Street – easy these days – is both fun and educational. I want to see how much I can parley my trading account into before I die. I worked as a hydrologist and environmental scientist. Starting with decades of hydrodynamic modelling. I had fun and was paid well enough.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with small government, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
People like DA use global warming as a stalking horse for an ideology that has failed repeatedly while hundreds of millions died. They always promise to get it right next time
RIE wrote:
It is a very difficult calculation.
That trendline is a ridiculous calculation because it’s a fit over periods that have different climactic factors. So it’s no good. I.e. There isn’t a constant set of warming factors since 1850, so doing linear regression over that time period is bad science.
Rob Starkey: Examples of large corporations paying no taxes are trivial to find. And the entire fossil fuel industry is an example of one that does not pay its (huge) external costs.
JJBraccili | December 29, 2021 at 10:41 am |
“Here’s a write up on the 100-year failure of conservative economic policy:
https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-was-the-Great-Depression-the-product-of-President-Hoovers-policies?top_ans=23083055”
Lets hope you knowledge of chemistry and other science is not as bad as your distorted view of history and economics
FDR according to your posting was the he was the 4th greatest president – yet he did more to facilate the communist take over of eastern Europe and the 40 year cold war than any other person in the west.
Talk about revisionist history.
The reason fascism rose in Europe was because of the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles. That directly led to WW II. Conservative economic policy led to the Great Depression.
If Hitler had not attacked Russia and failed, Russia would have been defeated, Stalin deposed, and the cold war would have never happened
FDR gave up too much at Yalta, but he was a shell of his former self. What was Truman going to do? Start a war with Russia? After WWII, the American people wouldn’t tolerate a war of choice. Maybe, it would have been better to follow Patton’s advice, but there was no way to sell it.
davidappell02 | December 28, 2021 at 7:05 pm |
“Rob Starkey: Examples of large corporations paying no taxes are trivial to find. And the entire fossil fuel industry is an example of one that does not pay its (huge) external costs.”
Activists have throughly distorted the concept of ‘external costs” – to mislead the public.
Using the concept of “EXTERNAL COSTS” used the climate activist would also include the entire food industry , since no one in food industry pays for the external costs of disposal of the food products consumed by their customers.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
I worked as a hydrologist and environmental scientist. Starting with decades of hydrodynamic modelling.
Were you a consultant? An independent contractor? Otherwise you had almost no experience competing in capitalistic markets. You weren’t putting your neck on the line every day in a “free market” to earn your bread.
JJ is regurgitating an 80 year old discredited meme pushed by leftwing extremist economic illiterates about the cause of the Great Depression. Read the History of US Monetary Policy. Read the History of the Federal Reserve. Read the Annual Reports of the Federal Reserve from that period. Read the history of the Gold Standard during that period. Read about the push for reparations from Germany and the actions of the Central Banks of the UK, France and Germany. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon caused by events playing out years before 1929 and missteps by major central banks after 1929.
For his time Hoover was more of Keynesian like than what he is given credit for. He increased the budget by 50% from when he took office. He increased taxes in 1932. Even after FDR took over, only 5-10% of the work force paid individual income taxes until the late 1930s. Fiscal policy was much different then. In 1929 Federal spending was 3% of GDP vs 20-22% lately. Even after all the great and needed actions by FDR, the US still had a high double digit unemployment rate in 1937. WWII got us out of the Depression, not the New Deal.
It’s time to put to bed the nonsense about Hoover and CO2 being the only game in town.
It’s true. Hoover did increase spending, but what he used the money for was to bail out failing banks. His jobs program was, for all practical purposes, non-existent. The conservative Fed instituted a tight money policy fighting imaginary inflation instead of the real culprit — deflation.
The top-marginal tax rate under FDR was 95% on those earning over $ 400K. FDR wanted 100% but was talked out of it.
Conservative economic policy hasn’t changed in over 100 years. They just rebrand it. The first time it was fully implemented, it resulted in the Great Depression. The second time it resulted the Great Recession. That was no accident, and it wasn’t poor people’s fault.
After the Harding, Coolidge, Hoover debacle, Eisenhower — not a true conservative — followed the policies of FDR. Nixon did pretty much the same. Nixon was a TR fan and even proposed a national healthcare plan. Saint Ronnie put us on the road to ruin again, and we’ve pretty much been on that path ever since. Had Shrub been at the beginning of his term instead of at the end, we would have gone through Great Depression II. His policies to deal with a bad recession were no better than Hoover’s.
BTW Hoover was responsible for turning what should have been a bad recession into the Great Depression. It was Harding and Coolidge and more specifically Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, who instituted the policies that were responsible for the crash of 1929.
That 80-year-old meme BS doesn’t carry weight when conservative economic policies haven’t changed in over 100 years.
DA attributes nearly all 20th century warming greenhouse gases. This is used to estimate AGW.
Fossil fuels have immense value to society. These guys misuse the idea of Pigovian externalities. This is not to say that fossil fuels should not be supplanted by new and innovative energy technologies.
“… changes the climate for the next 100,000 years …”
“What calculation gives this number?”
JJBraccili | December 29, 2021 at 2:42 pm |
“Talk about revisionist history.
FDR gave up too much at Yalta, but he was a shell of his former self. What was Truman going to do? ”
As I stated, you have a very distorted and incomplete understanding of history. Yalta was whether trivail in the grand scheme of FDR’s faciliating Stalins takeover of eastern europe and the ensuing cold war.
Victor Hanson and mckeen should provide you with additional insight.
What? More conservative revisionist history? I’ve seen enough and don’t need to read anymore.
By the time of the Yalta conference, Stalin was already in Eastern Europe. At the time, he was our ally. He was pushing the Nazis west. We weren’t going to dislodge him without a war.
Isn’t it amazing how the GOP, the party of personal responsibility, never takes responsibility for anything? The Great Depression was FDRs fault. The cold war was FDRs and Trumans fault. Debts and deficits are from too much spending. They were under control until Saint Ronnie sold the BS that tax cuts would pay for themselves. They never do. The Great Recession was poor people’s fault.
Conservatism is not a governing philosophy. It doesn’t work. It’s so bad that currently the GOP has no platform and no policies to run on. The only way they can win is to rig elections so they can’t lose. Even if they do happen to lose, they reserve the right to overturn the will of the people with bogus claims of voter fraud.
For the past 60 years the GOP has run on fear, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and white nationalism. That’s the way they win elections. That’s actual history and not the revisionist BS you’re trying to sell.
JJ
Actually the top marginal tax rate was 94% in 1944 and 1945. But who is quibbling.
You weren’t paying attention. All the literature says it was the Fed which didn’t provide enough liquidity and didn’t allow the money supply to grow and that was exacerbated by not going off the gold standard quickly enough. FDR immediately went off and allowed the money supply to grow independently of the flow of gold.
BTW, you do realize the deficit, preCOVID and for the foreseeable future is caused not by the lack of tax revenue but the social program spending going from $1.1 T to $4.4T since 2000. If the 1%ers paid the same effective tax rate they paid in 1950s and early 1960s (30-35%) it would generate under $200 Billion more annually. The official estimate for the next few years is $1T+. Most likely more than that.
https://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US-National-Debt-GDP-graph.png
The above graph demonstrates that debt was under control and falling until Saint Ronnie and his resurrection of supply side economics from the 1920s. Clinton was getting debt under control. Shrub put supply side economics on steroids and destroyed what Clinton had accomplished. Obama was handed the Great Recession and was starting to get debt under control at the end of his presidency. Along comes the Orange Wonder and another round of supply side economics.
How long will it take until you realize that the only thing supply side economics grows is income inequality and the national debt?
“…and large corporations pay no taxes…”
I think that’s a broad charge. About 75% of the time someone says that, it’s B.S. Just because a corporation has some carryforward losses, research credits or large depreciation write offs for a year or two, that’s not telling the whole story. Would you prefer they just went of business and laid everybody off? Make up a new tax code and drive them all to locate in another country. Would that make you happy?
CKid commented:
BTW, you do realize the deficit, preCOVID and for the foreseeable future is caused not by the lack of tax revenue but the social program spending going from $1.1 T to $4.4T since 2000
Gosh there’s a lot of people who need help.
Why is that?
joe – the non climate scientist:
Using the concept of “EXTERNAL COSTS” used the climate activist would also include the entire food industry , since no one in food industry pays for the external costs of disposal of the food products consumed by their customers.
The costs of food disposal are NOWHERE NEAR the costs of fossil fuel pollution. Food waste doesn’t prematurely kill 1 in 5, except perhaps through starvation. It doesn’t pollute the world for 10^5 years. It doesn’t threaten ecosystems and species to nearly the same degree, by orders of magnitude.
This is a silly and laughable analogy.
Clyde Spencer commented:
“… changes the climate for the next 100,000 years …”
“What calculation gives this number?”
Good question.
The number comes from nature.
That’s how long it takes nature to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, through silicate weathering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate%E2%80%93silicate_cycle
The recognized expert who figured a lot of this out last decade is David Archer of the University of Chicago. He wrote a popular book:
“The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.”
David Archer is a world expert on the carbon cycle and how CO2 leaves the atmosphere — the ocean ultimately absorbs about 75%, and what’s left leaves by silicate weathering, which takes about 100,000 years. This is observed in paleoclimate research, as for the PETM and other hyperthermals.
You’re welcome to read Archer’s more technical book,
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691144146/the-global-carbon-cycle
or this piece:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/
or some of his papers
“The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2,”
David Archer and Victor Brovkin,
Climatic Change (2008) 90:283–297
DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1
Robert I. Ellison commented:
People like DA use global warming as a stalking horse for an ideology that has failed repeatedly while hundreds of millions died.
Actually my anger about rapacious, monopolistic, crony, corrupt modern capitalism has nothing to do with global warming, it’s underneath that.
But I don’t think you want to see or address that.
Ragnaar wrote:
Would you prefer they just went of business and laid everybody off?
I’d prefer corporations paid their fair of taxes just like everyone else. I’d prefer they contribute to what it costs society to support and serve their needs.
Corporations are people, right? {vo-mit} So why aren’t they paying taxes like people?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
….which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.’
Hmm…sounds very anthropogenic.
davidappell02 | December 29, 2021 at 9:35 pm |
joe – the non climate scientist:
Using the concept of “EXTERNAL COSTS” used the climate activist would also include the entire food industry , since no one in food industry pays for the external costs of disposal of the food products consumed by their customers.
The costs of food disposal are NOWHERE NEAR the costs of fossil fuel pollution. Food waste doesn’t prematurely kill 1 in 5, except perhaps through starvation. It doesn’t pollute the world for 10^5 years. It doesn’t threaten ecosystems and species to nearly the same degree, by orders of magnitude.
“This is a silly and laughable analogy.”
Actually – a very good analogy – since it highlights the extent that activists will torture basic concepts in order to make claims that have zero basis in reality.
And NO – fossil fuel polution does not kill 1 in 5. If you used basic common sense and a basic amount of due diligence you would know that stat is complete bogus. (just an example of the extent that activists will make crap up , yet maybe you already know that.
JJBraccili | December 29, 2021 at 8:23 pm |
“If Hitler had not attacked Russia and failed, Russia would have been defeated, Stalin deposed, and the cold war would have never happened
FDR gave up too much at Yalta, but he was a shell of his former self. What was Truman going to do?”
“What? More conservative revisionist history? I’ve seen enough and don’t need to read anymore.
By the time of the Yalta conference, Stalin was already in Eastern Europe.”
Braccili –
That is why I stated that Yalta was trivial in the grand scheme of things which FDR did to facilitate Russia’s enslavement of eastern europe with communism. I gave you to excellent books which provide a much broader geopolitical prospective for your reading. Both of which without the distorted / incomplete understanding of history that you continue to display.
note – your credibility is seriously undermined everytime you throw politics into your response.
I responded to the political commentary of others. I’d be more than happy to leave politics and economics out of it. If it’s just about the science, I’m right and people like you are wrong. Isn’t that why you and others bring politics into this? I’m a socialist because I don’t agree with your idiotic positions.
As for history, FDR is always the conservatives’ whipping boy. He’s responsible for everything. It’s understandable since almost all the Republican conservative presidents before and after FDR were inept, incompetent or corrupt or a combination of all three — Harding was the first Republican conservative president, Eisenhower and Bush Sr were the exceptions.
There were two ways of dislodging Stalin from Eastern Europe. A protracted bloody ground war or dropping nuclear bombs on Russia. Neither would have been acceptable at the time. Truman chose the best option available to him — containment.
JJBraccili | December 31, 2021 at 11:25 am |
“I responded to the political commentary of others. I’d be more than happy to leave politics and economics out of it. If it’s just about the science, I’m right and people like you are wrong. Isn’t that why you and others bring politics into this? I’m a socialist”
Braccili – you nailed it – your belief in socialism distorts your ability to have a rational and comprehensive understanding to world events. Its always Capitalism is evil, socialism is good. Politics is first and foremost in your world view.
No you wouldnt be happy to leave politics and economics out of it – its obviously not true since you repetively inject politics into your responses.
“you nailed it – your belief in socialism distorts your ability to have a rational and comprehensive understanding to world events. Its always Capitalism is evil, socialism is good. Politics is first and foremost in your world view.”
I never said capitalism is evil or good. The same with socialism. I said you need a mix to have a working society.
Capitalism and socialism are economic frameworks. They are neither good nor bad, but they can do bad things if not constrained. Think slavery, sweat shops, etc.
You worship at the altar of capitalism. You’ve spent too much time in the conservative bubble and watching Faux News. That shapes your myopic world view.
“No you wouldnt be happy to leave politics and economics out of it – its obviously not true since you repetively inject politics into your responses.”
It’s people like you that injected politics into this. You and other of your ilk claim that climate scientists and climate science have a socialist/liberal bias. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, anyone who doesn’t agree with you on any subject must be a liberal/socialist.
Politics and economics are at the core of rational climate policy. A myopic vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals. It is the polar opposite to aspirations to prosperous communities in vibrant landscapes.
Nuts.
‘We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.’
stevenreincarnated wrote:
Does a cloud in the tropics reflect the same amount of energy as one exactly the same in the Artic?
You’re changing the question.
It takes energy to create a cloud, yes?
Where does that energy come from?
I’m not changing the question. You refuse to answer the question. You want to invoke the 1st law but can’t support its use in a system open to energy since the energy can simply go elsewhere. Instead of just admitting you were using a garbage argument now I must suffer through a series of tangential comments from you that are only there to obfuscate that fact.
Clouds don’t create energy – they simply reflect more or less light back tp space.
The 1st differential global energy equation is based on the 1st LOT. The equation can be written as the change in heat in oceans is approximately equal to energy in less energy out at TOA.
Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout
Cloud dynamics are of immense interest and relevance.
stevenreincarnated commented:
Clouds reflecting more or less energy is not creating or destroying energy
No?
All things being equal, why not?
How does a cloud suddenly reflect more energy?
Where does the decrease in energy go?
Does a cloud in the tropics reflect the same amount of energy as one exactly the same in the Artic? You are just playing now, right? You aren’t really confused by this, are you?
What another ridiculous thing to say.
‘Dr. Norman Loeb leads a large team dedicated to ensuring the success of CERES, from beginning to end. Loeb says working with and learning from this outstanding group of scientists and engineers has helped him grow professionally and personally.’ https://terra.nasa.gov/people/dr-norman-g-loeb
I am totally on board with AGW – but Earth system science is quite a bit more inclusive.
The strong message is that if the science is right it is already to late.
A point made by SBM
Human nature is, well, human nature.
Two ways to do things and humans en masse go for self interest and the wrong way.
In that context the urge to do something is itself problematical and paradoxical.
Practically the best solutions are.
Pretend nothing is happening, relieves stress.
Acknowledge it is happening and party anyway, avoids stress.
Adopt a different mindset, admit the world is an illusion and reduce one’s own needs to the minimum
‘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 (see ref. 26).’ James McWilliams
The more fundamental question is what certainty can science reasonably be expected to provide. Certain enough for all sorts of mad schemes proposed to be proposed according to some.
What to do instead?
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-programme-updates
Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management. Applied to conservation of soils and ecosystems it is a foundation for a bright future. The carbon content of CO2 can be sequestered reducing land sector emissions and offsetting other sources while increasing productivity far beyond what ‘global greening’ can achieve, mitigating flood and drought and conserving biodiversity. Wins all around.
Robert I. Ellison commented:The carbon content of CO2 can be sequestered reducing land sector emissions and offsetting other sources….
How much energy does it take to extract and sequester a ton of CO2?
It is free energy from the sun don’t you know?
How much energy does it take to extract and sequester a ton of CO2?
It is free energy from the sun don’t you know?
What?
How much energy will it take to extract about 40 Gt CO2/yr emissions from the atmosphere and sequester it?
It’s an engineering question. Is it doable?
How does he not get this? Land sector emissions – some 25% of the total – requires a very different approach to energy emissions. Reducing energy emissions requires innovative technologies.
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years. In Australia a comprehensive program of ecological restoration across landscapes – worth every cent for many reasons – would enable all and more greenhouse gas emissions from energy to be offset.
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years. In Australia a comprehensive program of ecological restoration across landscapes – worth every cent for many reasons – would enable all and more greenhouse gas emissions from energy to be offset.
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years. In Australia a comprehensive program of ecological restoration across landscapes – worth every cent for many reasons – would enable all and more greenhouse gas emissions from energy to be offset.
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years. In Australia a comprehensive program of ecological restoration across landscapes – worth every cent for many reasons – would enable all and more greenhouse gas emissions from energy to be offset.
Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement and steel manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.
Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration – the French 4 per 1000 initiative – is the foundation for balancing the human ecology.
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years. In Australia a comprehensive program of ecological restoration across landscapes – worth every cent for many reasons – would enable all and more greenhouse gas emissions from energy to be offset.
The answer is it isn’t doable.
The fossil fuel industry has been pitching this nonsense as they try to distance themselves from climate denial. For all their talk, they spend next to nothing on research in this area which shows how much they believe this approach will work.
The idea of planting a “trillion trees” and soil sequestration is laughable. Carbon capture only captures a minority of emissions. The CO2 captured has to be transported to the disposal site. There is the problem of long-term storage of a gas with no leakage.
A Canadian company call Carbon Engineering has been experimenting with atmospheric CO2 scrubbing and converting the CO2 to a fuel using a Fischer-Tropsch process. I took some numbers they provided and estimated to remove the CO2 we are currently dumping into the atmosphere would take 48,000 average sized plants. That without reducing the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. If we dedicated all of our manufacturing and construction capacity to this task it would take decades and decades to complete.
https://carbonengineering.com/
Don’t know what happened there. I cut and pasted from my WordPress site. It is all there.
https://watertechbyrie.com/
There are two the CO2 ( atmospheric carbon dioxide) removal natural sinks.
1). CO2 captured in minerals.
2). CO2 captured as natural gas, oil and coal deposits.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs. Changes that put carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer temperatures on Earth.’
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Land sector emissions – some 25% of the total
Prove this statistic. I don’t think you can.
I think it’s more like 10%.
Then you should try again David.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
How does he not get this?
I’m asking you a simple question that you’re avoiding answering.
How much energy does it, in Joules, take to extract and sequester a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere?
By photosynthesis? It’ free energy.
David would rather play sill games than have a productive discourse.
Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The near term potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC during the modern era.
Read harder David.
Hint: it can be shown, based on fundamental thermodynamics, that the answer to the extraction question is at least 0.5 GJ/ton CO2.
This is calculated in
“Thermodynamic Minimum Energy to Remove CO2 from a Gas Mixture,”
APS DAC report (2011), pp 21-22.
https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf
But the engineering numbers I’ve seen on a recent Twitter discussion about this are 7.3 GJ/t CO2, with MAYBE a factor of 2 improvement in the future.
Let’s add the energy of sequestration and make this 10 GJ/t CO2.
To capture emissions of our current 40 Gt/yr with an airborne fraction of 0.5 will therefore require 2e20 J/yr, or 6.3 TW.
Compare that to what our current civilization runs on, 20 TW annually.
Now tell me again how carbon capture is doable. And this is just to capture current emissions. This doesn’t include extraction enough carbon to reduce the atmosphere from 420 ppm CO2 to 350 ppm CO2 or even 280 ppm CO2. That number is huge, something like 5000 EJ (to get to 350 ppm). EJ=exajoule. By contrast the world runs on about 630 EJ/yr.
If you want to do it through agriculture. calculate the land required and the energy needed to prepare the cropland to make that possible. Remember, you want to sequester the carbon permanently — how much carbon will the topsoil hold?
RIE,
You were doing OK until your Achilles Heel emerged, namely, your devotion to environmentalism. Kick that useless part of your career and you are on the worthwhile side.
One way to debate this story on Climate Etc just now, is to divide the world’s economic participants into three broad groups, namely, those who create genuine new wealth for society, those who try to grab it and spend it, often for their own benefit rather than that of society and the onlookers who could be ignored if they did not vote. Environmentalism is in the middle camp, it is a negative type of concept that puts lead in the saddles of achievers. Most of what is claimed as victory by environmentalists was in progress by the wealth creators way ahead of the regulators’ dead hands, but we wealth creators are a modest lot who do not advertise such progress because advertising is another negative on the broad canvas of society.
There is a lot of silly talk around the ridges, like this political stuff just before here, like the non-science dressed up as science that is a big part of the climate change fiction. I seldom write here now because a few cranks have taken over with their silly talk which, if I do a mental summation over the last 2 years, has produced absolutely no new scientific breakthroughs, but a huge wad on non-science dressed up to kill. And kill it will.
Lift your games, you guys, or buzz off and annoy other people elsewhere. Happy New Year. Geoff
Entrepreneurs are not notably a shy lot. Is that all you have?
1). CO2 captured in minerals.
2). CO2 captured as natural gas, oil and coal deposits.
Those two sinks are practically of no return. Gradually the CO2 content in atmosphere is depleted to the very low levels of Earth’s living organisms carbon dioxide starvation.
Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs.
Human activities by burning fossil fuels activate a process of transferring more carbon from coal deposits into minerals.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Fossil fuels are the end result of deposition of biomass on seabeds. Burning them them oxidises carbon to evolve carbon dioxide.
The land sector is the source of some 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. We have to stop loss of carbon from terrestrial systems for many reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY9YVwJZDvw
Energy, transport and industrial emissions are unrelated and require a different response.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Robert I. Ellison commented: Land sector emissions – some 25% of the total Prove this statistic. I don’t think you can. I think it’s more like 10%.
Then you should try again David.
No, you should act like a scientist for once and cite sources that back up your claims.
The source is the IPCC David – look it up and stop pulling things out of your arse.
Geoff Sherrington commented:
Most of what is claimed as victory by environmentalists was in progress by the wealth creators way ahead of the regulators’ dead hands, but we wealth creators are a modest lot who do not advertise such progress because advertising is another negative on the broad canvas of society.
“Wealth creators,” who are mostly creating wealth for themselves, often/usually/always do so at the expense of the environment and society, with little regard to their external costs and the pollution they create. Unfortunately our societies do not yet hold them accountable for it, but that day is coming. It’s only fair. We need only to look at the continuing increase in wealth inequality in modern societies to see that “wealth creators” are doing it for themselves with little regard for anyone else, and certainly not for society, by and large. They privatize profits and socialize costs. For this they pat themselves on the back, as Geoff two-facedly does here, and are furious if the rest of us don’t pat them there as well.
Lots of rhetoric from both these guys with no facts.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Lots of rhetoric from both these guys with no facts.
Generating electrical power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to a 2011 study that included noted Yale economist William Nordhaus:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel for more than just electricity use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
(Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)
A preordained outcome in which we can have little confidence.
https://www.masterresource.org/externality-debate/coal-externalities-knappenberger/
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The source is the IPCC David – look it up and stop pulling things out of your arse.
Really? Give me a link with a page number. Don’t be your usual lazy, complacent self.
David embarrassed himself with a number for land emissions that off by nearly a factor of three and still wants to play games.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
David embarrassed himself with a number for land emissions that off by nearly a factor of three and still wants to play games.
Why can’t you cite a source for your number?
Very suspicious.
Oh ffs David go away as you promised to do. This is a number that any informed climate commentator should know. If you don’t know it you have no credibility on policy.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Robert can’t cite a number. An actual number.
For Φ(1 -a) coupled term a very strong ARGUMENT.
What we had till now was:
Tmean.earth = 288 K
…………….Tmean.moon = 220 K
Te. earth = 255 K
……………..Te.moon = 270 K
Tmean.mars = 210 K
………..Te.mars = 210 K
Well, Tmean.earth =288K and Tmean.moon =220K and Tmean.mars =210K are measured values, thus we accept them as correct ones.
Te.moon =270K and Te.earth =255K and Te.mars =210K are calculated values.
The blackbody equilibrium temperature (effective temperature) Te formula used is:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
a – is the average surface Albedo (For Earth a=0,306; For Moon a=0,11; For Mars a=0,250) and those are measured values, thus we accept them as correct ones too.
S – is the solar flux.
For Earth and Moon S=So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
For Mars S = 586,4 W/m²
S and So are measured values, thus we accept them as correct ones also.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant; We accept it as well!
What is not well:
Tmean.earth – Te.earth = 288K -255K = +Δ33C
Tmean.moon – Te.moon = 220K -270K = -Δ50C
Tmean.mars – Te.mars = 210K -210K = Δ0C
We should conclude there is something wrong with the Te blackbody equilibrium temperature (effective temperature) formula used here.
There something should be very wrong.
There was that assumption-explanation:
Planet Te should equal the planet Tmean. Thus Te.mars=Tmean.mars=210K (Δ0C)
As for Earth’s (+Δ33C) it is explained by the Earth’s atmosphere GHE.
And we haven’t any explanation for Moon’s (-Δ50C).
As a summary
1). We had an arbitrary assumption (Planet Te should equal the planet Tmean.)
2). We had a coincidence (Te.mars=Tmean.mars=210K (Δ0C) )
3). We had a controversial explanation (Earth’s (+Δ33C) is explained by the Earth’s atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content the alleged GHE.)
4). And we had a very big discrepancy (we hadn’t any explanation for Moon’s (-Δ50C)).
………………………
Let’s see what New Theory states about:
It states (the first discovery) smooth planets’ surface have very strong specular reflection.
Thus the blackbody equilibrium temperature (effective temperature) Te formula should be corrected as:
Te = [ Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Φ – is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor.
Where Φ=0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons (Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).
And Φ=1 for rough surface planets and moons (heavy cratered ones) and for gaseous planets and moons.
The calculated with the corrected blackbody equilibrium formula temperatures (the corrected effective temperatures) Te.correct are:
Te.correct.earth =210K
Te.correct.moon =224K
Te.correct.mars = 174K
And
Tmean.earth – Te.earth = 288K -210K = +Δ78C
Tmean.moon – Te.moon = 220K -224K = -Δ4C
Tmean.mars – Te.mars = 210K -174K = +Δ36C
1). In this case it is pretty obvious for Earth’s +Δ78C we cannot explain that much of difference by Earth’s GHE.
2). In case of Mars the +Δ36C difference is in similar to Earth’s pattern.
3). Moon has, compared to Earth and Mars a rather very small difference of only -Δ4C.
As a summary
1). We have a discovery (Planet Te should be corrected for smooth surface planets and moons – the Φ.)
2). We have the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
In the New Theory we have not old theory’s discrepancy of Mars, a planet without-atmosphere, having the same Tmean=Te=210K vs Moon’s, also without-atmosphere, having Tmean-Te =-Δ50C.
Also, the New Theory explains that a faster rotating than Moon Mars has a higher +Δ36C.
And the faster rotating Earth (as fast as Mars’), and, also having a higher average surface specific heat Earth (cp =1cal/gr.oC for water vs cp =0,19cal/gr.oC for dry soil) has a much higher +Δ78C.
Now, please compare the New Theory with the old planet blackbody equilibrium temperature Te (effective temperature) results:
1). We had an arbitrary assumption (Planet Te should equal the planet Tmean.)
2). We had a coincidence (Te.mars=Tmean.mars=210K (Δ0C) )
3). We had a controversial explanation (Earth’s (+Δ33C) is explained by the Earth’s trace greenhouse gasses content the alleged GHE.)
4). And we had a very big discrepancy (we hadn’t any explanation for Moon’s (-Δ50C) ).
It is very much obvious now that the discovery (the unveiling) of Φ – the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor is of a TRUE scientific value!
It is for Φ(1 -a) coupled term a very strong indeed ARGUMENT !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
European economies are facing a potentially crippling setback to their nascent recoveries if the worsening energy crunch forces many more factories to halt or curb operations./i>
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-23/europe-s-energy-crunch-threatens-to-nix-nascent-economic-revival
When you find yourself starving, you can find contentment in the fact that you are “saving the planet!” I’m sure that will make you feel a lot better about your children as they also starve.
Europe is testing that post-economy theory.
Next they’ll print more money. Then price controls.
Then emigration.
Then columns in the NYT from EU expats living in the city whining that in the US everyone expects you to graduate from college before you turn 30 and, bizarrely, find a job! And it’s worse in the suburbs! At least in the city they don’t make you pay rent, make payments on loans, or pay for items in stores.
In (former) Germany they were able to graduate at 45, collect unemployment until age 50, and then retire. And next time they’ll make that work economically.
Note the ending statement of the report by the government bureaucrat. The gist is that inflation is hitting poorer people and, since (his presumption) producers’ profits are up, the producers will have to chip in to help out. More taxes or price controls?
Isn’t it grand? The government screws up the energy supply system such that shortages and price increases occur, then they blame the producers and say the producers have to cough up money to cover government incompetence and mismanagement.
Dave Fair commented:
Note the ending statement of the report by the government bureaucrat. The gist is that inflation is hitting poorer people and, since (his presumption) producers’ profits are up
Corporate profits are certainly sharply up in the U.S.:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=KlxO
Two thoughts, David: 1) Those are not inflation-adjusted numbers; and 2) how much of the last two years’ profits came from government transfers?
Profits are good for all of us.
That’s great news David! It’s always good to have a healthy crop of companies. They provide goods and services and jobs. It’s a good thing!
jim2 commented:
That’s great news David! It’s always good to have a healthy crop of companies. They provide goods and services and jobs. It’s a good thing!
How much has their profit spike contributed to the current increase in inflation?
How much of the increased profits goes to dividends to stockholders, not jobs?
Companies like Walmart send revenues to dividends even while their low-wage employees cost taxpayers billions per year in government assistance.
Oh, well, David; life ain’t fair. Why don’t you contact Xiden and tell him how to run the country so everything is fair. Of course, nobody wants to get what they deserve.
Dave Fair commented:
Profits are good for all of us.
How is the spike in corporate profits good for all of us? For you?
This is the last time I will play with you on this topic, David. Profits pay wages, pensions, productive reinvestments & etc. Your inability to influence how other people spend their money is a problem —- in your mind only. Name me one individual or organization you would trust to make all of the decisions as to what is a “reasonable” profit in every circumstance.
You are like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Your whining will not make anything better, but might persuade the gullible that socialism is anything but a dead end for society.
Pure capitalism or pure socialism doesn’t work. You need both to have a functioning society. The question is what is the proper balance? For the last forty years we’ve had too much capitalism and not enough socialism.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that the current income inequality cannot last indefinitely. It certainly can’t continue on increasing.
But back to your original point, Dave — do you think the spike in corporate profits has anything to do with the increase in inflation?
Dave Fair commented:
This is the last time I will play with you on this topic, David. Profits pay wages, pensions, productive reinvestments & etc.
Dave, try to recall that this discussion started about the causes of the current inflation.
Has the spike in corporate profits contributed to that?
You’re commenting on everything BUT that.
Just wondering if (hoping actually) there’ll be a ‘Year in Review’ type of thing coming?
I’ll try to put together some sort of post this week
It may be a good time for another covid thread. I know it isn’t climate related, but how many comments actually related to the climate?
Climate change policy is causing a lot of seriously bad Etc!
David Appello Says:
co2.is.life commented:
The earth emits 13 to 18 Micron LWIR.
You keep getting this basic fact wrong. The Earth emits from about 3 to 25 microns. It peaks at 10.4 microns.
Your range doesn’t even include the peak.
David, that comments proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you truly don’t understand the basics, not even close. Talk to any Physicist and they will tell you:
1) CO2 spectrometry shows that CO2 absorbs and emits 2.7, 4.3 and 15 Micron LWIR. That is demonstrated by any GHG Absorption Graphic
2) The 2.7 is symmetric stretching, 4.7 is asymmetric stretching and 15 is bending
3) CO2 is not a black body, it radiated only 3 narrow bands, far less than the total energy of a black body (when I use CO2 as a black body that estimate is a maximum possible)
4) CO2 is transparent to LWIR of 10.4 Micron, and in fact all wavelengths except the 3 I noted above.
5) If CO2 doesn’t thermalize the 10.4 LWIR, CO2 isn’t contributing to Global Warming regarding those wavelengths
6) The earth doesn’t emit 2.7 and 4.3 LWIR unless it is a fire or nuclear reactor. 4.7 micron is associated with a black body of 300 C
7) The one and only mechanism by which CO2 affects climate change is through the thermalization of outgoing LWIR of 13 to 18 Microns. Those wavelengths are associated with a black body of -80 C
8) Conduction and convection are not related to CO2. With or without CO2, the thermodynamics are the same. CO2 is only different with this treatment of 15 micron LWIR
Bottom line, do your homework or speak to any physicist that understands quantum mechanics. Nothing you say can be justified by the evidence and data. Once again, simply look up the vibrational modes of CO2. Those are the only wavelengths important to CO2 regarding the GHG Effect.
Once again, talk to a physicist and ask him/her what 100% transparency means. Ask them what the atmospheric window is, and how it relates to global warming. Those concepts are the concepts taught on day 1 of any real Physics class related to climate.
co2islife commented:
Nothing you say can be justified by the evidence and data.
The Earth’s surface is a blackbody emitting at 288 K (now 289 K). Here’s your evidence:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/375487687654844841/
co2.is.life:
Here’s the evidence of what the Earth emits, as a blackbody at 288-289 K. What the surface emits has nothing to do with CO2.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/375487687654844841/
David, I don’t think you are getting it. There is absolutely no argument that the earth emits peak LWIR of about 9.5 microns, or about 18C. The atmosphere doesn’t absorb those wavelengths, and they pass directly to outer space. That is called the Atmospheric Window. What mattes is what wavelengths CO2 absorbs and thermalizes. That wavelength is 15 microns, and is consistent with a black body of -80C.
This entire debate is over how CO2 causes climate change. It isn’t about how warm the earth is on average. Once again, how do you tie everything you say back to CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron?
co2.is.life commented:
David, I don’t think you are getting it. There is absolutely no argument that the earth emits peak LWIR of about 9.5 microns, or about 18C
I’m writing about the surface. You aren’t clear what you’re writing about.
co2.is.life commented:
David, I don’t think you are getting it. There is absolutely no argument that the earth emits peak LWIR of about 9.5 microns, or about 18C
By “Earth emits” I assume you meant the surface. It peaks at BB temperature of 289 K, 10.0 microns. If you meant somewhere else you should make that clear.
Look at the bottom figure in this emission spectrum for all GHGs except CFCs:
https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
It shows prominent atmospheric windows at about 3.5 microns, 8.5 microns, and 10 microns. CO2 absorbs completely above about 13 microns.
David Says: It shows prominent atmospheric windows at about 3.5 microns, 8.5 microns, and 10 microns. CO2 absorbs completely above about 13 microns.
David, you don’t seem to understand the concept here.
1) CO2 thermalizes 15 Microns, can we agree that is what every CO2 spectrometry shows?
2) The hotter the black body, the shorter the peak wavelength is, for instance, the Sun emits peak wavelengths consistent with a 5525 K. That temp emits visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 Micron. Those are very short wavelengths, as is Ultra Violent.
3) The earth emits around 18C, or about 9.5 to 10.5 Micron. The atmospheric window is about 9 to 11 micron (estimate)
4) CO2 starts to absorb around 13 microns, peak 15, drop off until about 18.
5) Those wavelengths are associated with the very cold part of the spectrum. 15 Micron is the peak wavelength of a black body -80C. Ice emits 10.5 Micron Peak. CO2 radiation won’t even melt ice. That can be tested with any IR Spectrometer my simply measuring the temp of Dry Ice and Actual Ice. You will see that Dry Ice is temp just about -80C.
6) Somehow you need to explain how -80C can warm the oceans, especially considering those wavelengths won’t penetrate water.
Remember, this whole science is based upon tying CO2 to the warming. That can be tested in a lab. SImply take a longpass IR Filter, isolate the 15 Micron band, shine it on a bucket of water. Compare the temp change to a control. That is how a real science would address this issue.
Didn’t you understand my discussion on the anomaly in Planck’s equation when it comes to wavenumber and wavelength? It discredits pretty much all you just said.
How the downwelling IR is measured?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
co2is.life commented:
David, don’t know why you are using regressions and TOA or Tropopause.
The latter two were answering a different question of your’s.
The first was, calculating the average heating rate in the ocean.
This is pretty simple. You have the oceans. The oceans are warming. The oceans have a certain volume. The oceans have a certain specific heat. The oceans warmed X Degrees over Y Years. All those are quantifiable measures.
This is EXACTLY the calculation I did — warming rate, volumes, masses, specific heat, all of it. Do the calculation for yourself. Can you? I kind of doubt it. Do you want to see my spreadsheet?
NOW, I want to see you retract your claim that no “climate scientist” would do this calculation, that they’re afraid to do it. I want to see you admit that you were wrong.
Any climate scientist would do this calculation. Any scientist would do it. It’s a trivial calculation, as I showed. Professors could well be assigning this calculation to their sophomore students in the second week of the semester in classes on climate science.
I want to see you admit you were wrong. Nothing less will do.
PS: This has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 — it’s strictly about warming in the ocean.
Here is the biggest problem facing the climate alarmists that I can find. H20 has the highest specific heat of all common materials @
4,200 Joules per kilogram per degree Celsius. A Watt is In the International System of Units, the derived unit of power; the power of a system in which one joule of energy is transferred per second.
As we know, the oceans have been warming. It takes an astronomical amount of energy to warm the oceans. The question then becomes, is it even possible for CO2 to provided the needed energy to warm the oceans?
Back radiation is measured in W/M^2.
Using MODTRAN and setting it to looking up from 0 km and 270 ppm, we get 368.322 W/m2. That is the pre-industrial Downward IR Heat Flux.
Save that to the background and change the CO2 to 415 ppm and you get 369.264 W/m2.
The industrial era CO2 adds 0.94 W/m2 to the downward IR Heat Flux.
That is a rate of Joules being added. We know how many Joules it takes to warm H20. The question then becomes, can 0.94 W/m2 of 15 Micron LWIR that won’t penetrate the oceans, warm them? This is a rather simple math problem that as far as I can tell, Climate Scientists ignore.
The oceans warmed, the oceans are X kilogrrams, it takes Y joules to warm that amount of water, and it warmed Z degrees over G Years. Can 0.94 W/m2 provide enough energy over G Years to warm the oceans. I haven’t done the calculations, but my bet is heck no. My bet is also the reason no climate scientist does that calculation is because that would bring Climate Science into the realm of a real science. If someone does that above calculation, my bet is that 0.94 W/m2 won’t warm water, and that is ignoring the QM of 15 micron LWIR not penetrating water. The deeper water is warming, and only visible radiation reaches those depths.
co2.is.life:
“Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean,”
Realclimate.org, 5 September 2006
Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
David, the QM of the CO2 molecule isn’t debatable. 15 micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate water. Yes, H2O in the atmosphere does absorb a great deal of outgoing LWIR, but H2O isn’t CO2. You keep dodging the need to tie the actual warming to CO2 and 15 Micron LWIR. You can identify warming, but you can’t tie it back to a conclusion that explains how 15 micron LWIR or 0.94W/m2 can cause that warming. Evidence of warming is not evidence CO2 is causing that warming. Natural climate variation didn’t end with the start of the industrial age.
Even if the water didn’t absorb energy in the 15 mm band — it does — the energy would pass through and be absorbed by the surface at the bottom of the ocean. What’s the difference? The ocean behaves like a black body.
You try to make a big deal of the mass and specific heat of water. Those are inertial properties. A very large mass has inertia to movement. Apply a constant, very small force to it and that force could accelerate it to velocities approaching the speed of light. Same thing with temperature and small but constant imbalance in earth’s energy balance.
This literally makes no sense. That is like saying that a bullet that can’t penetrate a door, somehow gets to the other side of the door and gets stuck in the wall across the room.
“Even if the water didn’t absorb energy in the 15 mm band — it does — the energy would pass through and be absorbed by the surface at the bottom of the ocean. What’s the difference? The ocean behaves like a black body.”
What I said makes perfect sense. The reason you can see is because visible light is not absorbed by the atmosphere and passes straight through.
That other comment about CO2 having a blackbody temperature of -80 C is wrong. I assume you got that from the Wien equation.
Planck’s equation has an anomaly that seldom is discussed. If you use wavenumber as the integrating variable, you get a difference answer than using wavenumber. This is not a problem for the intended purpose of Planck’s equation. If you match the earth’s radiant profile with blackbody profiles generated from wavelengths, you get a blackbody temp of 288 K and a peak wavelength of 10 mm. If you use blackbody profiles generated from wavenumbers, you get a blackbody temp of 288 K and a peak wavenumber of 500 cm-1. So far, so good. Now convert wavenumber to wavelength and you get a peak wavelength of 20 mm – not 10 mm. Planck’s equation shifts the peak’s location. Bottom line is that the blackbody temperature of the 15 mm CO2 band is a lot higher than -80 C. It’s considerably higher than 288 K.
Real Climate? Really? Have you ever visited Michael Mann’s Twitter Account? This guy is an extreme activist.
Anyway, from your source: The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking. There is a clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net infrared forcing. The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy. This corresponds to increased greenhouse gas emission reaching the sea surface.
This may be news to you, but clouds are H2O, not CO2. H2O absorbs 100% of the IR spectrum emitted by the Ocean H2O molecules. Why? Because both water vapor and condensed water are, you guessed it, water. Clouds are like a blanket or giant reflector for the spectrum being emitted by the oceans. No one denies water vapor is an extremely potent GHG Gas. The problem is, the experiment you highlighted isn’t a controlled experiment to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature.
If you want to do a real controlled experiment you would look at the temperature trends in Antarctica, not a cloudy area over the oceans. Your research proves H2O is a potent greenhouse gas, not CO2.
Once gain, do that experiment in a lab and change the CO2 level in dry air, not humid air. That is how a controlled experiment is run. Personally I’m shocked that someone would publish that “experiment” as valid research to implicate CO2. It seem to work however. That isn’t the first time someone has referenced that article. It simply demonstrates that the people using it to justify CO2 causes warming simply don’t understand the basics required for a controlled experiment.
No, you don’t understand what you are talking about.
CO2 is the ONLY greenhouse significantly increasing in the atmosphere. That H2O is a powerful greenhouse is irrelevant. It is temperature limited. CO2 is causing the temperature of the planet to rise, and controls that amount of H2O in the atmosphere, and therefore its impact.
Even if CO2 is creating a small imbalance at TOA that’s enough to cause the planet’s temperature to rise. Energy cannot be destroyed. As long as an imbalance exists energy is added to the earth and its temperature rises. The only thing impacted by the size of the imbalance is how long it takes for the rising temperature to be noticeable.
co2islife commented:
Real Climate? Really? Have you ever visited Michael Mann’s Twitter Account? This guy is an extreme activist.
RealClimate, yes. Written by expert scientists who have devoted their careers to understanding climate science.
The notion that you get to dismiss them is beyond laughable. You clearly don’t know much of anything compared to them.
Michael Mann has decided that the situation is so dire he needs to speak out, beyond his role as a scientist, as did James Hansen before him. And he’s doing so very effectively, appearing on major news programs and talk shows all over the place. I’d say he’s now the most prominent climate scientist in the world. He defeated all the people who tried so hard to tear him down and has emerged strong and prominent while they have disappeared. He’s won many awards, many from his colleagues. I think he’s proven himself an exceptional scientist, a determined pugilist, and a qualified spokesperson for an extremely important cause.
co2.is.life wrote:
Once gain, do that experiment in a lab and change the CO2 level in dry air, not humid air. That is how a controlled experiment is run.
So what’s keeping you from doing, and publishing, this experiment? Sounds so easy.
Huh?
JJBraccili commented:
Planck’s equation has an anomaly that seldom is discussed
Yes!
d(lambda) d(n), n=wavenumber.
This gets every sophomore the first time.
And the second time as well, maybe a few years later, until they get sick & tired of being fooled and learn the anomaly.
JJ’s right. JJ’s always right, people.
co2.is.life:
I’ve done the calculations on ocean heating.
Using the NOAA data here for ocean heat content of the 0-2000 m region
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
and doing linear regression (a good fit), I get a heating trend for that region is 1.06e22 J/yr since the data starts in 1Q2005. Over the total surface of the Earth (since ~93% of the GHE heating goes into the ocean) that works out to 0.66 W/m2.
For the 0-700 m region:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
I get a heating trend of 0.32e22 J/yr since the data starts in 1Q1955, or 0.20 W/m2.
For both W/m2 numbers the 2-sigma error bars are about 7%, without autocorrelation.
PS: Actually radiative forcing isn’t quite the planetary energy balance, since radiative forcing is defined and measured from the tropopause, not the TOA.
David, don’t know why you are using regressions and TOA or Tropopause. This is pretty simple. You have the oceans. The oceans are warming. The oceans have a certain volume. The oceans have a certain specific heat. The oceans warmed X Degrees over Y Years. All those are quantifiable measures. Now, the question simply becomes can 0.94W/m2 applied over the Y years warm the Oceans X Degrees. You don’t need a regression for that, and all you really need is to know the W/m2 CO2 is applying to the oceans. That is why you set MODTRAN to looking up from the surface. Not the Troposphere or not the TOA. What energy is being added to the oceans. That is the surface looking up. If 0.94W/m2 can’t provide the needed energy to warm the oceans, then something other than CO2 caused the warming. It is that simple.
The recent Happer, et al paper showed it was SW heating (fewer clouds), not LW that caused the 21st Century’s minor warming. The UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 had to discard the high-end model outputs and admit that weather extremes are not worsening. The wheels on the CAGW bandwagon are falling off and nitpicking about LW forcing is unnecessary in the field of politics.
co2.is.life commented:
David, don’t know why you are using regressions and TOA or Tropopause. This is pretty simple. You have the oceans. The oceans are warming. The oceans have a certain volume. The oceans have a certain specific heat. The oceans warmed X Degrees over Y Years
That’s EXACTLY what I calculated.
The linear regression simply gives the best-fit warming rate, in Joules per year.
co2.is.life commented:
David, don’t know why you are using regressions and TOA or Tropopause.
The latter two were answering a different question of your’s.
The first was calculating the average heating rate in the ocean.
This is pretty simple. You have the oceans. The oceans are warming. The oceans have a certain volume. The oceans have a certain specific heat. The oceans warmed X Degrees over Y Years. All those are quantifiable measures.
This is EXACTLY the calculation I did. Warming rate, volumes, masses, specific heat, all of it. Do the calculation for yourself. Can you? I kind of doubt it. Do you want to see my spreadsheet?
NOW, I want to see you retract your claim that no “climate scientist” would do this calculation, that they’re afraid to do it. I want to see you admit that you were wrong.
Any climate scientist would do this calculation. Any scientist would do it. It’s a trivial calculation, as I showed. Professors could well be assigning this calculation to their sophomore students in the second week of the semester in classes on climate science.
I want to see you admit you were wrong. Nothing less will do.
PS: This has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 — it’s strictly about warming in the ocean.
Dave Fair commented:
The recent Happer, et al paper showed it was SW heating (fewer clouds), not LW that caused the 21st Century’s minor warming.
Please cite that paper, with a link.
CO2islife
“Back radiation is measured in W/M^2.
Using MODTRAN and setting it to looking up from 0 km and 270 ppm, we get 368.322 W/m2. That is the pre-industrial Downward IR Heat Flux.
Save that to the background and change the CO2 to 415 ppm and you get 369.264 W/m2.
The industrial era CO2 adds 0.94 W/m2 to the downward IR Heat Flux.”
There is not 369.264 W/m2 back radiation on Earth’s surface. It is a very much overestimated figure!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I always use the upper bounds or maximum values to I can’t be accused of cherry picking or sand bagging the values. By using the max amount CO2 can do is a worst case scenario. That way the critics can’t accuse me of low balling the impact.
“ The question then becomes, can 0.94 W/m2 of 15 Micron LWIR that won’t penetrate the oceans, warm them? This is a rather simple math problem that as far as I can tell, Climate Scientists ignore.”
Dear oh dear!
And I’m sure you’ve been told this – and probably by me among them.
DWLWIR does not “warm” the oceans. It reduces the oceans’ ability to cool. Look at that Minnett post to figure why.
In brief …. The cool skin is warmed thereby reducing the deltaT from the subsurface water to the emitting skin. And what does a reduced deltaT do?
It reduces heat transfer.
Voila!
It’s really not difficult.
Tony Banton, says: DWLWIR does not “warm” the oceans. It reduces the oceans’ ability to cool. Look at that Minnett post to figure why.
OK, once again, CO2 slows the heating of a blackbody of -80C. How is that causing the oceans to warm? The claim is that the Oceans and Atmosphere are warming to CO2. Show me an experiment where you isolate 15 micron LWIR through a long pass filter and warm water with those wavelengths.
You have evidence of far more high energy short wave visible radiation reaching the oceans, and people point the finger at CO2. That is nonsense. Also the temperatures are highly volatile, yet CO2 isn’t. Clearly, something else is causing the volatility.
H2O saturates the air above the oceans and it absorb the majority of the LWIR emited by the oceans, INCLUDING THE WAVELENGTHS THAT CO2 ABSORBS. With or without CO2, the same amount of LWIR is thermalized near the surface of the oceans. You don’t even see the CO2 signature until you are up around 2 km when H2O has precipitated out of the air.
Once again, how does CO2 cause the oceans to cool slower when atmospheric H2O absorbs all the wavelengths CO2 does. H2O is far far far more abundant.
“OK, once again, CO2 slows the heating of a blackbody of -80C.”
And what’s with this sceptics’ myth of -80C?
That is the temperature at which a radiating body emits at a max for terrestrial LWIR.
ie it is at the peak of the Planck curve for that temp – and is necessarily weak because of its cold.
Terrestrial temps emit in the range of CO2 absorption and at a much higher intensity than a body at -80C (that should be obvious LOL).
A body radiating at 300K emits 15 micron photons at an intensity ~ 5x greater than that of a body at 200K ( even though it is the 200k body’s peak).
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody/units_of_wavelength.html
“Show me an experiment where you isolate 15 micron LWIR through a long pass filter and warm water with those wavelengths.”
You go look … if you really want to be disabused (of course you don’t).
They are there – else how else did scientists back 150 odd years to Tyndall and Arrhenius figure it out?
Did they start the fraud?
You will see a graphical representation of the wavelength absorption disparities of CO2 vs H2O on the Twitter graph below.
“You have evidence of far more high energy short wave visible radiation reaching the oceans, and people point the finger at CO2. That is nonsense. Also the temperatures are highly volatile, yet CO2 isn’t. Clearly, something else is causing the volatility.”
Solar SW heats the ocean.
Downwelling LWIR warms the skin to reduce cooling.
It’s quite simple and unarguable.
The Minnett experiment shows it in black and white ( but as usual the most entrenched switch the black and the white around – which is why “they” always “win’ on the Web – as there eventually becomes nowhere for us science advocates to go).
No one said that SW doesn’t heat the ocean – like it always has and which is not changing on human time-scales bar the fluctuation of SSTs creating clearer overhead skies and creating less albedo (recent cooler Pacific waters).
Your last sentence makes even less sense to me than your usual ones.
“H2O saturates the air above the oceans and it absorb the majority of the LWIR emited by the oceans, INCLUDING THE WAVELENGTHS THAT CO2 ABSORBS. With or without CO2, the same amount of LWIR is thermalized near the surface of the oceans. You don’t even see the CO2 signature until you are up around 2 km when H2O has precipitated out of the air.”
Err – but not the whole depth of the atmosphere ( else we would be Venus ).
And no, CO2 captures wings of the around the 15 micron emission that H2O misses – again you have been told this many, many times … so I’m obviously wasting my time bar for me brushing up my knowledge – which is the only reason I’m writing this LOL).
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1197147289229385728
What do you think is happening to the downwelling LWIR from the atmosphere above your saturated surface air?
In the drier regions above.
In the case of a tropical environment it is an attenuation to LWIR escape aloft of the moist surface layers STILL which obviously has an effect at the surface radiation balance as well.
You can’t take the bit of the atmosphere that fits your bias and throw away the rest. It comes as a complete and integrated system (hence lin-by-line integration being necessary).
CO2 acts at peak as Earth’s GHE control knob (see below) higher in the atmosphere where it is v dry (eg subsidence zones within the sub-tropical highs and in the dry cold regions in the NH winter ( Antarctica has a Reverse GHE … but that’s,for you to deny to me another time).
Control knob BECAUSE CO2 is non-condensing and without it there would be nothing to stop WV condensing out as snow/ice creating a runaway feedback of greater albedo >> colder>> greater albedo etc.
It acts as a baseline that keeps H2O in the liquid phase for the majority of the planet for the majority of the time.
“Once again, how does CO2 cause the oceans to cool slower when atmospheric H2O absorbs all the wavelengths CO2 does. H2O is far far far more abundant.”
Just given you the science again for you to deny and ignore.
Look, islife … I do know you are a professional (will say sceptic but a sceptic is also sceptical of himself and not reflexively dismissive of any and all that challenges his/her ideological bias).
So I will say Ta Ta and expect you to continue which your chronic cognitive dissonance.
CO2 warms the atmosphere, all things being equal. Cold air cools the damn lakes whereas warm air not so much. If one wants to divorce the oceans from the atmosphere that puts us on some fantasy planet. The atmosphere can cause ice to form on oceans and lakes. Don’t we think that’s true? If you concede that CO2 can warm the atmosphere, the rest is easy.
Mr. Banton wrote:
“DWLWIR does not “warm” the oceans. It reduces the oceans’ ability to cool.”
This is true, and applies to the land surface temperature too.
But just about everyone says greenhouse gases “warm”,
rather than saying they inhibit cooling, so it looks like
we are stuck with less accurate “warm” description.
“DWLWIR does not “warm” the oceans. It reduces the oceans’ ability to cool.”
“This is true” — NOT!
The greenhouse effect “warms” the oceans. It recycles the earth’s radiant energy. What the earth “sees” is additional radiation beyond solar radiation that “warms” the planet.
You’re thinking of insulation. That works differently. It restricts heat flow. The temperature has to rise to overcome the resistance.
Your record is intact. You’ve been wrong about almost everything. This post is no exception.
co2.is.life commented:
This literally makes no sense. That is like saying that a bullet that can’t penetrate a door, somehow gets to the other side of the door and gets stuck in the wall across the room.
Why does nothing ever get through to you?
“Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.”
It’s just like Tony B said, in fewer words.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
co2islife commented:
Can 0.94 W/m2 provide enough energy over G Years to warm the oceans. I haven’t done the calculations, but my bet is heck no.
You lost this bet.
Admit it.
Ocean “heating”
The oceans have been heating and cooling like a yo-yo over the whole Holocene:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/11/05/new-study-effectively-eliminates-confidence-in-human-attribution-for-modern-global-warming/
No evidence that CO2 is anything to do with it.
Generally over the late Holocene as the oceans have cooled, CO2 has increased.
CO2 running opposite to temperature in the late Holocene:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2006GB002885
Phil Salmon commented:
The oceans have been heating and cooling like a yo-yo over the whole Holocene:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
BRUSSELS: Europe is heading toward an energy crisis as the storage of natural gas runs low and a supply shortfall remains worrying, a think tank warns.
When an energy crisis comes, gas in storage will deplete rapidly in Europe, the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel said, adding that the natural gas supply balance must be monitored closely in the coming months.
As the cold weather sets in, demand for natural gas to heat homes and generate electricity at power plants will grow.
Yet there is little hope of an increase in supplies as the European Union remains embroiled in a row with Russia, its single biggest exporter of natural gas.
https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2021/12/28/europe-beset-by-relentless-natural-gas-crunch
I have a problem when record snow in California is deemed a “climate change” related to higher temperatures and at the same time “record heat” is touted as climate change yet the number of days over 100 in the US has basically declined. All these variations appear to be within the range of extremes in temperatures for any given date or place and with statistics saying with limited years of temperature records a certain percent of new highs and new lows should be set place by place and date by date.
All bad or abnormally hot weather is climate change.
All good or abnormally cold weather is just weather.
And a climate crisis is always coming in 10 years.
They are the three rules of modern climate junk science.
DA
“”ctually radiative forcing isn’t quite the planetary energy balance, since radiative forcing is defined and measured from the tropopause, not the TOA.”
?
cooment angech | December 27, 2021 at 8:21 pm
having a warm wave in the SH for next 5 days.
Predicts a very cold spree in the Arctic next 5 days.
Watch the ice go or grow!
December 28th, 2021: Day 1
12,453,216 km2, a century break increase of 102,967 km2.
2021 is now 15th lowest on record.
Still 3 hot days down here to go.
Watch the ice go or grow!
I wonder if this is the beginning of the end …
A 91% Asset Plunge Hits a BlackRock Fund of Sustainable EM Stocks
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-29/a-91-asset-plunge-hits-a-blackrock-etf-of-sustainable-em-stocks
Run for the exits. Get out before you lose all your money.
“Climate and energy policies have become a cleavage and conflict line in our societies. That has to be politically hedged and managed to sustain social peace and avoid ramifications on the cohesion in the European Union,” Kirsten Westphal, senior analyst at the nonprofit German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), told DW.
The EU has plenty of programs to intervene in long-term measures to speed up the transformation of the energy systems and promote its plan of a so-called green recovery from the pandemic. The member states, whose budgets are already overstretched, are responsible for immediate measures to curb price jumps. But Spain is now calling for “a European policy menu predesigned to react to dramatic price surges.”
The Spanish example shows that emergency measures will have consequences for energy companies, whose profits will decrease, affecting also their ability to invest in futureproof energy systems.
“This price crisis with spikes and huge volatility comes at the worst possible moment for the green recovery. It has destroyed capital heavily needed for investment in renewables and technologies,” said Westphal.
https://www.dw.com/en/energy-crisis-harsh-winter-would-add-fuel-to-climate-change-fire/:~:text=Europe's%20energy%20crisis%20began%20with%20an%20unsually%20harsh,measures%20like%20capping%20prices%20and%20limiting%20utilities'%20profits.
Link that works for above …
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/energy-crisis–harsh-winter-would-add-fuel-to-climate-change-fire-10585068
Ozone blockade of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere over Kamchatka.
https://i.ibb.co/W3h8QzX/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
The effect of blockage seen in the jet stream pattern.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/12/29/2000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-174.76,37.12,562
In four days, a powerful stratospheric intrusion will bring severe cold to the central states.
https://i.ibb.co/khxVtQQ/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f096.png
DA and JJ now insist that – like with climate science – I know nothing about economics. They know nothing about me. I sometimes wonder how my life would be different if I had majored in economics and become a merchant banker – instead of an environmental scientist. The money would have ben better – but the adventure diminished. Their economics – like their climate science, policy and politics – consists of collective progressive memes that are inconsistent with mainstream theory and practice. Largely based it seems on antipathy to Donald Trump and supposed policy failure.
Frankly – Trump is an idjit who in no way grasps economic rationalism. The Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom is based on solid economic theory. It ranks the US economy as the 20th freest in the world. ‘Fiscal health’ is the biggest problem – one it seems destined to get worse under Biden.
https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates
‘The top individual income tax rate is 37 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 21 percent. The overall tax burden equals 24.3 percent of total domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 35.5 percent of total output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget deficits have averaged 5.3 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 109.0 percent of GDP.’
I wouldn’t laud US Democrats or Republicans as exemplars of economic rationalism. I’d suggest that they all get much better at economic management but I’m not holding my breath.
It’s a wild and wooly morning outside my window in Central Queensland. I might go to the movies. Happy birthday to me and happy new year to you.
Happy birthday
Happy New Year as well
Thanks mate. Live long and prosper.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:I sometimes wonder how my life would be different if I had majored in economics and become a merchant banker – instead of an environmental scientist.
And I wonder how life would have been different if I’d become an early quant on Wall Street or joined Renaissance Technologies, which then was a few hundred yards off the campus I graduated from.
So what??? Deal with your reality.
We were talking economics David. Stop manufacturing irrelevant diversions.
DA
“ And I wonder how life would have been different …..”
Maybe you wouldn’t be struggling with 8th grade equations.
CKid commented:
Maybe you wouldn’t be struggling with 8th grade equations.
LOL.
Mr, Ellison
Good summary of economics, now that the subject here changed from climate. Maybe a Covid debate is next?
I edited a financial and economics newsletter called ECONOMIC LOGIC for 43 years. The only change to your comment I’d make is to include spending by all levels of government.
Roughly:
$7 trillion Federal govt.
$2 trillion state govts.
$2 trillion local govts.
(1) intergovernmental transfers from feds included in state & local spending
$10 trillion approximate total
Looking at total govt. spending as a percentage of GDP,
the US is currently a socialist nation … without most of the spending
wanted for the Green New Ordeal.
Maybe a little science denial is actually in order?
What a wonderful idea.
Well it would be a wonderful idea, the grass is always greener….
But I would say too late, science denial is practiced well on both sides already.
There are only 3 things that hold conviction ie are scientifically right.
World temperatures measured by the only independent and most likely accurate measure, satellites, has been increasing over the last 40 years.
CO2 levels as measured continue increasing at a strangely regular pattern.
Arctic sea ice has diminished disturbing at a rate not relatable to the CO2 and temperature increase.
Oh, wait.
Strike the last one off.
At 15th lowest in 43 years the Arctic sea ice has revolted.
So 1 cause, 1 effect, and 1 observation..
I love science.
angech commented:
At 15th lowest in 43 years the Arctic sea ice has revolted.
Judging Arctic sea ice based on yesterday’s value is irrational and completely unscientific.
Robert I. Ellison | December 29, 2021 at 4:10 pm |
“DA and JJ Their economics – like their climate science, policy and politics – consists of collective progressive memes that are inconsistent with mainstream theory and practice.
Largely based it seems on antipathy to Donald Trump and supposed policy failure.
Frankly – Trump is an idjit who in no way grasps economic rationalism.” –
–
Sigh.
People like Trump and Kerry Packer are realists.
Full stop.
KP quotes.
“The good news is there’s no devil. The bad news is there’s no heaven. There’s nothing.
I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimizing my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimize his tax wants his head read”
–
The first rule of economics, like gambling, is that economists always get it wrong.
The reason is simple.
If you see a trend, or a smart horse, everyone is already on it. So why don’t economists win?
Because everyone else does things to get around the expected outcome.
Horses get affected.
Business cook the books.
–
Antipathy to Donald Trump is no excuse for calling him an idiot.
He is just acting as a business man with damned good insight into how people work.
He flaunts his wealth, I don’t like it, but your only here for a short time.
–
Personally his approach of standing up to bullies, just like all little kids are told to which never works, has worked well for the world.
Helps that he had a big army behind him
Fairer lower tax roots boost economies, as he showed.
Protecting your own industries is vital, as Australia is finding out.
–
“It’s a wild and woolly morning outside my window in Central Queensland.”
–
Trace of covid in the air up there mixed in with all that dust from the coal mining.
Hope the Govt puts the royalties up on the Chinese coal just like Chile with the lithium.
Happy and Bonzer New Year Chief.
–
and DA and JJ.
Always need a couple of jokers in the pack.
“Antipathy to Donald Trump is no excuse for calling him an idiot.
He is just acting as a business man with damned good insight into how people work.
He flaunts his wealth, I don’t like it, but your only here for a short time.”
The Orange Wonder is a grifter and an idiot. He couldn’t make money in the casino business in Atlantic City in the 1980s. He had little competition and he still lost money. All the other casinos made money. It was impossible to lose money at that time and he did. Then he stiffed all the banks that made him loans. That’s why there is not a US bank that will lend him a dime. He has to borrow money from Douche Bank who launders money for Russian oligarchs. Ever wonder why he was so obsequious to Putin?
He played a successful businessman on TV. He never was one.
Mr. Broccoli said about Donald Trump:
“He played a successful businessman on TV.
He never was one.’
Let’s summarize what Trump accomplished:
– Made a lot of money in business.
– Has his own jet plane
– Has a beautiful wife
– President of the US for four years,
yet did not take his $400,000 a year salary
– Won 75 million votes in the 2020 election
I guess that adds up to “no success”
in your distorted view of the universe?
The Orange Wonder made his money the old fashioned way — he inherited it. It was all downhill from there.
Here’s a list of the failures and the grifts of the “great businessman.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/
To Angech
Based on what I learned after publishing a financial and economics newsletter for 43 years, it is obvious US economists, as a group, have never predicted a recession. Not once.
The reason is because most economists work for banks and other financial institutions where there is a strong bullish bias.
The company goal is to tell customers the best time to be fully invested in stocks and bonds is NOW. They never want to scare away customers with predictions of a recession. If economists never predict a recession, they will usually be right in roughly nine of every ten years. That’s a very good batting average, with no thinking required. So they predict either fast growth or slow growth, rarely predicting a recession. As a result, almost stock analyst rates almost all stocks as a buy or hold, rarely a “sell”.
If an economist predict a recession, and there is no recession, he or she may soon be looking for a new job. That’s a strong incentive. Much less risk to fail to predict a recession, than to predict one that never shows up.
Also, it’s not unusual for economists, as a group, to finally declare that a nation is in a recession only AFTER the nation has been in a recession for up to six months. By the time economists, as a group, recognize the recession, it is often near a stock market bottom, and a good time to buy stocks.
Economics – in case you are wondering – is on the tornado topic because richer economies are better braced to withstand anything weather throws at us.
Rather’s than JJ’s mouth frothing denunciation of conservatives – the cause of the ‘great depression’ and the ‘great correction’ were the predicted results of the collapse of asset bubbles. Avoiding asset value collapse is the goal of mainstream economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_eFjLZqXt8
There are a few warning signals of crashes that make them potentially controllable – primarily hyper growth with positive feedbacks. Long before dragon-kings Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian school of economics developed principles of management of interest rates that are used to maintain price stability (low inflation) and stable economic growth.
Fredrich Hayek? He was proven wrong in the 1930s in his debate with Keynes. Isn’t he the patron saint of the Mises Institute? The Mises Institutes promotes a lot of right-wing wacko economic theory.
It was either there or on the Ayn Rand Institute website that I read a paper that was promoting monopolies as better than free-market competition and would result in lower prices for goods and services. The most idiotic paper on economics I have ever read.
BTW I don’t have to denounce conservatives. They do an excellent job of that all by themselves.
Hayek and the Austrian school of economics focused on managing the ‘business cycle’ to limit bubbles and busts. Keynes focussed on government spending to boost recovery from busts.
JJ is long on rhetoric but short on facts.
The fact is that Hayek promoted do nothing and liquidate everything. Pretty much Romney’s and the GOP’s position on the Great Recession.
An economy based on capitalism responds to demand. An economy based on socialism responds to supply. Hayek was wrong. Keynes was right. Supply side economics got us into the Great Depression, and it was never going to get us out. We were lucky the FDR came along when he did.
Economically illiterate motivated nonsense. The practices of mainstream market management is based on the Austrian school.
Hayek was as well a ‘classic liberal’ social theorist.
‘There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.’
From the road to serfdom – a fate we would like t avoid.
Every time Hayek is mentioned someone pulls out his views on the social safety net to cover up his other ideas that have been discredited. Another case of conservative revisionist history leading to conservative amnesia. With all the disasters conservatives have caused in the history of the US, they need amnesia to claim conservatism works.
The first conservative president from the GOP was Harding. He was the most inept and corrupt until the Orange Wonder. All the presidents since, except Eisenhower and Bush Sr., were inept, incompetent or corrupt. Some were a combination of all three.
When you think Saint Ronnie was a great president, you have a problem.
His other ideas are mainstream economics from a Nobel Prize winning economist.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/inflation-long-run.gif
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
I put up a chart that showed debt as a % of GDP. Things were going nicely until Saint Ronnie reintroduced supply side economics — the failed policies of the 1920s.
Before Saint Ronnie, LBJ introduced Medicare, Medicaid, the Great Society, and the War on Poverty and still debt as a % of GDP fell. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system and debt as % of GDP fell. It was only when tax cuts became the solution to everything that’s when our problems began. Turns out tax cuts solved nothing.
I posted the US fiscal health assessment from the Heritage Foundation. It’s not a pretty picture. Repeating socialist rhetoric doesn’t mean as lot.
Fat lot you know about Hayek. He promoted social security. Guess you didn’t know that.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.
It’s his other ideas that are bonkers. I think he influenced Andrew Mellon who told Hoover to “let it all burn.”
Mr. Broccoli wrote:
“An economy based on capitalism responds to demand.
An economy based on socialism responds to supply”
Both statements are wrong.
Capitalism is based on profits to inform
and motivate suppliers to create the
products and services customers
most want to buy (voluntarily)
Socialism is based on government planning
— rule by self-proclaimed “experts”
who are not expert in anything.
Like your comments on economics !
Something else you don’t know anything about. It would be more productive if you listed anything you do know something about. That must be a very, very short list.
In an economy based on capitalism they produce product if there is demand. Ever hear of just-in-time manufacturing? You match supply to demand — not vice-versa. That why supply side economics has and will never work.
In an economy based on socialism demand is never a problem. It’s supply that is the limiting factor.
Dr. Curry, I’m sorry to demand more of your valuable time, but JJBraccili’s economic pronouncements are so far off base that I am compelled to reply.
In short, capitalism anticipates demand; the potentially infinite demand of which society is unaware, including technological progress. Capitalism is forward-looking and anticipatory, constantly seeking new profit arenas. It provides the incentive for innovation and gave us all of the past progression for Man’s betterment.
Socialism, however, is backward-looking and has little incentive in the absence of an individual profit motive to take risks that are required for innovation. Socialistic system only see the bureaucratically assumed demand that is recognizable from a static view of dynamic economic systems. JJBraccili is correct in that socialism has limited ability to supply humans’ demands; it is a system to allocate shortages and retard growth.
“In short, capitalism anticipates demand; the potentially infinite demand of which society is unaware, including technological progress. Capitalism is forward-looking and anticipatory, constantly seeking new profit arenas. It provides the incentive for innovation and gave us all of the past progression for Man’s betterment.”
You never heard of just-in-time manufacturing? How about inventory control. How about supply chain management? In capitalism supply responds to demand — not vice-versa. It’s why supply side economics always fails. You can think you have come up with the greatest idea ever and if there is no demand, it goes nowhere. In capitalism demand is not infinite. If that were so, there would be no such thing as recession or depression.
Pure capitalism or socialism does not work. To have a functioning society you have to have a mixture. For the past forty years, we’ve had too much capitalism and not enough socialism. The current problem with income inequality was no accident. It was the intended outcome of those who championed those ideas. They just had to sell the public that it was in their best interest.
If history tells us anything, it’s that the current level of income inequality is unsustainable. That usually ends badly for those benefitting from that snake oil.
Dave Fair commented:
Dr. Curry, I’m sorry to demand more of your valuable time, but JJBraccili’s economic pronouncements are so far off base that I am compelled to reply.
Are you drunk?
Stop being a wuss.
JJ has a promising future in Hollywood. He writes such flowery fiction.
“ It was only when tax cuts became the solution to everything that’s when our problems began. Turns out tax cuts solved nothing.”
“ If history tells us anything, it’s that the current level of income inequality is unsustainable”
Income inequality predated Reagan as the graph below shows. But more importantly, it’s more complex than what you believe.
There are a variety of factors involved, including the nature of the economy, culture, demographics and globalization.
Manufacturing as a % of employment has decreased since 1944, going from 40% to under 10% today. Manufacturing has greater capital per job and thus create greater productivity per job. Related, union jobs in the private sector has dropped from 35% of the workforce in mid 1950s to 7% now. Labor has lost its leverage.
Retail, service and leisure and hospitality jobs incomes are a fraction of those in manufacturing and goods producing. As a share of the workforce, the former grew and the latter shrank.
In 1950, 10% of the households had a single person. Now, almost 30%. More single income households.
Proportionately, there are more single mom households now and more dual income households. The disparity in income between the two is greater than 70 years ago. There is a correlation of marriage, education and income. Within the 99%, there is more income inequality.
There are more companies with a global presence than ever before. The time to grow into a global market has shrunk. Vanderbilt began rowing passengers in his ferry service. It took decades to amass his fortune. In some Internet companies they go from a small startup with dozens of employees to one that has a global presence in under a year. The marginal cost of production can be virtually zero. With that comes valuations of billions of dollars.
There are many reasons for income inequality. Reducing the top marginal tax rate probably doesn’t break the top ten.
You do realize that Clinton oversaw an explosion of income inequality after increasing the marginal tax rate. Income of millionaires went from $176 Billion in 1992 to $817 Billion in 2000. Bush 2 went from $817 Billion to $1.07 Billion. Bush’s massive deficits versus Clinton’s surpluses had more to do with the Real growth in taxable income under Clinton being 22 times that of Bush. 67% vs 3%.
Your view of income inequality is like your view of Global Warming. Way too simplistic.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-12-04/workers-get-nothing-when-they-produce-more-wrong
You should have posted something that had something to do with income inequality. Here’s a graph that says it all:
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/media/imglib/20120320_Wehner_Graph1LARGE.jpg
In 1921 Harding, the first conservative GOP president, under the guidance of his Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, instituted our first experiment in supply side economics. Look what happened to income inequality.
In 1933 FDR is president. Banking regulations and higher taxes went into effect and looked what happened. Income inequality fell and continued to fall. It helped that the Democratic Party supported unions and were dominant.
In 1981 Saint Ronnie is president — no friend of unions — and he began our second experiment in supply side economics. Look what happened. Are you telling me that was an accident? Give me a break!
BTW it’s not just marginal tax rates. It’s right-to-work laws, tort reform, bankruptcy reform, conservatives on the courts favoring corporations over people. All of this falls under conservative economic ideology designed to transfer wealth from the lower classes to the upper classes. Both parties are guilty because both take money from the wealthy and corporations. The Democrats just less so than the Republicans.
You need to get out of the conservative bubble. You don’t know anything about climate science and you’re not much better at economics.
JJ, one needs to look at net income: Deduct taxes paid (from all governmental subdivisions) at the high end and add governmental transfer payments (including goods and services) to the low end. IIRC, the last national income study I looked at had the average of the lowest quartile of earners at about $50,000/yr., with the highest quartile at about $300,000/yr.
Ideologically motivated thinking is a bitch.
That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
You want to what? Account for all the transfer payments that goes to the middle class and not the advantages the wealthy get by hiding income? How about deferred income on capital gains? I could go on and on. If you think reported income numbers of the wealthy is anywhere close to what they actually make, think again.
I guess you want to pretend that income inequality is non-existent. That any mention of it is class warfare. For the last forty years the wealthy have waged class warfare on the lower classes, and they’ve been successful beyond their wildest dreams.
What has conservative economic ideology gotten us? A crumbling infrastructure, little investment in R&D, massive debt, income inequality, and a social safety net full of holes. All of that so the rich can get richer as everyone else gets poorer. Lovely!
This country is rapidly becoming a third world nation. The conservative solution will be more of the same and passing out foam No. 1 fingers that everyone can wave to pretend we are what we once were.
“Ideologically motivated thinking is a bitch.”
Indeed, it is.
JJ
Everyone knows the Piketty et al study is ideologically driven drivel. You fell for it because you wanted to fall for it.
Here from Obama’s Office of Tax Analysis in 2016 study
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2017/preliminary/paper/NkfkQ2ak
It finds the change in 1% income up only 2.8% by 2013 from 1960 vs 10% in Piketty’s more recent paper. See Table 2.
Also from same paper
“ Using tax return and Census data, the Congressional Budget Office (2014) found that the top one percent share increased 5.7 percentage points from 8.9 to 14.6 percent from 1979 to 2013 compared to PS estimates of a 10 percentage point increase from 9 to 19 percent.”
From an update of the Office of Tax Analysis study in 2019
“ We are not alone in finding lower levels and smaller increases in U.S. top income shares when using broad measures of income. Combining tax return and Census data, Fixler, Gindelsky, and Johnson (2019) estimated a top one percent share of personal income in 2012 of 13 percent, compared to 21 percent in Piketty and Saez (2003 and updates, hereafter PS). Using Survey of Consumer Finance data, Bricker et al. (2016a) found that the top one percent share increased 3 percentage points between 1988 and 2012, compared to 6 percentage points in PS. Using tax return and Census data, the Congressional Budget Office (2016) found that the top one percent share of before-tax income increased 6 percentage points from 9 to 15 percent between 1979 and 2013, compared to the PS estimate of a 10 percentage point increase from 9 to 19 percent. Our pre-tax income share increases by 4 percentage points from about 10 to 14 percent over this period. Using internal Census data to overcome top-coding issues, Burkhauser et al. (2012) estimated that the top one percent share only increased 2 percentage points from 10 to 12 percent between 1967 and 2004.”
http://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequality.pdf
All in all the increase in income inequality is not as great as the bogus Piketty paper suggests.
Here’s a report from the Congressional Research Service on income inequality.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44705#:~:text=Congressional%20Research%20Service%20%EF%82%B7%20The%20distribution%20of%20financial,inequality%20through%20the%20capital%20income%20that%20wealth%20generates.
It says exactly what I’ve been saying. Conservative economic ideology has been a disaster for this country. All it does is increase debt and income inequality. It caused both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. It also caused the stock market crash of 1987 — first since the crash of 1929 — as well as the S&L bank failures of the late 1980s. That a record to be proud of.
Spin it all you like. As soon as we relegate conservatism to a small protest movement, the better off the country will be. Conservatives aren’t qualified to run a lemonade stand.
JJ
I read the entire 44 page report and it doesn’t say any of those things you said it said. But it did identify the causes and they were precisely what I said. And it never mentioned conservative ideology or Reagan. Stay in your own bubble if that suits you.
Next time you link something, you should read it first.
Do you know who the Congressional Research Service is? That’s a non-partisan report. They won’t place blame. Look at the graphs particularly at Figures 5 & 6. Look when income equality started to really rise. Guess who started the ball rolling?
The GOP claims they are the party of personal responsibility. The only people they want held to account are the poor. They never take responsibility for the disasters they cause, and they have caused many, many disasters.
JJ, if you weren’t such an ideologue you might have noticed that the report indicated Hispanics and blacks did relatively better under President Trump.
What exactly did the Orange Wonder do that caused that to happen?
His economy grew at about the same rate as the economy that Obama handed him.
Do you really think, with his track record, he would do anything that would benefit Blacks and Hispanics knowingly? This is the guy who questioned why we couldn’t get more immigration from Norway.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-norway-idUSKBN1F11QK
JJ, arguing politics and economics with you is fruitless; you can’t see beyond your fixed opinions. Goodbye.
It’s not fruitless. It’s not working out the way want. For that to happen, you need better arguments. Trust me. There aren’t any to support your position in politics or climate change.
Busts are caused by asset price crashes. Bubbles are caused by inadequate monetary controls – including quantitative easing – inadequate prudential oversight leading to poor lending practices and a lack of effective and uncorrupted regulatory regime. Busts follow with a steely inevitably.
The third great idea in 20th century physics – along with relativity and quantum mechanics – is dynamical complexity. Dynamical complexity has many applications in ecology, population, epidemiology, physiology, weather and climate, planetary orbits, earthquakes and economics to name a few. We tend to accept relativity and quantum mechanics as great ideas without understanding much about them. Dynamical complexity is more widely known as chaos theory – and is as little understood. The broad class of dynamical systems is known by certain behaviours. This is shown in economics by the potential for small initial shocks – a few hundred billions in toxic debt for instance – to cause a global economic meltdown as a result of collective emergent behaviour. Fear and greed ran rampant putting an end to decades of economic stability and growth.
Both sides in the US are equally culpable – as seen in the dismal fiscal health of the nation. Although ‘new economics’ in the hands of the democrats is a clear and and present danger – JJ’s ill judged, partisan rants notwithstanding.
Yes, just like I said, the biggest jump was under Clinton. In 1986 they changed the tax treatment of Chapter S Corps and what was formerly counted by IRS as Corporations Taxes began being counted under Individual Income Taxes. That is partially why such a large jump plus under Clinton the capital gains rate was reduced under Clinton which further increased income for the.01%.
You don’t seem to be aware of these nuances. Take up some new hobbies. You’re losing in debating Global Warming and economics.
Let me give you some advice. When your argument resorts to “what-about-ism”, you’ve lost.
You have a case of conservative amnesia — a common affliction among conservatives. Didn’t I say the Democrats were only slightly better than the Republicans on this issue?
The rise in income inequality began in 1981. A change in accounting in 1986 had little to do with it. It has continued unabated and will continue as long as conservative economic ideology is followed. You should be proud and own it — not pretend it isn’t happening. It’s doing exactly what it was designed to do.
“You don’t seem to be aware of these nuances. Take up some new hobbies. You’re losing in debating Global Warming and economics.”
It’s not the “nuances” that’s the problem. It’s the policy. I’m not losing any debates. I’m not the one scrambling trying to find “nuances” to justify my positions. The facts and the science are all on my side.
JJ
In 1986, six years after Reagan was elected, the effective tax rate (the % of income paid in taxes) for the 1% was ~31%, In 1970, before you say income inequality started, the effective tax rate was ~31%.
In other words, if paying a lesser % of income in taxes was the only cause of income inequality, then according to your statements it began before they started paying a lesser %.
So, let’s review. I provided studies showing income inequality is not as great as Piketty et al said. I provided studies showing other factors contributing to income inequality. You said it started in 1981, while until 1986 they were paying the same % of income in taxes.
But, the more intriguing question is this. Since Reagan left office, Democrats have held the WH and at times both houses of Congress for several sessions. If reduced top tax rates were so onerous why didn’t the feckless Democrats rectify it?
Why did they lay prostrate, paralyzed by the mystical myth of Reagan. Were they so haunted by the Big Gipper in the sky that they couldn’t reverse the greatest threat to our economy, behind CAGW, of course. Maybe they should employ a Shaman who could exorcise the curse of someone who hasn’t held office for over 30 years.
Even now, they have backed off Biden’s original proposal to increase the top rate from 37% to 39.6%. What are they scared of? Maybe themselves.
“In 1986, six years after Reagan was elected, the effective tax rate (the % of income paid in taxes) for the 1% was ~31%, In 1970, before you say income inequality started, the effective tax rate was ~31%.”
You have your facts wrong. In 1979 the effective on the 1% was 37%, by 1985 it was 25%. You have this annoying habit of getting numbers wrong. It must be a coincidence that they always support your case.
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/data_bytes/EffectiveTotalFedTaxRate.png
Reagan did raise taxes in 1986, but it never got back to his pre-tax cut rates.
“So, let’s review. I provided studies showing income inequality is not as great as Piketty et al said. I provided studies showing other factors contributing to income inequality. You said it started in 1981, while until 1986 they were paying the same % of income in taxes.”
I provided CRS data that made my point. I don’t care if Piketty’s data is off or not. CRS is the gold standard. Makes no difference what I said. The income inequality started early in Saint Ronnie’s term and continued to rise after that. That’s no coincidence.
Federal income taxes aren’t the only taxes. Saint Ronnie substantially raised payroll taxes. That’s paid by the lower classes at a fixed rate — no exemptions. It’s a capped tax and has little impact on the upper classes.
Saint Ronnie went to war with unions. He broke that air traffic controllers’ union. It’s odd he had such a problem with unions. I believe he was the only president to belong to a union. He was president of the Screen Actors Guild.
There were plenty of conservative policies that contributed to income inequality. Tort reform, bankruptcy reform, right-to-work laws, etc. The conservative Supreme Court favored corporations over people.
“But, the more intriguing question is this. Since Reagan left office, Democrats have held the WH and at times both houses of Congress for several sessions. If reduced top tax rates were so onerous why didn’t the feckless Democrats rectify it?”
They tried. Clinton raised taxes. Obama raised taxes. Biden wants to raise taxes. Shrub put supply side economics on steroids. He cut taxes twice. He didn’t bother to enforce security laws and Alan Greenspan didn’t bother to regulate banks. Banks were bailed out in the Great Recession, and little was done to help the lower classes.
Quit trying to pretend that conservative economic ideology is good for this country. It is designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It has worked as intended. If you are a conservative, you should be ashamed — not trying to defend this BS.
JJ
My facts came directly from the raw IRS annual reports, not some leftwing snow job. You got scammed.
Sorry to blow your boat out of the water.
Really? Post the link.
My data came from the CRS created by congress to provide an objective assessment of the impact of laws enacted. They have access to the information you claim to use. Not unsurprisingly, they come to a different set of numbers than you do. Who to believe? You or the CRS? I think I’ll go with the CRS.
Read it and weep.
I don’t know how you get taken in so easily.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/86inar.pdf
LOL
Let me translate. You can’t read the report. You can’t think for yourself. Consistent with how you have been conned on AGW. You want to be told how to think.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Economics – in case you are wondering – is on the tornado topic because richer economies are better braced to withstand anything weather throws at us.
How much wealthier did Mayfield, Kentucky need to be to avoid being wiped off the map by a tornado?
Ultimately rebuilding is a boost to economic activity – a disaster paradox.
For tornados – like tsunamis – the goal is to run and hide. Early warning systems, shelters and evacuation plans.
Richer economies also have the advantage of usually being located in moderate climates — generally not near the Arctic or the equator.
But richer economies also have more assets and infrastructure that can be damaged by a tornado or hurricane / typhoon.
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.
I don’t think JJ’s economic rhetoric is quite up to maximising economic growth going forward.
https://www.heritage.org/index/about
More quotes from the Heritage foundation? What makes you think they know a damn thing about economics? They were the geniuses behind supply side economics.
I think you should check out the state of Kansas under Gov Sam Brownback and his experiment in supply side economics. It got the blessing of Art Laffer, Steven Moore, and Larry Kudlow — the three amigos of supply side economics. Like all the other times supply side economics was tried, it failed miserably.
‘Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade.’
We are considerably more sophisticated than your socialist partisan rants recognise.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.
But unless JJ can actually devise practical ways of managing free markets the cultural divide is too great to bridge.
What are you? A founding member of the Heritage Foundation?
Conservative economics doesn’t work. I need to modify that. It doesn’t work for the lower classes. It works as intended for the upper classes.
Supply side economics has been a disaster. It has never worked and never will for reasons I have already explained. The latest experiment in supplied side economics was in the state of Kansas. It was an unmitigated disaster. It was so bad that red Kansas has a Democratic governor.
It takes an extreme case of conservative amnesia to keep believing that supply side economics is the solution to anything.
JJ needs to drop the socialist rhetoric. Like Hayek – I am not a conservative – simply an advocate of economic rationalism. What has been an immense tragedy for the world is socialism. And JJ simply wants to rinse and repeat. It is quite clearly utter madness.
Capitalism has succeeded in bringing billions of people out of poverty in recent decades. JJ is not in Kansas anymore.
“Capitalism has succeeded in bringing billions of people out of poverty in recent decades.”
Capitalism gave the US the gift of slavery. A gift that keeps on giving to this day. It also blessed us with sweat shops. Another gift was child labor. A lot of bad things have happened under the umbrella of capitalism. Where is your outrage over that? Another case of conservative amnesia. Socialism gets a bad rap.
Capitalism and socialism are economic frameworks. Neither is good nor bad. How they are implemented determines how they are perceived.
Want to see what free-market capitalism can do? We have the perfect case study — the North Mariana Islands, a territory of the US not constrained by US labor law. That must have been a utopia or so conservatives claimed. Here’s a taste of what it was really like:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5492833
That’s just a taste, there’s a lot more to the story. There even was a documentary done on Jack Abramoff that discusses the scandal. The benefits of unfettered free-market capitalism on full display.
You sound as if you think that slavery was an invention of capitalism. Slavery is much older than the economic institution of modern capitalism. It goes back farther than the Roman Empire or even the ancient kingdoms of Egypt. Prior to the invention of robotic slaves made of metal and plastic, called machines, slavery was a necessity to move beyond hunting and gathering or subsistence farming. The great cities and works of art of the past would have been impossible in egalitarian societies where everyone was free.
One might argue that the invention of machinery powered by fossil fuels was what made human slavery uneconomical and served as an impetus for emancipation. After all, a slave owner had to feed and house his agricultural slaves even when they weren’t working in the fields in the Winter. A machine only needs to be ‘fed’ while it is working.
However, you have your own set of ‘facts’ that seems to make you happy with your world view. May you be fortunate enough to never run into the wall of reality.
I never said capitalism invented slavery. Capitalism doesn’t distinguish good from bad. If it’s the market permits it, it will use it.
The steam engine existed in 1860, but it wasn’t used in agriculture. Harvesting was done manually.
What I’m saying is reality. You want the world to conform to your political views. Get out of the conservative bubble and find out what’s really going on. You’ll find out you’re being lied to on a daily basis.
1860 CE, NOT 1860 BCE!
One of the reasons the South lost the war was because they couldn’t keep up with the manufacturing capability of the North, which was depending more on machines and less on people. In another 20 years it would have been evident to the South that slavery was an albatross around their neck.
One of the things that I find characteristic of liberals is their attitude:
arrogant, sanctimonious, and condescending!
They say things such as, “You want the world to conform to your political views.” You have no way of knowing what I think or want. However, that doesn’t stop you from telling the world what other people think.
You said:
“One might argue that the invention of machinery powered by fossil fuels was what made human slavery uneconomical and served as an impetus for emancipation. After all, a slave owner had to feed and house his agricultural slaves even when they weren’t working in the fields in the Winter. A machine only needs to be ‘fed’ while it is working.”
Name the machines widely available in the 1850s that could replace slave labor. The only machine I can think of is the cotton gin. If anything like you suggest were true, there would not have been a Civil War. Don’t tell me that the Civil War was fought over state rights and not slavery. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
“One of the things that I find characteristic of liberals is their attitude:
arrogant, sanctimonious, and condescending!”
Only if you believe stating facts and believing in science make you “arrogant, sanctimonious, and condescending.” Look at the current pandemic. Conservatives would rather believe the talking heads on Faux News, than experts in the field of medicine. Instead of proven vaccines, they rather use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or take a bath in bleach. You had the Orange Wonder suggest it would be a good idea to inject bleach or shine UV light in your lungs. Do you think that’s rational behavior? Then you wonder why conservatives are branded anti-science and anti-intellectual?
“They say things such as, “You want the world to conform to your political views.” You have no way of knowing what I think or want. However, that doesn’t stop you from telling the world what other people think.”
I think that refers to conservatism in general. Conservatives can’t sell their policies to the general public. They couldn’t after their economic policies caused the Great Depression. The party of Lincoln then decided to embrace racism, homophobia, and white nationalism to win elections. Currently the party has no platform and no policies to run on. The current plan seems to be to rig elections as much as possible, and if that doesn’t work, claim voter fraud and install the Republican who lost the election. They can’t seem to bring themselves to the point where they modify their positions to attract more voters. It’s looks like conservatives are willing to replace democracy with fascism in order to retain political power.
JJ, the mid-19th Century saw the use of steam and water to drive industrial processes. There was more such industry in the Northern States.
Straw man irrelevancies. All I suggest is the value of a commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.
“Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.”
It was the model in the 1920s and led to the Great Depression. For the last 40 years conservatives have longed to return to those days and have done everything possible to make that happen.
Markets run on rules and whoever writes the rules determines the outcomes. For the last 40 years the plutocrats have written the rules and that’s why we find ourselves in our current position. Why do you think we have massive income inequality and massive debt? Think that was just an accident? Too much socialism? Poor people’s fault? Think again!
What you’re talking about only exists in fairy tales.
I struggle to think why he imagines that free market principle are not standard operating procedure in progressive democracies.
“Name the machines widely available in the 1850s that could replace slave labor.”
At the beginning of the California Gold Rush, volume processing of placer gravels required men pushing wheel barrows bringing the gravel to a sluice box. Someone invented hydraulic placer mining, which allowed one man to direct a monitor and wash away the gravel equivalent to hundreds of men.
In the North, automated clothing mills run off water power, were very common, especially in New England. This replaced hand looms more common in the South.
The first tractor was invented in 1892, which was really the beginning of the agricultural revolution and quickly replaced the man with a plow behind a mule.
In other news – the James Webb IR telescope got launched.
The Webb telescope will study infrared light from celestial objects with much greater clarity than ever before.
Yay – an IR space telescope to look at stars and things far, far away. They must emit a lot of IR radiation to allow us to detect them by IR all the way across the universe.
But wait a minute – in our global warming catechism we were taught that suns like ours don’t emit IR. They emit only in the visible range corresponding with their surface temperature. That’s why IR is not blocked on its way in – there isn’t any – only blocked on the way out from earth surface thermal emissions. Thus the “heat trapping” by deadly CO2.
So the Webb telescope won’t see anything, right? Since stars don’t emit IR.
But if stars do emit IR, it means that CO2 in the atmosphere will expel incoming solar IR, meaning that CO2 decreases incident TSI (total solar irradiation) – that means a cooling effect.
Huh! That wasn’t in the catechism.
Phil Salmon commented:
But wait a minute – in our global warming catechism we were taught that suns like ours don’t emit IR
{rolls eyes}
Not all stars are like the Sun.
Ever hear of red dwarfs?
Phil Salmon wrote:
But if stars do emit IR, it means that CO2 in the atmosphere will expel incoming solar IR, meaning that CO2 decreases incident TSI (total solar irradiation) – that means a cooling effect.
Huh! That wasn’t in the catechism.
It’s like some of you have never cracked a textbook ever. Never studied the basic of climate science — not even Chapter 1. Or read a review paper.
Worse — you’re proud of this.
The fact that at all heights above the emission height, CO2 cools the atmosphere, is not entirely trivial. Also CO2 slightly reduces TSI, it’s effect at TOA unlike at the earth’s surface is far from saturated. So relatively stronger. Think on that the next time you look up in the late evening sky at noctilucent cloud.
CO2 saturates in the troposphere. That means it absorbs all of the earth’s radiant energy it can absorb. Above that, the energy in the 15 mm band, is from kinetic energy being converted to radiant energy.
The bottom 25m or so of the troposphere is saturated. And by all means describe a mechanism for transforming kinetic energy into photons.
You’re kidding right?
Molecules collide with one another. This causes the molecules to vibrate. The vibrating molecules expel photons.
Kind of the basis for Planck’s equation and the S-B equation.
Absorption and emission occur in vibrational modes where there a change in dipole moment. What I asked for was a quantum mechanism for transforming kinetic energy to photons. .
Your understanding of this is pretty limited.
Molecules banging into one another cause them to vibrate. That results in photon emission. It’s pretty simple.
You seem to understand that when a molecule absorbs a photon it causes the molecule to vibrate and some of the energy is transferred as kinetic energy to surrounding molecules. This is just the reverse.
In fact, if the surrounding molecules kinetic energy is high enough — that depends on the photon absorption rate –, the molecule will emit more photons than it absorbs by taking kinetic energy from the surrounding molecules cooling the surrounding molecules.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The bottom 25m or so of the troposphere is saturated
LOL.
Prove it.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
The bottom 25m or so of the troposphere is saturated. And by all means describe a mechanism for transforming kinetic energy into photons.
“On Earth, CO2 is far from being saturated. It isn’t even saturated on Venus.”
See the sidebar on page 37 of:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
“Saturation fallacies
“The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in 1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists) argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth’s climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth’s atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres, Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström’s laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström’s sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would become still hotter if one added CO2 to its atmosphere.”
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
David
The longer these threads get, the more cantankerous you become 😁
Maybe time to jump to the next one – JC has posted one now.
JJBraccili | CO2 saturates in the troposphere. That means it absorbs all of the earth’s radiant energy it can absorb.
Robert I. Ellison | |The bottom 25m or so of the troposphere is saturated.
–
Perhaps both claims are true?
Unlikely since one is JJB,
still, from Skeptical science.
“Gilbert Plass in 1956 One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals. ”
I think this this wrong because Gilbert did not consider that due to the amount of IR available and the density of CO2 at lower levels all the side bands are saturated as well. Completely opaque applying only to a specific IR bandwidth.
and Skeptical science
“Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure.”
I think that any CO2 at height [JJB] has so much incoming IR from the sun that it must be fully saturated.
Normally this would mean less saturation the deeper one went into an atmosphere.
But then you get the surface.
Hence if IR does reach the surface that layer is probably saturated as well.
It sends back more IR from light and also leads to back radiation locally until it is saturated
Hence the lower levels may actually, at some levels receive more IR than the TOA at first.
Perhaps the best way to look at it is to consider what saturation actually means
Once an object starts emitting light it is in one sense saturated.
As for the incoming energy it is no longer able to put it out purely as IR.
This is temperature sensitive.
In other words as a substance gets hotter it puts out more IR and more light.
Hence there can be no true CO2 complete saturation, only a nominal complete saturation at a nominal temperature.
That at which the substance itself is not emitting light
copyright angech.
Phil
in our global warming catechism we were taught that suns like ours don’t emit IR. They emit only in the visible range corresponding with their surface temperature. That’s why IR is not blocked on its way in – there isn’t any – only blocked on the way out from earth surface thermal emissions.”
Phil that is not correct and you should not say that even in jest.
A large amount of IR is produced by the sun and is absorbed in the atmosphere on the way in, You know that.
The sun has Infra red as part of its spectrum, as does every other hot body.
I could be difficult and remind you of red shift which means the telescope will be picking up a lot of infrared which was emitted in the light spectrum range but has move into the infra red band on the way.
What ever happened to Webb Hub Telescope. Seems he was presient after all!
A large amount of IR is produced by the sun and is absorbed in the atmosphere on the way in, You know that.
Yea that’s exactly the point of my /sarc post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_infrared_background
I guess just a link doesn’t make it. Repeating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_infrared_background
Phil Salmon “In other news – the James Webb IR telescope got launched.”
I found your post very clear, cutely written, and likely to offer a pronounced headache to some of the zealots on here. It certainly helped me to understand something that has bugged me about IR and CO2 for sometime.
I considered posting a thank you when I first read it a couple of days ago but other priorities diverted my attention. It now amuses me to see how such an erudite description of the process driving the JWT project has provoked hostilities from the usual suspects. There is not a dry eye in this house today.
Why does it now take hours and hours for comments to appear?
EVERYTHING is going into moderation filter, I am losing my mind here.
I am sorry about that. But happy new year anyway.
Dr. Curry, it seems that David Appell and his cohorts are using your excellent blog to wage their unresolvable flame wars. Perhaps you could encourage them to use their own blogs to conduct such unproductive wars. I imagine your time is much too valuable to your businesses and partners to waste on babysitting David, et al.
I do apologize for the times I’ve unknowingly wasted your time by engaging in their skirmishes.
Sincerely, Dave Fair
Dave Fair commented:
Dr. Curry, it seems that David Appell and his cohorts are using your excellent blog to wage their unresolvable flame wars.
Desperate.
LOL.
Accept your surrender.
The Moderator reached a tipping point
after too much alcohol, and fell off the bar
stool onto the floor.
Moderator Bait
Only your comments Mr. Apple.
Everyone else gets fast service!
Winter temperatures over land are a real problem for people who don’t see the impact of solar activity on the winter polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/M81bgkh/gfs-T2ma-us-18.png
I apologize for being off topic (again) but I found this new paper to be very interesting. Others can determine its scientific soundness.
The study deals with the increased incidence of extreme flooding of the Amazon River. It covers a relatively long term ( from 1902). It would always be nice to include MWP and RWP but can’t have everything.. Unlike other papers about a variety of topics, I was not able to find any “yeah buts”. There appears to be a significant change in extreme flooding in recent decades.
The reasons it’s so interesting:
It covers such a massive area and there are different micro climates in the upper reaches of the watershed from mouth. The length of the river is nearly twice the distance from Madrid to Moscow. The area is in two hemispheres.
The hydrology is affected directly by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (thus AMO/IPO) and indirectly by the Indian Ocean.
Discussion of the Hadley and Walker circulations effects
Dispersion of peak flows across the calendar
The paper and citations cover out gassing of CO2 in temporary wetlands, Agulhas leakage increase and vertical velocity in the atmosphere.
Droughts in the basin and relationship to deforestation. I’ve been reading several papers about the impact of changes in vegetation and deforestation since mid Holocene across civilizations in East Africa and Ethiopia. Those changes in the ecosystem are limiting options for the current inhabitants and adversely affecting the livability of the region .
Drainage of the basin affecting Atlantic circulation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094721000931?via%3Dihub
A planet is not a blackbody.
A planet doesn’t emit as a blackbody.
A planet doesn’t absorb solar radiation. What planet does is to INTERACT with solar radiation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Most people are not stuck in the no greenhouse effect or the negligible effect of internal variability memes.
‘Increasing well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) have led to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space. This net radiation imbalance, also referred to as Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI), has led to increased global mean temperature, sea level rise, increased heating within the ocean, and melting of snow and sea ice (IPCC, 2013). In addition to anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG, EEI is influenced by aerosol emissions and land use change as well as by natural forcings associated with volcanic emissions and variations in solar irradiance. As the climate system responds to warming, changes in clouds, water vapor, surface albedo and temperature further alter EEI. These properties also respond to internal variations in the climate system occurring over a range of timescales, causing additional EEI variability. Examples of internal variations include weather events, which vary from days to weeks, El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (Philander, 1983), which vary on interannual timescales, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Mantua et al., 1997), which varies on decadal timescales.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
While I remember – most people are pro environment. It’s pretty dumb not to be.
“Plain Language Summary
Climate is determined by how much of the sun’s energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Robert, I don’t claim Earth doesn’t warm…
What I say is
A planet is not a blackbody.
A planet doesn’t emit as a blackbody.
A planet doesn’t absorb solar radiation. What planet does is to INTERACT with solar radiation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That the planet is not a blackbody is irrelevant.
Now, about the pyrgeometer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
There’s now a network of DWLR monitoring stations.
https://bsrn.awi.de/
They are commercially available if you fancy monitoring DWLR yourself.
https://www.kippzonen.com/ProductGroup/4/Pyrgeometers
Pyrgeometer is measuring radiation in the environment, like the common thermometers measure temperature in the environment.
We don’t know where the measured by pyrgeometer radiation comes from.
The same with thermometers – we don’t know what exactly temperature they measure.
The problem is the same for both, pyrgeometers and thermometers, they are on the earth’s surface.
Yes, they measure something that varies, we can determine if there is a rise or not in the measured results, but we cannot tell what exactly they had measured.
You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.’ RIE
I was obviously talking about Christos. Now it seems he has a problem with monitoring networks established under the auspices of the World Climate Research Program based on a Wikipedia entry.
I am quite sure I don’t understand the quantum mechanics of radiative transfer in the atmosphere. Infrared excites movement of water vapor and carbon dioxide molecules in 9 degrees of freedom. Two of these involve absorption and emission of photons. Asymmetric stretching and bending involve changes in hybrid electron shell dipole moment. 7 of the modes of motion are
limited to changes in molecular kinetic energy that is subsequently imparted to the rest of the atmosphere warming it. And anything with a temperature above absolute zero emits energy.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum-690×776.jpg
Absorption and emission by carbon dioxide in the wide open 8 to 12 micron range increases downward IR flux and warms the surface. Everything proceeds from there.
Robert I. Ellison commented:Infrared excites movement of water vapor and carbon dioxide molecules in 9 degrees of freedom.
9?
Go home.
It seems he understands very little indeed. But if he is going to question degrees of freedom of these triatomic molecules he needs more than a question mark.
Your graphic is wrong. The CO2 15 mm absorption should be to the left of the earth’s IR peak and close to it — not all the way on the right. Your graph is from Planck’s equation and not from actual data. I have already stated the anomaly in the equation that causes that error. I’m not going to repeat myself.
If CO2’s 15 mm absorption band was where it is shown on that graph, CO2 would not be anywhere near the problem that it is.
Tell NASA their graph is wrong.
“Tell NASA their graph is wrong.”
No. Their graph is right. You didn’t realize that your graph is not from data but from Planck’s equation. Planck’s equation has an anomaly. Why am I not surprised that you don’t know that?
This is what was being discussed. That problem is not in the 4 to 16 micron absorption band. The issue is in slowly closing the 8 to 13 micron window. What madness this is.
http://gcep.stanford.edu/images/factsheets/94_Fan_Fig1.jpg
‘Figure 1: The black curve is the transmission spectrum of the Earth’s atmosphere. The red curve is the emission spectrum of a 300 K blackbody. The peak of the emission spectrum coincides with the transparency window between 8 to 13 microns of the atmosphere.’
Here’s the thing you still don’t get.
The CO2 15 mm absorption band should be to the left of the earth’s IR peak. The O3 absorption band should be further left than where it is shown. If you use the actual data, the earth’s IR peak should be around 18-20 mm – not 10 mm.
Your graph is not from data but is just the result of Planck’s equation using wavelength as the integrating variable. Planck’s equation has an anomaly.
It is of course the 14 to 16 micron band.
‘If CO2’s 15 mm absorption band was where it is shown on that graph, CO2 would not be anywhere near the problem that it is.’
The the 14 to 6 micron band seems to be in the right place. 🤣
Yes it is – right there in the 4 to 16 micron band. Sure yo are not holding it upside down?
… 14 to 16 micron band…
Robert I. Ellison commented:
It seems he understands very little indeed. But if he is going to question degrees of freedom of these triatomic molecules he needs more than a question mark
Just count up the DOF for us and I’ll be happy.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
I am ready to explain such a very simple thing – but let’s see David wiggling on the hook.
All you have to do, buddy, is prove your claim of 9 DOF.
—
I’ve known a lot of Australians. None were as soft as you.
David and JJ are too busy trying and failing to score points while denouncing our ignorance in every comment to share in productive discourse. None of it has much value as cogent analysis.
Quantum mechanics is a struggle for anyone and dogmatic certainty is misplaced nonsense. I’ll defend my view of this DOF molehill – at least I think that’s what this is about – but not without David speaking up and offering something more substantive than a hanging question mark.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ AR4 3.4.4.1
ERBE and ISCCP data show cooling in IR and warming in SW.
Here’s the primary literature where the energy budget is closed by reference to ocean data derived using 5 year windows required due to date scarcity.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml
Here’s the primary source for ocean data.
Willis, J., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper-ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109.C12036, doi:10.1029/2003JC002260.
The trend continues in CERES and confirms without doubt continuing reduction in cloud cover. It’s a positive feedback to sea surface temperature and I have seen it claimed by a global warming fanatic that it is all a feedback to anthropogenic warming. But it is first of all a feedback to sea surface temperature rises in the Pacific Decadal Variation.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml
‘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
The clue to eastern Pacific sea surface temperature variation is in Pacific Ocean gyres.
The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
These guys haven’t read the relevant literature, insist it isn’t relevant, or is flawed, or that I don’t understand it. And they are desperate to avoid the realisation that they have been complete idjits for decades.
How many times do I have to say this? The oceans respond to climate change — they don’t cause it. The oceans cannot manufacture energy.
“The oceans respond to climate change — they don’t cause it.”
It appears that you have not heard of the concept of feedback loops.
Of course, I’ve heard of feedback loops. The oceans cannot sustain or be the cause of climate change. The reasons I have repeated over and over.
No one’s challenged what I said. All they do is point to some data and say see. As night follows day, then comes the lunatic conspiracy theories. It all a plot by the MSM and climate scientists. They have conspired to force a socialist agenda on the world. Be very, very afraid, the communists are both unseen and everywhere waiting to pounce.
No one’s challenged what I said. All they do is point to some data and say see.
I think that’s actually called a challenge?
Congratulations! You figured out how to convert wavelength to wavenumber. Quite an accomplishment for you.
Hope this isn’t too complicated for you, but let’s try a little advanced thinking. Look at the wavenumber spectrograph I provided. The peak of earth’s radiant curve is at a wavenumber of 600 cm-1. Convert that to wavelength and you get 16.6 mm. Go to your wavelength plot and draw a vertical line at a 16.6 mm. That’s where the actual peak should be.
Go back to my plot using wavenumber. The red curve is a blackbody curve at 294 K from Planck’s equation using wavenumber as the integrating variable. That’s due to the anomaly in Planck’s equation.
Somebody else took the 15 mm wavelength and used Wien’s law to estimate the blackbody temperature. It was -80 C. How can CO2 possibly warm the earth he reasoned? He doesn’t understand the anomaly. Let’s use Wein’s law where at a peak of 16.6 mm the temperature is 288 K and calculate what the temperature would be if 15 mm were at the peak. That temperature is 319 K. That a 31 K temperature rise. It will actually be more than that, but the explanation is too complicated for you. That why I said that the 15 mm CO2 absorption band is capable of raising the temperature of the planet by another 30 – 50 C.
Let’s hope the light bulb goes on for you. On the other hand, it probably burned out a long time ago.
But greenhouse gases content in Earth’s atmosphere are trace gases, right?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We could us a break from JJ’s repetitive inanities. What really matters is net energy at TOA.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_longwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
I take it the SW graph is supposed to reflect the solar energy reflected by clouds.
I thought when I went through the ocean circulation theory that would put an end to this nonsense — apparently not.
The premise of the “cloud” theory is because SW radiation is decreasing that means the earth is absorbing more SW radiation and that either makes CO2’s impact negligible or nonexistent. Seems logical. What could possibly be wrong with that? Plenty!
There is another possibility. Variation is solar irradiance. Since solar radiation is the source of the SW radiation reflected off clouds, any variation is going to have an impact. I glanced through the paper that RIE presented as peer-reviewed dogma, and I didn’t see anything about correcting SW reflected radiation for solar irradiance variation. So much for RIE bemoaning the lack of sophisticated analysis. He should try doing it some time.
Here a graph of solar irradiance by year:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1802/
The solar irradiance varies on an 11-year cycle. Since 1950 solar irradiance is on a downward trend. Both solar irradiance and SW reflected radiation vary over 1-2 W/m2. Both are on a downward trajectory. The correct conclusion is that the decrease in SW reflected radiation is primarily due to variation is solar irradiance and noise. You can now deep-six the ocean circulation theory. It has zero impact on climate change.
That is what happens when you put your faith in pay-to-publish papers. That is why they don’t gain traction in the scientific community.
Variations in TSI are an order of magnitude less than changes in outgoing energy. The range of the former is about 1 W/m2 – that after accounting for the planet as a sphere is about 0.25 W/m2. And it is accounted for in the Loeb et al paper JJ dismisses out of hand.
Norman Loeb is the hugely respected leader of NASA’s CERES program. JJ’s ideas OTOH are narrative nonsense.
I thought we were talking about clouds.
I looked at that paper again. He’s talking about fluctuations at TOA. Nowhere can I find anything that even remotely suggests that albedo variations are more significant than increasing CO2 on climate change. In fact, he talks about at times el Nino increases radiative forcing and at other time it decreases radiative forcing. This would be typical in an internal energy transfer. Climate change is about long term permanent changes in climate — not temporary anomalies.
I was talking cloud – JJ was misunderstanding ocean circulation. As he insisted repeatedly. I find JJ’s behaviour disingenuous in the extreme. It seems to be a habit.
In the cloud effect SW and IR are anticorrelated – with low level marine stratocumulus SW is dominant.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
There is less cloud over the eastern Pacific over warm ocean than cool. Cloud cells form and rain out. They look like this.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific
The state of the Pacific shifts at multidecadal intervals – but also over centuries to millennia.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
Closed cells persist for longer over cool oceans before raining out.
e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4973593
It is potentially a mechanism for a cloud tipping point at levels of CO2 in the atmosphere we may reach this century.
The eastern Pacific has been warmer than average over the past 40 years. Comparing models with reanalysis product allows an estimation of the relative strength of these warming causes. About half due to clouds.
So lets discount CO2 as a cause of early 20th century warming – with natural variability being about half of late century warming. It isn’t an ‘internal energy transfer.’
I’m not interested in what happened before 1950. It doesn’t matter
Once again natural variability cannot cause climate change. It’s just an internal transfer of energy. It responds to climate change.
Putting more water vapor in the atmosphere is not going to result in less cloud cover.
Cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
JJBraccili | December 31, 2021 at 9:07 pm |
I’m not interested in what happened before 1950. It doesn’t matter
“Once again natural variability cannot cause climate change. It’s just an internal transfer of energy. It responds to climate change.:”
So what caused all the climate changes over the 1m or so years before 1950, if it wasnt natural variability?
It could have been solar radiation, greenhouse gases, volcanoes, an asteroid. Anything that impacts radiant heat transfer to and from the planet. Natural variability does no such thing.
Ice, cloud, dust, hydrology, biology – triggered by changes in thermohaline circulation in a complex dynamical system.
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.’
Let’s talk about what science says is really the way climate works.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Climate_threshold
The corrected for geometry insolation at the Earth’s surface is about 341 W/m2. Variation in the Schwabe cycle is some 0.25 W/m2. There was a peak in 1950 and the modern grand maximum that lasted for the rest of the century.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/
The graph JJ presented implied that global temperature rises after 1985 were not caused by the sun. This is obvious and has been for decades. SW up declined in CERES as a result of reduced cloud cover. More energy reaching the surface. A TSI reduction has the opposite effect. Less energy reaching the planet.
These are such rookie errors peppered with puerile insults that I cannot possibly take him seriously. And he is a card carrying pissant progressive socialist. Strike 3 – he doesn’t understand much about Earth system science, is scrambling and failing to catch up and is incapable of civil discourse. It is a feature of climateball and a defining failure of the progressive intellect.
“The corrected for geometry insolation at the Earth’s surface is about 341 W/m2.”
The actual number is 240 W/m2. You forgot to take out the albedo. That must be why you think cloud cover is driving climate change. You can’t get the facts straight. Is that your idea of a sophisticated analysis?
That’s the basis of your argument? That less cloud cover is causing climate change. That doesn’t pass the laugh test. There are a few thousand climate scientists who disagree with you.
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/styles/resource_image/http/data.globalchange.gov/assets/22/05/f91f3e0f9de762a469592dc44804/CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?itok=_eLJDZSz
I guess the above graph is merely a coincidence. Then there is all that spectrographic evidence that you don’t understand.
I understand. I’m you’re worst nightmare. I understand climate science.
Care to explain how you missed the anomaly in Planck’s equation that led you to post that bogus spectrograph you tried to use as proof of God knows what? No, let’s not talk about that. It exposes you for what you are.
Weren’t you the guy that didn’t know that back radiation was what drove the earths’ temperature higher and thought all you had to do was use the LWIR at TOA to calculate the planet’s temperature? Is that another example of your unparalleled ability to perform a sophisticated analysis? I guess we shouldn’t talk about that either.
LOL!
‘I understand. I’m you’re worst nightmare. I understand climate science.’ JJ 🤣
FFS I even offer solutions and tipping points. Let’s discuss how the Earth system actually works.
I deliberately left it at 341 W/m2 as the change in cloud changes what is reflected. JJ state that TSI was 1361 W/m2 – and the variation in the Schwabe cycle was 1 to 2 W/m2, rivaling variation of outgoing energy. And that declining solar activity caused some of the recent warming rather than reduced cloud cover. Such rookie errors that he now attempts to paper over with misrepresentations as is his habit.
The spectrograph from NASA I linked used wavelength rather than wavenumber. It seems to have thrown JJ into a babbling wreck mumbling about anomalies. Changing the x axis between these units changes zilch. It is simply another of JJ’s errors.
And then he simply makes up fake news. Simple AGW radiative physics have been known for centuries. I read the first IPCC assessment in the early 90’s, decided the solutions were technological and went back to more interesting questions of hydroclimatic variability. It does of course make me wonder about his good faith.
The sophisticated analysis I referred to is in the peer reviewed science I read and discuss endlessly. Unlike JJ, I don’t read blogs or summaries for policy makers in the delusion that I then know it all.
Linking disparate science is the process of synthesis by which we make sense of the world. It is quite beyond JJ capabilities. It’s like asking a monkey to do calculus. He has a questionable gasp of radiative physics and none at all of the great bulk of Earth system science. He is adamantly not interested in the latter. As they practice it – it’s not science – it’s socialist progressive groupthink peppered with insult, calumny and lies. JJ is a poster child for the type.
Unlike most of the blogosphere Judy’s e-salon offers freedom to point out their glaring intellectual shortcomings. What fun. Come back anytime you have an itch JJ. happy to oblige.
“I deliberately left it at 341 W/m2 as the change in cloud changes what is reflected. JJ state that TSI was 1361 W/m2 – and the variation in the Schwabe cycle was 1 to 2 W/m2, rivaling variation of outgoing energy”
Deliberately left out? LOL!! The Schwabe cycle? Sunspots? Really? Here’s what you don’t get. Something cycling has no impact on climate change. Whatever causes climate change has to be continuously increasing. I’ll leave you to figure out why.
I never said anything about the size of TSI or the Schwabe cycle. You must be having a senior moment.
“The spectrograph from NASA I linked used wavelength rather than wavenumber. It seems to have thrown JJ into a babbling wreck mumbling about anomalies. Changing the x axis between these units changes zilch. It is simply another of JJ’s errors.”
That is your error. Changing the position of the CO2 absorption band relative to the IR radiation peak changes everything. Once again showing you don’t know how to read a spectrograph or what it means. On your spectrograph, CO2 is not a concern, and I would consider it much ado about nothing. On my spectrograph it’s a big problem with the potential to drive the earth’s temperature 30-50 C higher. I’ll leave you to figure out why.
“And then he simply makes up fake news. Simple AGW radiative physics have been known for centuries. I read the first IPCC assessment in the early 90’s, decided the solutions were technological and went back to more interesting questions of hydroclimatic variability. It does of course make me wonder about his good faith.”
I don’t make up anything. Unlike you, I don’t throw out meaningless unrelated things you call “facts”. Unlike you, I don’t wallow in what happened years and years ago because it’s not significant and it doesn’t matter.
“The sophisticated analysis I referred to is in the peer reviewed science I read and discuss endlessly. Unlike JJ, I don’t read blogs or summaries for policy makers in the delusion that I then know it all.”
That is all well and good except you don’t understand what you read and are incapable of discerning real science from junk science.
“Linking disparate science is the process of synthesis by which we make sense of the world. It is quite beyond JJ capabilities. It’s like asking a monkey to do calculus. He has a questionable gasp of radiative physics and none at all of the great bulk of Earth system science. He is adamantly not interested in the latter. As they practice it – it’s not science – it’s socialist progressive groupthink peppered with insult, calumny and lies. JJ is a poster child for the type”
You have to understand “disparate science” to link them. You don’t.
“He has a questionable gasp of radiative physics and none at all of the great bulk of Earth system science”
I look like the world’s foremost expert on radiative physics compared to you. You got one thing right. I don’t care about Earth system science because it has nothing to do with the cause of climate change. It only responds to climate change. That’s why I’m an engineer and you are whatever you are.
BTW when I said you can figure out why. I know you can’t.
I am an engineering hydrologist with a masters in environmental science. JJ is I believe is a mechanical engineer. So what? JJ relying on his own authority is a humungous fallacy.
‘I never said anything about the size of TSI or the Schwabe cycle. You must be having a senior moment.’
Untrue.
‘That is your error. Changing the position of the CO2 absorption band relative to the IR radiation peak changes everything.’
All that changes is that the x axis is labelled as wavelength or wavenumber. If he really believes this makes a difference in the position of anything prove it or shut up.
‘I don’t make up anything. Unlike you, I don’t throw out meaningless unrelated things you call “facts”. Unlike you, I don’t wallow in what happened years and years ago because it’s not significant and it doesn’t matter.’
He made up a story about me, modtran and downwelling radiation. Holding on to solid ground with such a slippery character is hard work.
‘That is all well and good except you don’t understand what you read and are incapable of discerning real science from junk science.’
This is standard cancel culture dismissal of anyone who doesn’t share the groupthink. At least I have read the science
‘You have to understand “disparate science” to link them. You don’t.’
But – unlike JJ – I have at least read the science so I am closer to understanding it than he is.
‘I look like the world’s foremost expert on radiative physics compared to you. You got one thing right. I don’t care about Earth system science because it has nothing to do with the cause of climate change. It only responds to climate change.’
Sorry to break it to him – JJ doesn’t look anything like the world’s foremost radiative physics expert.
For what it’s worth – not much to JJ obviously.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0005-6
“I am an engineering hydrologist with a masters in environmental science. JJ is I believe is a mechanical engineer. So what? JJ relying on his own authority is a humungous fallacy.”
I’m a chemical engineer. I’m sure you have no idea what the difference is.
I mainly rely on the First Law of Thermodynamics. Using it to discredit the musings of people like you is not at all difficult. You ought to acquaint yourself with it. It would save me the time I use reading the nonsense you post.
“‘I never said anything about the size of TSI or the Schwabe cycle. You must be having a senior moment.’
Untrue.”
Which is untrue? That I never said anything about the size of TSI or the Schwabe cycle or that you must be having a senior moment. What I said about the former is absolutely true. Prove that it’s not. The latter is probably not true. I think it’s just advancing dementia. It gets worse with ever post you write.
“All that changes is that the x axis is labelled as wavelength or wavenumber. If he really believes this makes a difference in the position of anything prove it or shut up.”
I was right you can’t figure it out. Your problem is one-dimensional thinking. The sign of an inferior intellect. Absorption of IR by CO2 is a two-dimensional problem. There is the ability of CO2 to absorb IR and then there is the ability of the earth to radiate IR that CO2 can absorb. Let’s look at a blackbody curve using wavelength as the integrating variable at 300 K.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dongliang-Zhao-5/publication/332459395/figure/fig2/AS:749475756773376@1555700353369/The-spectrum-of-a-blackbody-surface-with-a-temperature-of-300-K-solid-black-curve-and.ppm
The earth’s IR radiant peak is at 10 mm. Look at the position of CO2’s 15 mm absorption band. As temperature rises, the Earth’s radiant profile shifts left toward shorter wavelengths. Look what happens to the IR the earth radiates in CO2s 15 mm band. It is less. With each temperature increase CO2 has less energy to absorb and radiate. CO2 is no longer driving climate change. It is doing the exact opposite.
Let’s look at a blackbody curve using wavenumber as the integrating variable at 300 K.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-90ZK2JPCNSU/Thj7CeP3qgI/AAAAAAAAAAs/bLRZkPScjVA/s1600/planckcv.jpg
The earth’s IR radiant peak is at 600 cm-1. Look at the position of CO2’s 666 cm-1 absorption band. As temperature rises, the Earth’s radiant profile shifts right toward larger wavenumbers. Look what happens to the IR the earth radiates in CO2s 666 cm-1 band. It is more. With each temperature increase CO2 has more energy to absorb and radiate. CO2 is driving climate change.
Maybe it’s time you find another hobby. You are clueless about climate science. Your opinions are worthless.
“He made up a story about me, modtran and downwelling radiation. Holding on to solid ground with such a slippery character is hard work.”
I did discuss MODTRAN, but I don’t remember discussing it with you. What I said is MODTRAN is worthless because it is not a climate model. You have to give it the ground temperature, and then it shows you how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere.
“This is standard cancel culture dismissal of anyone who doesn’t share the groupthink. At least I have read the science.”
It’s not “cancel culture” if it’s true. Reading something and understanding its significance are different. You make a mountain out of a mole hill.
“Sorry to break it to him – JJ doesn’t look anything like the world’s foremost radiative physics expert.”
I never said that. You should quote me properly. What I said is that compared to you I’m the world’s foremost radiative physics expert. Which, I think, this post amply demonstrates.
‘I mainly rely on the First Law of Thermodynamics. Using it to discredit the musings of people like you is not at all difficult. You ought to acquaint yourself with it. It would save me the time I use reading the nonsense you post.’ JJ
Tendentious reasoning and misdirection at every level. JJ takes one of the foundations of modern physics and trashes it. His comments are loaded with insults and denigration. A pointless and tedious exercise. And he constantly changes his story without acknowledging it. The term gaslighting comes to mind but I am not a weak minded sap. It’s contemptible and ridiculous.
He has obviously run out of things to say – simply repeats cr@p.
JJBraccili
“I’m a chemical engineer. I’m sure you have no idea what the difference is.
I mainly rely on the First Law of Thermodynamics. Using it to discredit the musings of people like you is not at all difficult. You ought to acquaint yourself with it. It would save me the time I use reading the nonsense you post.”
JJBraccli, please formulate the First Law of Thermodynamics for solar irradiance’s impact on a smooth surface rotating sphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili | January 1, 2022 at 12:42 pm |
Junk science is not a new idea.
JJBraccili | January 1, 2022 at 1:15 pm |
I don’t do requests. Do it yourself. It should be good for a laugh.
What changed your mind in 33 minutes?
angech | December 31, 2021 at 7:40 pm |
JJBraccili | CO2 saturates in the troposphere. That means it absorbs all of the earth’s radiant energy it can absorb.
Robert I. Ellison | |The bottom 25m or so of the troposphere is saturated.
–
Perhaps both claims are true?
Unlikely since one is JJB,
still, from Skeptical science.
“Gilbert Plass in 1956 One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals. ”
I think this this wrong because Gilbert did not consider that due to the amount of IR available and the density of CO2 at lower levels all the side bands are saturated as well. Completely opaque applying only to a specific IR bandwidth.
and Skeptical science
“Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure.”
I think that any CO2 at height [JJB] has so much incoming IR from the sun that it must be fully saturated.
Normally this would mean less saturation the deeper one went into an atmosphere.
But then you get the surface.
Hence if IR does reach the surface that layer is probably saturated as well.
It sends back more IR from light and also leads to back radiation locally until it is saturated
Hence the lower levels may actually, at some levels receive more IR than the TOA at first.
Perhaps the best way to look at it is to consider what saturation actually means
Once an object starts emitting light it is in one sense saturated.
As for the incoming energy it is no longer able to put it out purely as IR.
This is temperature sensitive.
In other words as a substance gets hotter it puts out more IR and more light.
Hence there can be no true CO2 complete saturation, only a nominal complete saturation at a nominal temperature.
That at which the substance itself is not emitting light
copyright angech.
You seem a bit confused.
According to climate scientists the following is what happens:
Short wavelength radiation travels undisturbed through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the planet. It gets converted to kinetic energy which is then emitted as IR according to Planck’s equation. CO2 absorbs photons in the 15 mm band. The lower troposphere is dense enough in CO2 so that all the earth’s radiant energy in the 15 mm band get absorbed. A small fraction of that energy goes to heating the atmosphere. The rest is reradiated back to the earth. Above the saturation point radiant energy in the 15 mm band is generated by conversion of atmosphere kinetic energy into radiant energy. That’s what you see at TOA. More CO2 added absorbs this energy. It eventually gets converted to kinetic energy which restricts convective heat transfer from the earth causing the earth’s temperature to rise.
Even though the CO2 15 mm band is saturated in the troposphere, that’s not the end of its impact. As the earth warms it emits more energy that CO2 can absorb. That energy is reradiated back to the earth raising the temperature higher. That effect makes it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions so that CO2 in the atmosphere is being removed by natural processes. Otherwise, the earth will continue to warm even if there is no net change of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Short wavelength radiation travels undisturbed through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the planet.”
Not correct.
Apart from some SW being absorbed well before it reaches the surface of the planet , other SW is reflected before it reaches the surface, by clouds and absorbed by higher clouds.
It is also bent in its path except where it enters the atmosphere vertically so again disturbed not undisturbed.
“It gets converted to kinetic energy which is then emitted as IR according to Planck’s equation.”
Not that simple.
“The lower troposphere is dense enough in CO2 so that all the earth’s radiant energy in the 15 mm band get absorbed.”
Only if it is not already saturated.
“Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light [ I think they mean the IR ] go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure.”
Interesting isn’t it.
If it is already saturated [IR from the sun] any energy coming from below should pass straight through?
“A small fraction of that energy goes to heating the atmosphere. The rest is reradiated back to the earth.”
Not your best idea. The troposphere radiates in all directions.
Half goes generally up half goes generally down.
There is no large fraction rereadiated to earth ever.
Half out half in at any level.
“Above the saturation point radiant energy in the 15 mm band is generated by conversion of atmosphere kinetic energy into radiant energy. That’s what you see at TOA”
No. above the saturation point any energy can just go through.
” As the earth warms it emits more energy that CO2 can absorb. That energy is reradiated back to the earth raising the temperature higher.”
Very good.
Some of that energy is reradiated back to the earth raising the temperature higher.
“That effect makes it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions so that CO2 in the atmosphere is being removed by natural processes. Otherwise, the earth will continue to warm even if there is no net change of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Slow down. CO2 is already being removed by natural process including negative feedback loops
More CO2, more plants, a few million years more coal and oil.
A natural renewable resource coal it is.
How can the earth ever continue to warm by more CO2 in the atmosphere even if there is no net change of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Must have been late at night.
“Apart from some SW being absorbed well before it reaches the surface of the planet , other SW is reflected before it reaches the surface, by clouds and absorbed by higher clouds.
It is also bent in its path except where it enters the atmosphere vertically so again disturbed not undisturbed.”
My bad! I should have been more specific. I meant it doesn’t go through the scattering that IR radiation does.
“Only if it is not already saturated.
“Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light [ I think they mean the IR ] go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure.””
Not sure what you mean. Absorption by CO2 is a function of molar density and height. Molar density drops with altitude in the atmosphere.
There is no such thing as 100% absorption. Absorption obeys the law of diminishing returns. The question is what is the point where CO2 absorption is too small to matter? That occurs fairly quickly.
“If it is already saturated [IR from the sun] any energy coming from below should pass straight through?”
No, a CO2 molecule has no idea of the concept of saturation. Every photon it can absorb, it absorbs. That absorbed energy either becomes an emitted photon (path of least resistance) or is transferred as kinetic energy. Depending on the temperature of the atmosphere the kinetic energy from the atmosphere can be used to generate additional photons that “cool” the atmosphere. As you can see, it can get quite complicated. I haven’t thought about it, but the energy balance probably keeps the energy flowing back to the earth the same as what it radiated in the 15 mm band. Same goes for IR from the sun.
“Not your best idea. The troposphere radiates in all directions.
Half goes generally up half goes generally down.
There is no large fraction rereadiated to earth ever.
Half out half in at any level.”
Not true. For each molecule half goes up and half goes down. Stack the molecules and less and less goes up. Eventually essentially all the absorbed energy winds up going down either by reradiation or restriction of convective heat transfer from the earth.
“No. above the saturation point any energy can just go through.”
Not true. Don’t forget that with altitude molar density decreases. There are less and less molecules to absorb IR. The kinetic energy in the atmosphere is converted to radiant energy and that’s what you see at TOA. That radiation can be absorbed and reradiated but because the lower atmosphere is saturated it cannot radiate to the earth. Some of it, and probably most of it, gets converted to kinetic energy that restricts convective heat transfer which raises the temperature of the earth. Again, it gets complicated.
“Slow down. CO2 is already being removed by natural process including negative feedback loops
More CO2, more plants, a few million years more coal and oil.
A natural renewable resource coal it is.”
Trust me. CO2 has to be removed from the atmosphere or there won’t be anybody left to tell you you’re wrong.
“How can the earth ever continue to warm by more CO2 in the atmosphere even if there is no net change of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
That because of how a blackbody radiates energy. As a blackbody warms it radiates more energy at shorter wavelengths. Think of the sun compared to the earth. The sun radiates much more energy at shorter wavelengths because its hotter. Heat the earth to the same temperature as the sun and it will do the same thing.
What that means is that every time the earth’s temperature increases, it radiates more energy that CO2 can absorb and reradiate. That drives the temperature higher, and the process continues regardless of if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere or not. I estimated earlier today that this process could raise the temperature of the earth by 30 – 50 C. What I just said depends on the lower atmosphere remaining saturated.
JJ, you said “I meant it [SW] doesn’t go through the scattering that IR radiation does.”
SW is subject to Rayleigh scattering, which gives us a blue sky.
Does that significantly impact the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth? NO.
‘To explore this equation’s implications, suppose a photon close to the centre of the absorption band, between 650–690 cm-1, is emitted upwards at the surface of the Earth. The CO2 concentration is assumed to be [C] = 400 ppm. How high will it travel before it is absorbed? The absorption length is l0 = 1/n0σ0 = 2.65m – not very far at all! In fact, the bottom of the troposphere might be seen as an impenetrable wall of CO2.
Clearly, the probability of absorption is different for IR radiation at wavenumbers towards the edges of the band, below 580 or above 760 cm-1, where σ is much lower, so the mean free path is 100s of metres to a kilometre. These photons make their way to a substantial height. The density of CO2 reduces at higher altitudes, thereby increasing the probability of them travelling even higher before absorption. Radiation at these wavenumbers is most sensitive to changes in the atmospheric CO2 level. An increased CO2 concentration yields a reduced absorption length.’ https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2021/04/recent-advances-in-climate-change-research-part-xi-how-earth-s-ir-photons-are-transferred-in-the-atmosphere-in-the-presence-of-co
Extra CO2 reduces the mean free IR photon path in the atmosphere. There are three CO2 vibrational modes – two of these involve electron shell dipole moments and absorption and emission of photons – and each atom has 3 translational axes. I think. Quantum mechanics is hard. Photons are emitted in random directions including down. Increased IR down slows cooling of sun warmed oceans. Oceans slowly warm – thermal inertia – until the temperature is such that increased IR down is balanced by increased emissions.
Is saturation a useful concept? About 7% of IR photons from the surface travel directly to space. Increasing CO2 density should reduce that proportion – but I understand that CO2 level thousands of times higher than current would be required. It is not something worth beating a drum about. Except by Christos who marches to a different drum.
Given JJ’s contempt for those who don’t agree absolutely with him – I have to say that the confusion is not Angech’s.
You left out the whole part in the article about the conversion of the atmosphere’s kinetic energy into radiant energy. What? Didn’t understand it.
I used to have a really good reference that explains it all better, but the link no longer works.
JJ, dude! You are hoist on your own petard: Your graph shows that while CO2 was gradually increasing between 1910 and 1940, temperatures are increasing at a rapid pace (high trend). While CO2 was significantly increasing between 1980 and 2000, temperatures increased at the same trend as between 1910 and 1940. While CO2 maintained its rapid increase post-2000, temperatures essentially flatlined in the 21st Century.
JJ, you are not helping your image with a stubborn, unreasonable refusal to accept the facts as documented by other commentators. Spend a little time honestly studying the information you are provided without the interference of preconceived notions. [Or not.]
I think you need a new pair of glasses
Here’s the graph I think I posted on temperature vs CO2:
http://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif
Here’s another graph of temperature vs solar irradiance:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/a8/c2/caa8c2695cd5dec7047d05849ee77e11.png
We didn’t really start dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere until 1950. Look at the first plot before 1960 there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. The correlation becomes strong after 1960. Something else is driving temperature. BTW the slope of the temperature curve increases dramatically after 1960. The trends are not the same before and after 1960.
Let’s look at the second plot. Between 1880 and 1960 temperature tracks with solar irradiance. That’s what driving planetary temperature change during that period. I told you and the other posters that CO2 is not always the driving force of temperature change. That proves it.
If I were you, I’d take up another hobby. Climate science is not your thing.
JJ, correlation is not causation; one would have to scientifically show what the impact of variations of TSI had on global temperatures. Your second graph shows nothing other than Samuel Clemens’ maxim: There are lies, damned lies and statistics. If you would care to look, there are lots of studies on the impact of changing TSI on the metrics driving changing global temperatures.
The graph you actually showed earlier extended into the first decades of the 21st Century. I can’t help it if you can’t see: 1) The similarly of the two rising trends of 1910-40 and 1980-2000 temperatures, despite the dissimilarity of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration trends between the two periods; 2) the cooling between 1940 and 1980, despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations; and 3) the essentially flatlining of temperatures in the early decades of the 21st Century, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I don’t care that you earlier said you don’t care about past climate changes. Understanding the past climate changes helps to interpret the current changes. Your approach leads to repeatedly blurting unsupported assertions. You are not the sole repository of scientific knowledge and you should listen openly to the opinions of others rather than reflexively attacking them personally.
You just make stuff up as you go along, don’t you? Pretty much the climate skeptic playbook.
“Your second graph shows nothing other than Samuel Clemens’ maxim: There are lies, damned lies and statistics. If you would care to look, there are lots of studies on the impact of changing TSI on the metrics driving changing global temperatures.”
The second graph is from NASA. You think they are lying? On what basis do you make that outrageous claim?
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
“The graph you actually showed earlier extended into the first decades of the 21st Century. I can’t help it if you can’t see: 1) The similarly of the two rising trends of 1910-40 and 1980-2000 temperatures, despite the dissimilarity of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration trends between the two periods; 2) the cooling between 1940 and 1980, despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations; and 3) the essentially flatlining of temperatures in the early decades of the 21st Century, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”
What are you talking about? Between 1880 and 1910 there is a downward trend in temperature. After that there is an upward trend. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature before 1960. After that, there is a strong correlation. From 1880 to 1960 the temperature correlates with solar radiation. Do you have proof that what I said is wrong? NO! What you’re doing is trying to cherry pick the data to meet the outcome you want. Science doesn’t work like that.
I wrote a piece on Quora a couple of years ago that lays out the scientific case for climate change. You’ll see I haven’t changed or modified my position or arguments.
https://www.quora.com/If-climate-change-is-a-hoax-why-do-so-many-scientists-say-its-happening?top_ans=155488291
“I don’t care that you earlier said you don’t care about past climate changes. Understanding the past climate changes helps to interpret the current changes. Your approach leads to repeatedly blurting unsupported assertions. You are not the sole repository of scientific knowledge and you should listen openly to the opinions of others rather than reflexively attacking them personally.”
Past climate changes are meaningless. It’s all cause and effect. Do you know if what caused the past changes even came close to matching today’s conditions? No, you don’t. It’s unlikely they do.
I’ll listen to the opinion of others if it has merit. I gave the benefit of the doubt to the planet rotation theory and proved it was junk science. Most of the nonsense I read on this site can be dismissed because it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
I hate to tell you and the other “skeptics” that the climate scientists are right, and you and they are wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Oh sure – the dog ate his reference.
JJ: “I wrote a piece on Quora a couple of years ago that lays out the scientific case for climate change.”
Quora; impressive.
Your case should be a shoo-in for peer review; why sit on it, are you expecting it to hatch?
Thank You!!
That Quora piece must have been a revelation to you. It’s basic science and doesn’t need to be published. Real scientists and engineers agree with it and are well aware of everything I wrote. It’s the fake ones that have a problem with it.
I wrote that for people like you — the uniformed and scientifically illiterate.
Pingback: I tornado che hanno colpito gli USA il 10-11 dicembre 2021 – Effetto del Cambiamento Climatico? -
JJBraccili
“You left out the whole part in the article about the conversion of the atmosphere’s kinetic energy into radiant energy
. “ Above the saturation point radiant energy in the 15 mm band is generated by conversion of atmosphere kinetic energy into radiant energy. It gets converted to kinetic energy which is then emitted as IR according to Planck’s equation.”
What? ”
JJ
What is a saturation point?
Where is it?
Is saturation a useful concept?
“That’s what you see at TOA”
does not answer the question as according to your theory kinetic to radiant energy is occurring at all levels, not just TOA.
According to my point of view the atmosphere [on earth] is probably saturated at most levels on a lot of the lit side.
I’m pretty sure the post I just made answers all your questions. If not, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
I expect that JJ expected to step in and dominate by the the force of his intellect from a bastion of unassailable science. Sad for him that he doesn’t have the chops and his
blogospheric echo chamber science is far from unassailable.
I have been doing Earth system science for decades – tracing
decadal hydrological variability to Pacific Ocean states. The eastern Pacific was warm in the early 20th century, cooler in the middle and warmer again at the end – but it all sums to zero don’t yo know. It parallels inflection points in the surface temperature record. We have measured cloud variability in the late 20th and early 21st century. About half of recent warming was not anthropogenic.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
And as that was when greenhouse gas emissions took off – they contributed little to anthropogenic warming in the early 20th century. The implication is that total surface warming is less than estimated by some. So even even if the 1.5 C tipping point was a thing – it recedes into the future. It gives us more decades of elbow space if it’s needed.
Time enough for rational economic, environmental and climate policy. Don’ panic. 😁
Earth system science is the next step in monitoring, analysing and modelling climate. He is so behind the science curve and is so dedicated to climate alarmist memes that he refuses to learn and grow.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-019-0912-1/MediaObjects/41586_2019_912_Fig1_HTML.png
How the Earth system really works.
‘Understanding climates from the geological past is essential for understanding the context for today’s human-caused (anthropogenic) climate changes. One reason that records from the past are so important is that they can tell us about climate changes before human activities, and thus they can help us to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural climate variability. In addition, we can learn about the rates over which climate change can happen, from decades to millions of years, through natural geological archives such as ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets, tree rings, coral skeletons and mollusk shells, and ocean and lake sediments (among others).’ https://www.priweb.org/blog-post/what-is-abrupt-climate-change
So we have inevitable tipping points. The solution is innovative energy technology, conserving ang restoring global ecosystems and building resilient infrastructure.
Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth 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 INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
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 Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 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 =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33°C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why this needs to be repeated multiple times in every post is a psychological puzzle. But then he is not the only one to rinse and repeat.
It is 2022 now. New ideas should be left come forward.
It is time for “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” to advance in Climate Science.
The simple Φ(1-a)) coupled term to become understood and accepted.
Planets not being blackbodies concept – also very important.
The solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface.
Planets do not emit at their average surface temperatures.
And, of course, the understanding of Earth having a very thin atmosphere with trace greenhouse gases content.!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Junk science is not a new idea.
Pingback: Det glade nyttårsbudskap om klimaeffekter. Ole Henrik Ellestad. Klimanytt. 31. des. 2021 | Klima - endring - krise - senter - fakta - fornuft - blogg - co2 - usikker - vitenskap - skypat - patologi - medisin - breast - 2021
You got that right!
That energy is conserved is a foundation of modern physics. That cloud change violates the 1st LOT is a JJ aberration.
This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/8703/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific
This is what science says. But when I say that it caused much of the early century warming and some half of recent warming it violates the 1st LOT. That’s cognitive dissonance from the usual suspects.
Pattern shifts emerge in the spatiotemporal chaos of the system.
e.g. https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos
“According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.””
It appears that in the fit of another mental breakdown, you didn’t comprehend what you posted.
Let me translate. What he said is that sometimes natural climate phenomena can hide global warming and sometimes it accentuates it. Exactly what you’d expect if energy was being transferred from one place to another. That can’t cause climate change.
Even after Judith schooled JJ on oceanic circulation he doesn’t want to admit his error.
More energy is liberated from warmer ocean surfaces than cooler. But there as well a positive feedback in cloud cover that is seen in TOA power flux.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
‘Earth sciences are the fields of study concerned with the solid Earth, its waters, and the air that envelops it. They include the geologic, hydrologic, and atmospheric sciences with the broad aim of understanding Earth’s present features and past evolution and using this knowledge to benefit humankind.’ Britannica
JJ doesn’t know that the field exists – let alone understand it’s relevance. He is a neophyte struggling with unfamiliar concepts and acting out with vacuous, facile and abusive comments. It is of course a microcosm of climateball.
I an in moderation – I’ll try again.
Warmer sea surfaces liberate more energy – implying additional cooling as this is emitted to space. Definitely seen in CERES – added to as a result of less low cloud cover. But warming in SW is even more pronounced. Caused by a decline in solar activity according to JJ.
This is a whole new world to JJ.
You just don’t get it. Energy on the planet is a zero-sum game. One area of the planet gets hotter, and another area get colder. No gain or loss of energy and the planet’s temperature remains constant.
No – the global temperature varies substantially at all scales. But then JJ is not interested in paleoclimatology so it doesn’t count.
That’s less a reply than hiding from the light under a rock.
Small mercies – endlessly repeating the same untenable ideas and his litany of insults is not something that has any value. .
I have not repeated myself. This latest was a refutation of the foolish notion that the Earth is a closed thermodynamic system.
You need to open a book on thermodynamics, find the chapter on the first law, and read the definition of a closed thermodynamic system.
I know this is something you’d never think of on your own, but it’s a start. If you don’t own a thermodynamics book, try “Thermodynamics for Dummies”. It’s $18.95 on Amazon. This book is perfect for neophytes. It shouldn’t be over your head. Yet again…
The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, which is why all this is so complicated
Update: the topic of interest is energy in the climate system, not mass. The climate system is not a closed system energetically
The earth and its atmosphere are a closed thermodynamic system. In a closed thermodynamic system only energy flows freely across the boundary — not mass. If mass flowed freely across the boundary of the “earth system” we wouldn’t be here.
All ocean currents do is move energy from one place to another. There is no energy created. The argument that it is affecting cloud cover is bogus. If there is an increase in energy in one part of the planet, there is an equal decrease in another part of the planet. Any changes are no more permanent than the weather. As soon as the change in cloud cover dissipates, the earth returns to its previous state. It takes a permanent continually increasing phenomena that impacts the energy balance at TOA to cause climate change.
Even if that were true, and the earth was absorbing more or else energy because of changes in cloud cover, it would have no impact on the CO2 effect. Venus absorbs less solar energy than the earth because of highly reflective clouds and its temperature is 400 C higher than it should be because of CO2’s impact.
How fast the climate is changing is complicated. That it is changing and what is causing it is not.
‘Energy on the planet is a zero-sum game. One area of the planet gets hotter, and another area get colder. No gain or loss of energy and the planet’s temperature remains constant.’
JJ misrepresents, dissimulates and denigrates – and the quote above is phucking nuts. I have one question.
Why?🤣
JJ has already discredited decades worth of climate science literature, dozens if not hundreds of climate scientists, every climate model I am aware of, and just good old common sense. It was easy for him to do so, just need a 5th grade level understanding and a lot of foot stomping and voila, discredited.
Judith, one of the most esteemed climate scientists in America says the earth is not a closed thermodynamic system. JJ says it is.
Who do I believe?
This is where the term slam dunk is most appropriately used.
curryja | January 2, 2022 at 11:54 am |
“The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, which is why all this is so complicated.”
JJBraccili | January 2, 2022 at 12:26 pm |
“The earth and its atmosphere are a closed thermodynamic system.”
Who are we to believe ?
Best to believe the socialist – since they are the “light and the Truth” – anything else is blasphemy
Pingback: Kan skape klima-inntrykk av noe som ikke finnes: Ved hjelp av kreativ klimarapportring. - Derimot
‘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.’ https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos
The Earth is a nonequilibrium thermodynamic system.
Where the 1st LOT matters is at TOA.
d(ocean heat)/dt ≈ energy in – energy out
Whatever causes more (less) energy in warms (cools) the planet. Albedo is the big one.
Hmmmm.. Judith ate our homework. 😊
The evolution of spatiotemporal patterns in ocean and atmospheric flow is the essence of climate change – with surprising implications.
e.g. https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm
It comes under the heading of observed climate change.
JJ, you are quoting Joe Romm in “correcting” Dr. Curry? “The” Joe Romm that asserts Mann’s Hockey Stick has been validated? One of the main supporters of CliSciFi lies and misdirections? Tell me you’re not so gullible.
There were a bunch of critiques of her positions. I just picked the first one. Go look for yourself.
As for the hockey stick, I don’t worry about it. If it hasn’t happened to your satisfaction, it will.
I just googled it and found this fact check:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change-idUSL1N2S112H
If you are talking about the Hockey Stick, go read all the posts at Climate Audit, and then we can discuss. The defenses in the link that you post are very weak. Further, the Hockey Stick is not a topic that I have personally researched, but I am very concerned about the unethical behavior of many in the so-called hockey stick community. If you think that paleoclimate reconstructions of climate for the past 2000 years is ‘settled science’, i have a bridge to sell you.
I don’t worry about the hockey stick. Whether it has happened or not. It will.
I don’t care about the past. It doesn’t matter what happened 1 year ago, 1000 years ago, or 1 MM years ago. This is all cause and effect. What is happening right now is unique, as probably was all the other times a mass extinction event was triggered.
If you think dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is harmless, you’re mistaken. If you think CO2 isn’t capable of wiping out civilization, you’re mistaken. The only thing in doubt is how long it’s going to take and if we can prevent it from happening.
It is settled science that increasing CO2 is warming the planet and it’s a major problem that has to be addressed. That’s all that matters.
Word salad.
I am seeking specific evidence that 1-2C additional warming is dangerous. Looking at past climates and extreme events helps us assess to what extent what we are seeing now is unusual and/or can be attributed to manmade global warming. Which is why it has been so ‘important’ to smooth out the MWP and LIA.
If manmade warming is not causing or worsening hurricanes, or droughts, or species extinction, or whatever, then eliminating fossil fuels isn’t going to ameliorate these things.
It’s going to be more than one or two degrees.
Want evidence? I can give you that.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/climate/are-extremes-becoming-more-frequent-graph.jpg/are-extremes-becoming-more-frequent-graph.jpg/metofficegovuk:sm
That’s from the insurance industry. If anybody should know, they should. I have a later plot that goes out another five years. I’d have used that, but there isn’t a way to paste in an image on this site. Trust me, it only gets worse.
Think that’s due to climate variability? Think again. That a result of a lot more energy sloshing around on the planet.
You really need to try harder. Losses from extreme events are primarily driven by increases in population and property in vulnerable regions such as the coast. When scaled by GDP, disaster losses have actually been decreasing. Lives lost from natural disasters since 1900 has decreased by 97%. There is a big body of literature on this in the risk management literature, and the recent IPCC AR6 ignored most of it. You can’t adequately assess trends in extreme weather events by looking at losses, let alone attribute any of this to AGW.
My company has a large number of clients in the insurance sector (mostly Insurance Linked Securities Funds), and also clients (private and public sector) who purchase a large amount of insurance. It is in the interests of insurance companies to raise rates. ILS funds make money when the insurance companies assess the risk incorrectly, and customers of insurance save money when there is objective evidence that insurance companies have overestimated risk (and the customers self insure). This is what I help them assess.
I’ve changed my mind about banning JJ: Your schooling of him on the various topics, while having no impact on his apparently impenetrable head, serves as great learning opportunities for the rest of us and adds to our awareness of the large volume of studies, reports, papers, articles & etc. concerning actual climate science and related economic facts.
Yep, it just me and the rest of the scientific community with our impenetrable heads. Just us clowns who understand science. Then there is you and your merry band of true believes armed with an impressive array of junk science.
In a battle of wits, I like our chances.
You’re never convinced of anything that doesn’t meet the narrative you’re trying to spin. It’s excuses, excuses, and more excuses. When you pour through the IPCC reports, I suspect you’re looking for discrepancies that support your narrative and gloss over or reject anything that doesn’t. According to you, the vast, overwhelming evidence of the cause of climate change is due to peer pressure, grant money, etc. The few discrepancies you find you magnify, literally making a mountain out of a molehill.
Let’s talk about extreme weather events. I found more recent data.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/climate-and-extreme-weather
You have to have criteria to determine what is an extreme weather event. The criteria used for this graph are: at least one death and inflation corrected losses of $100 K, $300 K, $1 MM, and $3 MM. The losses used for each country are assigned based on the income group of the country given by the World Bank. What does population growth or GDP or a decrease in lives lost have to do with that? For that matter, why do they matter at all?
Let’s say you’re right, and the numbers are overstated. Take a look at geophysical events. They are not impacted by climate change. The trend is flat – no significant change. If you were right, they should be going up as well.
What left? Conspiracy theories?
What’s not included in that graph? Only events that cause no fatalities or significant property damage. That’s areas of the planet where there are no people. I think the oceans might be significant, don’t you? After all, they make up 70% of the earth’s surface area. The number of events is vastly understated – not overstated. I suspect the trends are a lot worse than the graph indicates.
Let’s talk about climate variability. It seems you and others think that could be a possible cause of climate change. You thought the IPCC didn’t pay enough attention to the issue. I haven’t read the report, but I suspect they linked the cause of climate variability to increasing CO2 and didn’t say climate variability had an impact on planetary temperature. I can give you a reason why.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Look at the graphic. Look at the period between 1880 and 1960. The temperature change correlates with solar irradiance. If climate variability had any impact on temperature change, there wouldn’t be a high degree of correlation between temperature change and solar irradiance. What happened? Did climate variability hibernate for 80 years and suddenly decide to wake up just as CO2 started to have an impact?
Moving energy around on the planet cannot change the planet’s temperature. Climate variability responds to climate change – it doesn’t cause it.
Let’s get back to the conspiracy that, supposedly, has been going on for forty years. The UN, climate scientists, governments, the MSM, and all the scientific organizations are in on it either explicitly or implicitly. Not only does this sound nuts, but the fossil fuel industry must be in on it.
Take Exxon. 90% of the company’s revenues come from the sale of fossil fuels. That is all at risk if the use of fossil fuels is eliminated. For what possible reason would Exxon be complicit in something that would destroy the company? I know for a fact that Exxon employs climate scientists. They do and have funded research in climate science. Do you think they fear academia, the UN, or any government on the planet? Think again. They’ve taken on the US government a few times. In one case, Exxon dragged it on for so long the US government gave up.
You said that according to the IPCC report, the chances of a mass extinction event occurring are small. I assume that means by 2100. You seem to believe that the warming ends at that point. After 2100 there is no reason to believe the warming will stop. What makes you think that?
According to what I read, the CO2 effect gets saturated in the lower troposphere. What we see at TOA is from convective heat transfer from the surface converted into radiant energy. As we increase CO2, the temperature of the atmosphere rises, which restricts heat transfer from the planet. That increases the planet’s temperature. The other effect is more problematic. As the planet’s temperature rises, it emits more radiant energy that CO2 can absorb. With a saturated atmosphere, that becomes self-sustaining. In an earlier post, I estimated that CO2s 15 mm absorption could raise the earth’s temperature by 30 – 50 C.
Then there is the unknown. What happens as we melt ice and the permafrost? Will a large amount of greenhouse gases be released? Will a deadly pathogen be released? Too much risk, in my opinion.
Mann fact checking Mann and using the scientific fraud from Marcott.
There is no intensification of the hydrological cycle that is distinguishable against internal variability. Based on evidence that is getting exponentially more powerful as time goes by – and not some vague meme about energy sloshing about.
e.g. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/hess-24-3899-2020.pdf
In a battle of wits he is only half armed.
The Koutsoyiannis analysis of precipitation is based on inference from observations. Not some vague idea deduced from the notion that extra energy causes havoc.
Scientists do not agree with JJ. You can tell by how much peer reviewed science he arbitrarily rejects because of cognitive dissonance.
It is peer reviewed science. I have to wonder why he denies so much of it.
…hydrology has much more to offer to societies than prophesies of future catastrophes (cf. Koutsoyiannis, 2020a)
No disrespect. You can have all kinds of credentials, citations, and the awards, but that doesn’t make you infallible. You can be wrong just like anybody else.
There is at least forty years of research into climate science. Thousands of scientists and generations of scientists have worked on this, some of whom have credentials as good or better than yours. Name me a significant scientific organization that doesn’t accept consensus climate science. What makes them wrong and you right? You are in a small minority.
I usually don’t have a problem with dissent, but in this case the clock is ticking. We’re at the point where a decision has to be made to do something or nothing. That means going with the best available science. That’s not the planet rotation theory or the climate variability theory or anything I have read on this site or other sites. We are not entering a new ice age. What I see on this site is a misunderstanding of basic scientific principles or outright junk science.
We’re not going to get a mulligan on this. We’re not going to be able to correct a bad decision. Without a literal “scientific miracle” billions of people are going to die. Entire species will be wiped out. We may go extinct. Contrary to what the fossil fuel industry is trying to sell, there is no way to mitigate and adapt to what is going to come.
It’s easy to go through the models and data and find discrepancies. There are always discrepancies. Climate skeptics take those discrepancies and literally make a mountain out of a mole hill.
If any of the climate skeptics analyses or theories had any merit, the fossil fuel industry would be all over it. They would be sponsoring research. Papers would flood scientific journals. Advertising would be everywhere. Do you see any of that? Where they spend their money is on organizations that traffic in junk science. They spend more money on advertising a mitigate and adapt approach then they do on the actual research. Why is that?
What you and others on this site are doing is dangerous. You may not care if civilization ends, but I and many others do.
You may not think so, but climate science is settled science and has been for a very long time. There is no economic justification to keep using fossil fuels. There are no economics that justify triggering a mass extinction event.
Well it seems that you are mostly about politics. We are mostly about science here, and I and most others here reject appeals to authority (although a few seem to look to me as an authority, but I have never presented myself as a truth machine or infallible). Its about the evidence and arguments that link the evidence, and about continuing to learn.
Exactly why do you think that climate that is 1-2 degrees warmer than our current climate is actually dangerous?
I wish it wasn’t true, but politics and climate change are intertwined. They can’t be separated. I have strong opinions on issues that involve politics. I will discuss politics if someone brings it up. I didn’t start the discussion of politics on this site.
You know as well as I do that we are talking about a lot more than a 1-2 degree change in temperature. That what happens if we eliminate or mitigate our CO2 emissions.
Hopefully, I’ll be gone before this gets really bad. I don’t want to be around for all the whining and finger pointing.
Since pre-industrial (well the 1850-1900 baseline), we have warmed ~1.2C. For the medium emissions scenario, the AR6 best estimate is 2.9C for 2100. Subsequent to the AR6, the IEA emissions trajectory that we seem to be on is lower and gives 2.6C. Since these estimates ignore natural climate variability (which should have overall cooling effect for next ~50 yrs) and use values of climate sensitivity that are arguably too high, I think that 2.6C is a plausible upper limit of what we are looking at by 2100. We have already warmed by 1.2C, so 2.6-1.2= 1.4C. So, exactly what are your arguments for much larger warming (>2C) between 2020 and 2100?
We are pretty close to the so-called danger levels of 1.5, 2.0C relative to pre-industrial. Exactly what do you see so far that is dangerous? You mentioned mass extinctions; at least in the AR5 WGII Report, if i recall there might be one climate-related extinction, a toad or something. Maybe the AR6 WGII Report will have more, but not exactly mass extinctions here. Issues related to land use are a separate issue of concern.
I’m not going to read through the IPCC report. I’ve got better things to do with my time, but I think I found a pretty good summary. It looks like your numbers are a little low.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/08/ipcc-report-future-climate-change-six-charts
I would expect, if we did nothing, we’d approach the high emissions number. What makes you think that the world’s appetite for energy is not going to continue to increase beyond what is projected? When has it not?
There is a table after the temperature scenarios that shows the expected increase in extreme weather events. That does not look good. I suspect there will be a climate refugee problem as well as a myriad of other problems. Think disease, loss of arable land, political conflicts, etc. That why the military views climate change as a major threat. Then there are the inevitable unforeseen events.
You dismiss the temperature changes as small, but the impacts won’t be.
My numbers aren’t low, they are the latest from AR6 and the IEA (the IEA is a bit lower than the AR6). The charts you use also include the implausible scenario SSP5-8.5 (and 4C warming), which you need to invoke to get the serious impacts. The impact of warming on sea level rise is unambiguous. However SLR is a slow creep unless the West Antarctic Ice Sheet decides to collapse, which is a low likelihood low confidence event as per the AR6.
In terms of extreme weather events, the AR6 found an increase in heat waves and a decrease in cold waves (but note there are an order of magnitude more deaths from cold than heat waves). An increment increase was found in extreme rainfall events, but not in floods. Nothing for most other types of weather extremes.
If you throw RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 out, you also throw out the worrisome extreme events. “Danger’ is a ponzi scheme based on implausibly if not impossibly high emissions scenario.
I read the IPCC reports in great detail, also the primary scientific literature.
Scientists/activists and politicians both use science as a political weapon. Bad for science, bad for politics. With this awareness, we strive here to be as objective as we can about the science and challenge our own biases.
I would say that what I see posted here is, for the most part, not objective science. It definitely favors climate science denial.
I don’t buy the climate variability argument. I see that as having little to no impact. Moving energy around on the planet is not going impact the planet’s temperature. It effects local weather patterns, but that’s about it. Nor do I buy the decreasing cloud cover argument. If there is any change, it won’t be permanent and certainly not decreasing enough to drive climate change. It is more likely there will be more cloud cover due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere as the temperature rises. That may or may not be significant.
Everyone is allowed to comment here, provided that they abide by blog rules. We have a relatively balanced group of commenters here, across the spectrum from unconvinced to convinced to alarmed. The challenge is to choose who you respond to and what discussions you get involved in. No one here ‘denies’ science.
With regard to internal variability. The IPCC AR6 gave this issue a huge amount of attention, although it is not anything close to adequately treated in their projections. Cloud feedback is a colossally complicated issue, with small changes in cloud cover having a big impact on W/m2. What you ‘buy’ or not isn’t relevant to convincing anyone here, especially if you are not reading the IPCC reports or the primary literature. Simple thermodynamic reasoning doesn’t take you very far in terms of understanding weather and climate variability on time scales of decades to centuries.
It not as complicated as you imply. The modeling is complicated but whether the planet is warming or not and what’s causing it is not that hard to figure out. I work on problems that are extremely complicated. That’s what I get paid for. You know what? I figure them out. Usually without nearly the data that has been accumulated for climate change. It a canard to claim that things are so complicated that we can’t possibly figure them out.
Do you have actual data of the effect of cloud cover over decades or centuries? How reliable is that data? Are we supposed to wait and do nothing while this issue gets sorted out?
If you think CO2 is a benign actor, how do you explain this spectrograph:
https://c21-wp.phas.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Earth_Emission_Spectrum.gif
The blue area is earth’s radiant energy. That white area under the CO2 label is supposed to be blue. That area is about 9000 TW or about 7.5% the energy absorbed by the sun or 12% of greenhouse gas back radiation. That’s the amount of earth’s radiant energy that CO2 is preventing from being radiated into space. That energy didn’t disappear. It’s driving up the temperature of the planet. CO2 is hardly benign.
You didn’t comment of my bar chart of extreme weather events. Is that proof enough for you?
I would say a lot of junk science is promoted on this site. A lot of climate science denial is present.
No one questions the IR emission spectra of CO2. Translating that into dangerous climate change requires order of magnitude more complex arguments.
ISCCP has satellite data on clouds back to 1970. Steve Warren (a now retired faculty member at U Washington) has extensively analyzed all the historical cloud data. We have a pretty good picture of how clouds have varied historically. However understanding and modelling cloud feedback has been the most vexing problem in climate science since the time of the IPCC first assessment report. Much of my research in the 1990’s was targeted at understanding cloud feedback. Many scales are in play from microns to thousands of kms, includes chemistry, thermodynamics and nonlinear dynamics at all scales. People are still debating even the sign of global cloud feedback; this is arguably a red herring since it varies regionally and with the multi-decadal ocean oscillations, and is also susceptible to regional sources of pollution.
The climate system is very complicated, in spite of attempts by to simplify it into an issue of the CO2 control knob
I did comment on your bar chart. The increasing size of insurance losses is driven by increasing population and property values. You can’t deduce severe weather trends from this. There are many articles on this in the risk management literature.
You are coming across as a stereotypical consensus enforcer, driven by your politics but with a naive understanding of risk management, with some basic understanding of science and who thinks that understanding the climate system is simple.
This perspective is boring to probably a majority of the participants here, who are seeking more sophisticated and nuanced arguments and looking for outside-the-box thinking on both the problems and the potential solutions.
Here we go again. When you don’t have a good answer, everything is so complicated. A few months ago, I completed a modeling project that involved solving a set of stiff non-linear partial differential equations. Could you do that? I program in C, C++, Fortran, Java, Python, and JavaScript. I know how to build sophisticated websites. What are your computer skills? Don’t talk down to me. I’m not your student. Stick to the science.
“I did comment on your bar chart. The increasing size of insurance losses is driven by increasing population and property values. You can’t deduce severe weather trends from this. There are many articles on this in the risk management literature.”
I already replied to that. Your answer is nonsensical.
“You are coming across as a stereotypical consensus enforcer, driven by your politics but with a naive understanding of risk management, with some basic understanding of science and who thinks that understanding the climate system is simple.”
I thought you didn’t want to engage in ad hominem attacks. Trust me. I probably have a better understanding of science than you do. I could do your job. It’s doubtful you could do mine.
“This perspective is boring to probably a majority of the participants here, who are seeking more sophisticated and nuanced arguments and looking for outside-the-box thinking on both the problems and the potential solutions.”
The only solution you’re proposing is to do nothing. That’s not “out-of-the-box thinking” — that’s boring. How long have you been at this? 10 years? How far have you gotten? It looks like nowhere. The reason is not a conspiracy by “group thinking,” “grant-seeking,” “peer intimidated” scientists scared by their own shadow. It’s because you have been trafficking in junk science.
The others may be intimidated by you. I’m not.
Another point: a key characteristic of many so-called climate science ‘deniers’ is that they heavily refer to the IPCC reports (without accepting all of their conclusions and confidence levels).
I started a thread on economics somehow. JJ interprets the history of economics as disasters caused by Republicans. Facile anecdotes opposed to theory informed analysis.
‘The report does not focus on large, abrupt causes—nuclear wars or giant meteorite impacts—but rather on the surprising new findings that abrupt climate change can occur when gradual causes push the earth system across a threshold. Just as the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light, the slow effects of drifting continents or wobbling orbits or changing atmospheric composition may “switch” the climate to a new state. And, just as a moving hand is more likely than a stationary one to encounter and flip a switch, faster earth-system changes—whether natural or human-caused—are likely to increase the probability of encountering a threshold that triggers a still faster climate shift.’ https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/1#v
Regionally as much as 16 degrees C change in as little as a decade.
Cloud change in the satellite era is not an argument btw. It is an inference based on observation – not a deduction from a premise. The latter is not usually worth the hot air used to voice it.
J Braccili
“I don’t buy the climate variability argument.”
What an astonishing statement to make.
Climate is highly variable over small and large geographic areas and over small periods of time and long periods of time. I would say there is no no such thing as ‘normal.’
In 2004 Phil jones-of the University Of East Anglia- wrote a paper in which he admitted that previously he had not realised how highly variable climate could be. He wrote many good books on the subject, such as ‘History and Climate.’ His mentor Hubert Lamb, also wrote many superb books on climate variability such as “Climate history and the Modern world “. Their colleague, Kington, chipped in with the excellent ‘Climate and Weather.”
You might also enjoy E Roy Laduries “Times of Feast times of Famine history and climate since the year 1000″ dealing with weather records, vineyards, tree lines, sea levels and glaciers. An interesting and different take on the subject can be seen in ‘A cultural history of climate” by Behringer
As regards extreme weather events, after looking myself at some 5000 years of weather events over the last 20 years-everywhere from the Met Office library to Glacier records in Switzerland-, with those from Roman times onwards being especially rich, I would say that we currently live in relatively benign times, with far more severe weather events evidenced in the past
tonyb
It’s not astonishing at all.
Does the climate vary across the planet? Yes. Do the ocean currents play a part in that? Yes. Does wind circulation in the atmosphere play a part in that? Yes. Does that mean that climate variability can cause the planet’s temperature to rise? No.
“As regards extreme weather events, after looking myself at some 5000 years of weather events over the last 20 years-everywhere from the Met Office library to Glacier records in Switzerland-, with those from Roman times onwards being especially rich, I would say that we currently live in relatively benign times, with far more severe weather events evidenced in the past”
Irrelevant.
I’ll put the book on my reading list, but it’s a very long list and it may take quite a while for me to get to it.
Tony
“ What an astonishing statement to make.”
You are being the usual gentleman you are. Astonishing is a charitable word.
I can think of a dozen words that I would use, beginning with absurd. They go downhill from there so I will stop. But I won’t stop rolling my eyes and shaking my head.
“You are being the usual gentleman you are.”
Tony indeed is a gentleman; I aspire to his example at being better at withholding contempt towards the contemptible; inevitably I fail on this measure:)
“Moving energy around on the planet is not going [sic] impact the planet’s temperature.”
Yes it is. Depending on the specific heat capacity of bodies containing the heat energy, the temperatures can be quite different. Phase changes of water can also make a considerable difference in air mass temperatures. If atmospheric energy is transferred to an area (such as the deep oceans) that is difficult or impossible to measure appropriately, then a bias is introduced into the calculated “planet’s temperature.”
“You may not care if civilization ends, but I and many others do.”
My concern over well-meaning, but misguided, attempts to ‘save’ civilization is why I devote so much time to pointing out errors of fact that the likes of you and Appell promote here. If uneconomic technologies are foisted on the world by those with myopic understanding of technology, it WILL destroy civilization. Nature will continue on with or without us.
“Depending on the specific heat capacity of bodies containing the heat energy, the temperatures can be quite different.”
Yes!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here we go again. The only one making errors here is you. Moving energy from here to there on the planet cannot change the planet’s temperature. It’s a clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Just because areas on the planet have different heat capacities and when you move energy from here to there and the temperature increase is different from the temperature decrease that does not mean the temperature of the planet has changed.
Let’s same you wanted to calculate the average temperature change of m1 + m2 when you move energy between m1 and m2 each mass has a different heat capacity Cp1, Cp2
The average temperature of m1 and m2 is:
Tavg = (m1Cp1T1 + m2Cp2T2) / (m1Cp1 + m2Cp2)
All the terms on the right are energy terms. No, you can’t just take the arithmetic average. That’s where you went wrong. You could use the arithemetic average if the mass and Cp were identical for m1 and m2. Look what happens to the equation when we let m1Cp1 = m2Cp2 = k
Tavg = k(T1 + T2) / (k+k) = k(T1+T2) / 2k = (T1+T2) / 2 or the arithmetic average.
Now you add energy E to m1 and subtract E from m2. The equation becomes”
Tavg = (m1Cp1T1 + E + m2Cp2T2 – E) / (m1Cp1 + m2Cp2)
The E’s cancel out and you get the exact same average temperature where:
T1 = (m1Cp1T1 + E) / m1Cp1
T2 = (m2Cp2T2 – E) / m2Cp2
T1 and T2 will be different. but the average temperature of m1 + m2 will be the same.
Stop using junk science to make some idiotic point. Start worrying about saving the planet.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19910050237
Rind and Chandler 1991 Journal of Geophysical Research
“A 20-percent increase in cross-equatorial heat transport was sufficient to melt all sea ice; it resulted in a climate that was 2 C warmer for the global average, with values some 20-deg at high altitudes and 1deg warmer near the equator.”
It seems I don’t understand the 1st law, Judy doesn’t understand the 1st law, NASA climate scientists and climate scientists from many other institutions that both write similar papers and all those scientists that review those papers don’t understand the 1st law. No, only JJ understands the 1st law. It’s his story and he’s sticking to it.
A 2 degree C rise in global average temperature? Really? When did this happen? I’m asking because that would show up in the planet temperature rise data.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
According to the above graph from 1880 – 2020 the earth’s temperature rose exactly 1 C. That article is another exercise in junk science. BTW geologists aren’t scientists.
“It seems I don’t understand the 1st law, Judy doesn’t understand the 1st law,”
Finally, the truth!
NASA climate scientists and climate scientists from many other institutions that both write similar papers and all those scientists that review those papers don’t understand the 1st law.
No, just you. BTW the temperature data I just used came from NASA. They don’t agree with you either.
“No, only JJ understands the 1st law. It’s his story and he’s sticking to it.”
Considering only the majority of posters on this site, that statement is true.
JJBraccili
“Here we go again. The only one making errors here is you. Moving energy from here to there on the planet cannot change the planet’s temperature. It’s a clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
I hope to be able to discuss it with you tomorrow. Now it is getting very late in Athens, Greece where I am.
It looks like violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, but it isn’t.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JJBraccili | January 3, 2022 at 7:40 pm |
“. BTW geologists aren’t scientists.”
Its always great to learn something new from the world of climate science.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A geologist is a scientist who studies the solid, liquid, and gaseous matter that constitutes Earth and other terrestrial planets, as well as the processes that shape them.
That’s my opinion. You can call them whatever you like. I classify geology as more history than science.
BTW computer programmers aren’t software engineers.
JJ,
Your characterization of specific scientists as historians tells me a great deal about you. My particular profession has a rivalry with geologists, and we talk smack about each other. However, when it comes to saving lives we have learned the hard way that we need to listen to them. A few examples;
1. The leaning tower of Pisa. If there were geologists in that time (there were not) they could have installed a foundation that would have supported the tower. In fact geologists saved the tower years ago by pumping grout under it to bring it back to “historic” leaning levels. If they had not, the tower would have failed by now.
2. There was a dam that was installed in a canyon that the strata on either side failed, and the whole thing folded backward resulting in a major flood. It was structurally competent, it simply was not supported on either side, as the engineers never thought about that component.
3. An apartment high rise fell over due to liquefaction of the soils under it. It was still intact after falling which shows that structurally it was sound. The soils under it were not suitable, which a geologist would have known if one was hired.
4. A recent example in Las Vegas, a well know (in the industry) firm designed a foundation for a major hotel and used too large of a bearing capacity for the caliche under the foundation. The hotel sank about a floor as it was being built. In this particular instance, the geologists failed to design correctly, but that is still science. It is messy, sometimes you get it wrong. Good scientists learn from the past and do better in the future.
Your failure to look at the past is a dangerous practice. What has happened in the past will happen in the future. We need to prepare ourselves for events that may have bad outcomes. Things like hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. I may not see things the same way as you or anyone else for that matter, but trying to characterize the study of the past as not science is in my mind a severe violation of the principle of keeping people safe.
Let me tell you why I say that. As an undergraduate, I went to a school that had a geology program. All the engineers and scientists took the same science courses the first year (math, chemistry, physics). We were taught in large lecture halls. Not the geologists. They didn’t take the same science and math courses. I don’t know what they took, but I suspect it wasn’t as rigorous.
Most of your comments are in the realm of structural engineers. I don’t know if they employ geologists to determine what has to be done to make the location suitable or not. At one time I worked with structural engineers, and I don’t recall any geologists being involved.
Geology degree programs have changed substantially since the 1970’s. They are now much more rigorous. But apart from mathematical and physical rigor, there is much value in the perspectives of geologists for a range of environmental, climate and engineering issues.
I see Elizabeth Holmes studied chemical engineering. Hmmm.
Where did that get her?
She embraced the dark side of the force. What she proved is that she’s a lot smarter than those geniuses on Wall Street who invested in that BS.
I’m not sure they’re geologists anyway. I know they work on climate models or at least Rind did. I just decided that I’d rather talk to a brick wall than JJ, better responses and a quicker learning curve.
If smart means spending 20 years in the stir, I’d prefer dumb.
If she was conned into believing the story, she wasn’t very bright.
If she knew the truth and tried to con others, she wasn’t very bright.
She can hug her MENSA trophy each night for consolation.
“You may not think so, but climate science is settled science and has been for a very long time.”
It has been said that mathematics is the language of science. A recent paper, that questions the net exchange of CO2 in the southern hemisphere, remarks:
“Understanding ocean-atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes in the Southern Ocean is necessary for quantifying the global CO2 budget, but measurements in the harsh conditions there make collecting good data difficult, so a QUANTITATIVE picture still is out of reach.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi4355
Give me a break!
Do you believe that because the amount of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans is not quantifiable, that somehow discredits climate science, and we can forget about?
That’s an interesting academic question but it does not affect climate science. Here’s all you need to know. Treating the atmosphere like a toilet by dumping massive amounts of CO2 into it is bad. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. It doesn’t matter if we can’t quantify the amount of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans because we can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s where the big problem is. The oceans are an important but secondary problem.
The distinctive characteristic of your diatribes is the absolute certainty with which you present your beliefs, whether they be political or scientific. That is more the mind of an engineer, who is tasked with building something based on what they already know (often with an over-engineering fudge-factor to be on the safe side), than it is the mind of a scientist. A scientist is someone who makes an observation, and thinks, “That’s unusual! I wonder why that happened?” An engineer thinks, “The formula I used didn’t predict that. I had better make the support element stronger!”
It is ironic that your politics seem to be very liberal, while your response to what you perceive to be existential threats is ultraconservative. That is, accept the consensus view and build a bigger, stronger dam to hold back the Nostradamus-like predictions of catastrophe — Ready, Fire, Aim.
You have no idea what a chemical engineer does.
You think we have a bunch of formulas, and we just select the right one and it gives us the answer? LOL!!
The “formulas” tell you what you can’t do. They don’t tell you what to do. The process is more like painting on a canvas with a frame. The formulas are the frame. What you do on the canvas and how creative you are is where the intelligence, training, and skill comes in.
Chemical engineering tests are all open book and open notes. Nobody cares if you know the formulas. It all about reasoning. Instructors like to get creative. The tests are pretty much impossible. That doesn’t happen in the science courses. The tests there weren’t very hard, but after you get used open book and open notes, the memorization required was a pain-in-the-a$$.
The difference between an engineer and a scientist is that we are given a task to perform, and we don’t have the luxury to sit around and contemplate the meaning of the universe while getting it done. Most of the papers scientists generate are of no practical value. We screw up and there are consequences.
A percentage of my time is spent cleaning up what some PhD. tried to do. In my field having a PhD. is an impediment to finding a job. That’s why I didn’t get one when I had a chance.
Probably before you changed your position and decided to go to the dark side.
I never changed my position. Joe Romm got upset with me around the time of Climategate because I criticized the behavior of Mann et al., and Romm thought that I was damaging the ’cause’. Character assassination followed. Well, the main cause that I am interested in is the integrity of the scientific process
What did Climategate turn out to be? A big nothing burger.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theories. Climate science has been going on too long and too many scientists and generations of scientists have been involved. You have scientists from all over the world from different countries, different cultures, different political systems coming to the same conclusion.
BTW if there is a cabal of scientists and you know any members, let me know who they are. Being part of cabal is on my bucket list.
Science is a process. Assessment reports like the IPCC have a rigorous process for assessment. Climategate revealed corruption of both, which is the scandal of Climategate. IPCC AR4 walked back considerably from the conclusions of TAR regarding the hockey stick, etc. Very little of climate science is settled. Negotiated and manufactured consensus does not add to the evidence or eliminate any controversies.
Regarding the ‘cabal’, there is an international social contract between scientists and policy makers that serves to re-inforce the political objectives of the UN, keep lots of funding flowing to the climate scientists, encourages professional societies to recognize activist scientists, gives activist scientists seats at important policy tables, etc.
Breaking free of that lucrative social contract is costly to individual scientists in terms of their employment and recognition by professional societies and ease of getting their grants proposals funded and their papers through the editorial process.
Oh Please!
I worked with scientists. Their reputations are a lot more important to them than monetary considerations. If you want to make money, why be a scientist? You could be a quant on Wall Street and make 10xs the money you make as a scientist. There is more money in climate denial science. You don’t stand out being part of the herd.
I know from personal experience that Exxon has scientists that follow climate science. I suspect all the oil and chemical majors do the same thing. If there was anything like you say going on say, you would have heard about it a long time ago. Exxon would have no reason not to blow the whistle on something like that.
What would be the incentive for a country like China to be part of something like that? That’s the problem with these conspiracy theories whether they are explicit or implicit — they are not plausible.
This situation is endemic. There are tons of publications analyzing this, many of which have been discussed on this blog. Here’s a recent blog post on this https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/19/climate-scientists-motivated-reasoning/
It is not so much about lining their personal pockets (Michael Mann seems to be an exception here), but it is about successfully climbing the academic ladder and their professional egos and the desire to be successful and influential at the academic ‘game’. Or just to hang onto their job.
You would be astonished by the number (and names) of scientists (employed in academia and government) that have contacted me about their fears of speaking out in any way against the consensus of the climatariat. Climate consensus entrepreneurs arguably invented cancel culture.
There is a huge body of literature on this in the philosophy of science and social psychology. Read these:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/10/14/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop/
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/10/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-ii-scientific-consensus-building/
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/
“You would be astonished by the number (and names) of scientists (employed in academia and government) that have contacted me about their fears of speaking out in any way against the consensus of the climatariat.”
I’ve wondered about that for a long time. I’ve read an uncountable number of papers referencing the MWP and LIA, in locations that weren’t supposed to be affected by those periods. The science as found in individual papers don’t comport with the establishment narrative.
Tulip Mania speaks to the madness of crowds! There doesn’t have to be a formal cabal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
JJ
“Probably before you changed your position and decided to go to the dark side.”
A ignorant statement. If you know anything about the history of the climate change science community you know that statement to be simply provocative. Although Judith has changed her position on particular issues (Incidence of hurricanes comes to mind), she did not leave the warming camp, rather the warming camp left her, disowned her, and vehemently attacked her. It is a bit hard to deny the existence of the cabal when they continue to attack you.
If what Judith has to say is so easily countered, the scientific community would simply do so. The extent of the measures they have taken and continue to take to harm people personally, stifle debate, sue people, etc. is a testament to the weakness of their position. I am not aware of any scientific field that treats people like the climate community does. I am (or was, haven’t seen him in years) friends with a earth expansionist. I have no problem with his ideas (other than they are incorrect), and have and will continue to listen to arguments from that position even though I am firmly in the plate tectonics camp. Science moves forward with the nonconformists, and lively debate.
Further, I have found that the dark side is a bit of a simplification, and an excuse to easily categorize someone without listening to the actual argument, or making a valid argument yourself.
I have listened to your arguments, and find them to be without merit. According to you, the spin, revolution, etc. of the earth are not responsible for climate. That is completely wrong by everything that I have learned about basic climate facts. According to you, the past climate does not inform the present. That is also wrong according to the axiom that what has happened in the past will happen in the present and can be predicted to happen in the future. Science is the study of the past to attempt to inform us of the future. We live by such forecasts, which include flooding, weather, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and many other things too numerous to list.
I can and do make predictions all the time about the elevation of a floor to prevent future flooding based on past precipitation information and local geography. These predictions are accurate enough that every entity that I am aware of requires them (or to show that the prediction is unnecessary).
If you want this community to take you seriously you will up your game, and stop making blanket statements, and start making serious arguments.
Spatiotemporal shifts in climate feedback into ice, cloud, dust, vegetation, biology….
I’m not talking about mass. I’m talking about the standard definition used in thermodynamics. You understand thermodynamics is important in climate change? I’m not going to be like others and makeup my own science.
Terms and definitions are . . . terms and definitions. Science is about evidence, theories and arguments. Go read my text book and let me know if there is anything specific you want to argue about
I use science to solve engineering problems. Science is a tooI for me. It’s not my job to advance science.
If I make a mistake, it could be a multimillion-dollar mistake. That means I play by the rules. There is already enough uncertainty to account for in what I do.
Depending on what kind of engineering problems you are dealing with, misreading climate science and its uncertainties could be costly. I regularly interact with energy systems engineers.
I’m a chemical engineer. I deal with designing chemical plants, refineries, wastewater treatment plants, etc. I do front end engineering, design, and simulation. I don’t get involved with CO2 mitigation or energy generation, at least not yet. I do get involved with energy conservation.
I don’t think much will be done about CO2 in the process industries until the government gets serious.
Actually there is tremendous opportunities in the process industries to develop new technologies that reduce pollution and resource use, increase energy efficiency, independent of emissions reductions policies. Anything along these lines would be no-regrets, win-win and there should be a growing market for such technologies.
I’m not going to believe it either; ideological rants are a dime a dozen. You are in no way unique.
Give it up, JJ, you are out of your league in any exchange with Dr. Curry. Additionally, she is not driven by ideology.
One of your many faults is that you are star struck. I can hold my own with anybody.
I’m curious. Are you seeking to change minds here? Go on the record as objecting to this ‘dangerous’ blog? Develop your critical thinking/argumentation skills? Simply enjoy discussing/arguing?
I have only glanced over most of your posts here the past few weeks, moderating to eliminate the ones that insult other commenters. From what I’ve read, I don’t find much in the way of convincing arguments (but i may well have missed some of your key arguments). After endlessly moderating food fights that you have gotten involved in here, I’m trying to see if I can redirect the dialogue and your comments into a more productive direction. Maybe, maybe not.
You are very welcome here, provided that you don’t insult me or the other comments (criticizing our arguments is very welcome). Lets try to make this a more productive dialogue.
Dr. Curry, one cannot have productive dialogues with cranks. I think that at some point you will be forced to ban him.
The majority of minds here are never going to be changed. I suspect most of their views are political and have nothing to do with the science. Some are just bad at science. I find it amusing that some believe that they have found a “golden nugget” that will disprove climate science if only those evil scientists would let the truth out. After 40 years, it’s improbable that something that will shake the pillars of climate science and bring it to its knees will be found.
Someone told me about this site, and I came to see. What I found; I didn’t like. I’m here to defend the science. Someone has to because climate scientists suck at it. How you can take a slam dunk issue like this and let the fossil fuel industry turn it into a political football is beyond me.
Before the late 1990s both parties agreed that climate change was a threat, and something had to be done about it. Throw around some large sums of money that fall into the right pockets and it becomes a controversy. Then you fund outfits like the Heartland Institute and the GWPF, find a couple of scientists who are willing to sell their souls and you have a large, organized disinformation campaign to build public support for doing nothing.
I suspect, for whatever reason, no matter what evidence I present, it won’t convince you. Whether you like it or not, the evidence is going to keep piling up. We have already begun to experience the impact of climate change. Lives have been lost and the bodies are going to continue to pile up. It’s only going to get worse and not better. Unnecessary loss of life is going to occur because someone believes they have a right to profit at the expense of others.
A simplistic understanding of basic physics does not translate to understanding the nonlinear, chaotic, complex climate system. Simple narratives of the motives of people/scientists who do not accept a politically motivated, manufactured consensus are not only wrong but are antithetical to the norms of science.
You are experiencing weather. Lives lost to weather/climate events has dropped by 97% over the past century; most of these lives lost historically have been tropical cyclones striking south Asia. Better forecasts and governments and the media actually paying attention to them have saved alot of lives.
Apart from simple thermodynamical arguments, none of the evidence that you have presented has stood up to closer scrutiny; I don’t have time to provide you with all the primary references but they are extremely plentiful in my previous posts.
What you are seeing here is discussion and debate and critical evaluation of evidence. You seem to be driven primarily by a very naive analysis of the politics in play here
The amount of $$ funding orgs like the GWPF is many orders of magnitude less than the enviro advocacy groups. There is next to no funding for what you refer to as denial organizations. How have these tiny orgs thwarted global governments and the massive amount of funding supporting the mainstream climate narrative? There is obviously something else at play, and you are missing it.
The whole point of Climate Etc. is to bring up and discuss the ‘uncomfortable’ issues that lie outside the true scientific consensus on the basics such as temperatures are warming and CO2 has an IR emission spectra, plus issues at the science-policy interface. If you are concerned that progress isn’t being made in your preferred policy directions, my advice to you is to try to dig deeper and understand the real issues in play here.
Your reply to everything that is presented contrary to your opinion is that it is so complicated how can anyone possibly understand it. Trust me. This isn’t all that complicated. Your problem is that you can’t or won’t see the forrest for the trees.
Stop saying what I’m saying is politically motivated. It is not.
“Simple narratives of the motives of people/scientists who do not accept a politically motivated, manufactured consensus are not only wrong but are antithetical to the norms of science.”
Yet, you spent an entire post giving simple narratives of people/scientists who accept scientific consensus and questioning their motives. Why don’t you try following your own advice?
“Apart from simple thermodynamical arguments, none of the evidence that you have presented has stood up to closer scrutiny; I don’t have time to provide you with all the primary references but they are extremely plentiful in my previous posts.”
I usually don’t need more than simple thermodynamics to discredit the arguments you and other skeptics make. That’s how bad they are. I just went through and discredited your arguments on extreme weather events. Would you like to give an opinion on the IR spectrograph I presented or is your opinion too complicated for a mere mortal like me to understand?
“You are experiencing weather. Lives lost to weather/climate events has dropped by 97% over the past century; most of these lives lost historically have been tropical cyclones striking south Asia. Better forecasts and governments and the media actually paying attention to them have saved alot of lives.”
Irrelevant. Better forecasting is not going to prevent the death of billions if actions are not taken to stop the progression of climate change. There will literally be no place to hide.
“The amount of $$ funding orgs like the GWPF is many orders of magnitude less than the enviro advocacy groups. There is next to no funding for what you refer to as denial organizations. How have these tiny orgs thwarted global governments and the massive amount of funding supporting the mainstream climate narrative? There is obviously something else at play, and you are missing it.”
The Heartland Institute used to front for the tobacco industry by claiming smoking was harmless. Not surprisingly, there approach to climate denial is similar. I have seen some of the videos from the Heartland Institute and I have read some papers from the GWPF. I distinctly remember on one of the videos from the Heartland Institute the presenter saying that the greenhouse effect violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A paper from the GWPF claimed that CO2 effect was non-existent because of the position of the CO2 on earth’s radiant profile. I had to go through Planck’s equation to disprove that one. It turns out there is an anomaly in Planck’s equation that shifts the position of the blackbody radiant peak depending on whether you use wavenumber of wavelength as the integrating variable. The spectrographic data is in wavenumber. The CO2 absorption band appeared to be ineffective because the blackbody radiant peak had shifted. The paper had used wavelength as the integrating variable. I suspect the author already knew that. That’s the kind of “science” those organizations promote.
I’m not missing anything. Those organizations traffic in junk science. Would you like to put your reputation behind the two examples I just cited?
“If you are concerned that progress isn’t being made in your preferred policy directions, my advice to you is to try to dig deeper and understand the real issues in play here.”
Progress in being made in my preferred policy positions. You should take your own advice.
If you and your colleagues have all this proof, why haven’t you met with the climate scientists that work in the fossil fuel industry. I think Exxon Research and Engineering relocated to Atlanta. They used to be in Florham Park, NJ. With your credentials, I’m sure they’d be willing to meet with you. Let me know how you make out.
Pecking order be damned, Parrots are most comfortable in flocks.
“Stop saying what I’m saying is politically motivated. It is not.”
I’d sample that if I were a rapper, it’s so precious.
‘With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, −2.1, and 1.4 W/m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5 W m−2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.’ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml
How can JJ not read the literature and not understand the relevant data – and at the same time say anything useful, interesting or scientifically credible? He wings it and hand waves at thermodynamics.
Hand waving in a vaguely scientific way. I studied all that at university – they are the fundamentals of energy dynamics. But building them into a model of climate – even a conceptual one – is orders of magnitude more complex.
I don’t give a rats arse what JJ say. It is all one way tirades motivated by urban doofus ideology. I will correct his many errors when I feel like it. Meanwhile, Judith is doing a fine job.
Well Judith is finished here. I won’t encourage any further one-way tirades. This has gotten boring. Everyone participating here, on either side of the debate, has gotten past these issues. If nothing else, reading the IPCC reports (in entirety) does present a sense of the complexity of the whole thing.
If he directs a tirade at me – as he did above in a comment that is now disappeared – he gets a short and sweet response. JJ is not informed enough to be worth the effort and time. And he is on the wrong team – neo-socialists are a lost cause. The only real response is to beat them politically. That requires policy that is economically rational, consistent with science and in line with community aspirations. Including on climate and the environment.
Suggest starving this conversation of oxygen, don’t respond to the insults i will delete them. At this point, I don’t see any other recourse here, he is continuing to substitute attacks for arguments. Interesting that physicists have tried ‘the smartest person in the room’ strategy, with at least some limited successes. This attempt is pretty laughable.
Bored would be my guess. You are pretty boring. It would be different if you seemed to have an interest in learning but you are the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
‘I’m still debating the issues. I’m not the one who started the ad hominem attacks.’
That’s just a lie.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of (perturbed physics) ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ IPCC TAR 2001
It is so complex that real scientists are still working it out.
e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
But how would JJ know that if he doesn’t read the literature?
If word salad and braggadocio are sufficient JJ has it covered. Normally some relevant peer reviewed citations or validated dats would be needed.
“It isn’t enough to repair the damage our progress has brought. It is also not enough to manage our risks and be more shock-resistant. Now is not only the time to course correct and be more resilient. It is a time to imagine what we can generate for the world. Not only can we work to minimize our footprint but we can also create positive handprints. It is time to strive for a world that thrives.” Jean Russell
There are other planetary boundaries or more immediate concern including nutrient exports to waterway and a loss of some 57% of the populations of 1000’s of charismatic species – species for which we have enough observation. Neither of these is notably climate related.
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/images/18.3110ee8c1495db74432636f/1459560224012/PB_FIG33_media_11jan2015_web2.jpg
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html
How to how to reduce anthropogenic pressures on the planet is my field. Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management.
The alternative is the politics of despair. A myopic vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.
Iriai is a Japanese word meaning to enter into the joint use of resources. There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be consciously designed in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?
youtube.com/watch?v=qZGtzvOHzRA
Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. The bulk is land sector emissions, industrial processes, transport and a few others. Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
youtube.com/watch?v=qZGtzvOHzRA
The link is right – just not live?
Thx, could use some references on iriai in this context
It’s a slick promotional video for the 14th biennial conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons.
Their site is not up at moment – but I will see what I can do. 😊
‘The ‘Iriai’ are here to help and give understanding to people.’ The Iriai is a system of rules for management of the Mt Kitafuga common pool resources – devised over centuries and essential for the thriving of the system and the survival of villagers. The study of the commons is based on systematic analysis of management practices that have worked in the real world and the distillation of rules for the global commons.
Nobel Prize – in economics – winner Elinor Ostrom
transformed the field.
https://youtu.be/ByXM47Ri1Kc
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46554400_Beyond_the_Tragedy_of_the_Commons
It’s messy – but having stakeholders manage these things themselves leads to better outcomes. These are links to the Ostrom Workshop and the allied International Association for the Study of the Commons.
https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/about/index.html
https://iasc-commons.org/
Regardless of what you think you may know or not know about Earth system science – the rational response is the same.
“This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.” Pragmatic Climate – Breakthrough Institute
One thing I know is that in the order of 100 billion tonnes of carbon is much better restored to soils and ecosystems than in the atmosphere – for a much more inspiring purpose.
Let’s try this one.
https://youtu.be/YBLZmwlPa8A
As F. A. Hayek said in 1967 – what ‘we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty.’ Devising a practical environmental program is a political opportunity.
SSP5 seems to me to be more of an aspirational goal than a cautionary tale.
‘This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.’ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg
If powered by fossil fuels – emissions in this pathway are comparable to RCP 8.5. If powered by fast neutron modular nuclear reactors – the world could be powered by existing nuclear waste for hundreds of years. Including for the supply of process heat, transport fuels and fertilizers created from hydrogen produced in high temperature hydrolysis. But let’s just bow to the inevitable – the world is not curbing energy demand – and crank out CO2 from gas and high efficiency/low emission coal plants until there is a practical and cost competitive alternative.
The governing economic principle is Joseph Schumacher’s creative destruction of capitalism. The better technology will sweep the older technologies into the dustbin of history.
People who don’t much like modern capitalism, American-style, can take comfort in the pessimism of Joseph Schumpeter. In his 1942 book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, the Austrian economist showed how the evolutionary nature of capitalism, or “creative destruction,” was its “fundamental impulse.” – https://www.aei.org/economics/why-creative-destruction-hasnt-become-a-nonsense-phrase/
But he also predicted that people would become complacent and neglect the institutions critical to capitalism. Prescient much? This is pretty much the state of play with America becoming more hipster by the day. I don’t think we are allowed to stomp on them – so winning the politics is imperative.
‘Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the earth, locally reaching as much as 10°C change in 10 years. Available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies…
Just as the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light, the slow effects of drifting continents or wobbling orbits or changing atmospheric composition may “switch” the climate to a new state.’ NAS 2002
Climate is an ergodic, complex, dynamical system. Ergodic means that it operates within limits over a very long time. Complex means that there are many interacting parts. Dynamical means that the parts change and interact continuously. In systems like climate change happens as regimes and rapid transitions. This has implications for – inter alia – tornados.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
Dynamical complexity is the third great idea of 20th century physics – along with relativity and quantum mechanics.
Climate is complex and tough to quantify. Climate change isn’t. Climate variation is due to how the sun heats the earth. Climate change is due to an imbalance between how much energy the earth absorbs from the sun and how much it radiates into space. Climate change impacts climate variation — not vice-versa.
This is of course something by an illustrious committee of scientists reporting to the US National Academy of Sciences. But of course JJ knows better.
The evolution of spatiotemporal patterns can be compared with modelled reanalysis product to determine that decadal variability adds adds as much as +/- 0.3 degrees C to the average global surface temperature. Natural variability is about half global warming in the satellite era.
https://youtu.be/7VbgzCahx8o
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
JJBraccili has been arguing about global warming for a long time. I might point out that Dr. Curry does believe a certain amount of warming is caused by increasing CO2. Here is some of his past work.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/08/quoraclimate/
I never saw that before. Thank You!
That information is not new. I linked my Quora post to this site many times. The first question I have is why that critique was not posted as a response on the Quora board? I would have replied, as I did to many posters who had critiques.
Let me answer his first point.
“COMMENT#1: If this were the case warming would occur at any fixed level of CO2 without the need for fossil fuel emissions to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration. As the CO2 traps the earth’s longwave, the earth gets hotter and puts out more longwave.”
My point there was to explain why the saturation argument claiming that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would have no impact on planet’s temperature because CO2 was absorbing all of IR radiant energy available was wrong. What my critic failed to understand is the self-sustaining mechanism only occurs if CO2 level is at saturation. Even if it is at saturation at some planetary temperature, as the temperature rises, and more energy that CO2 can absorb becomes available, CO2 in the atmosphere can become unsaturated. More CO2 would have to be added to maintain saturation.
At that time, I was under the belief that the CO2 in the atmosphere was unsaturated. I thought that the drop off of molar density with altitude prevented saturation. A few months later I had a discussion with a climate scientist who convinced me that CO2 actually was saturated in the lower troposphere. If you have read my posts on this site, you’ll notice that I modified my position. The effect is still there and going on right now, but there is release of some energy by convective heat transfer and the subsequent conversion of kinetic energy to radiant energy.
The rest of it didn’t real address my points. It was a lot of arm waving.
He never addresses the extreme weather events data or the IR spectrographic data. The spectrographic data is one of the strongest pieces of evidence of AGW.
Pretty lame critique.
jjbraccili
Thank you for your response upthread to my comment about climate variability. I am sure you will enjoy the books I recommended.
Looking at the sweep of the 12000 year long Holocene it is evident that sea levels have risen and fallen a number of times, that glaciers have advanced and receded, that there there have been extended periods of a warm climate and a cold climate and periods of no particular extremes.
All in all it is difficult to see how the current modern warm period exhibits any different characteristics to similar periods, such as the Minoan, Roman, and medieval periods and the many other less well known but equally notable periods. This is with the exception of extreme weather events, whereby the modern period as yet seems quite benign in relative terms, but that may be because the warmth of the current period does not as yet match the warm periods of the past.. And perhaps never will?
Curiously, having studied extremes I would say the worst events have been during the colder periods..
Presumably your belief that man has drastically altered the climate has meant that you have modified your own behaviour as regards air travel, car driving, diet, use of computers and smartphones and have adapted your home and its heating systems accordingly?
Whilst you will have adopted these substantial lifestyle changes have you managed to persuade others to follow your example?
As a life long vegetarian who tries to eat local food in season and travel by car or plane relatively small distances and infrequently, ironically I have a relatively low carbon footprint.
So I am always interested to hear from those who have upended their own lifestyles to support their beliefs.
A happy New Year to you.
tonyb
I must have said this a thousand times. What happened in the past has no impact on what is happening now. The earth has no memory. Whatever happened in the past was a result of the conditions at that time.
CO2 has the ability to wipe out all species on this planet including us. Look no further than Venus that planet is at 460 C. That is due to the CO2 in its atmosphere. If the earth’s temperature rises 10-15 C, that’s enough to trigger a mass extinction event. That’s about the temperature rise during “The Great Dying.” The CO2 absorption band that is causing our problem has the potential to raise the temperature of the earth 30-50 C.
Worrying about your carbon footprint, though admirable, is not going to solve our current problem.
JJBraccili | January 4, 2022 at 7:16 pm |
“I must have said this a thousand times. What happened in the past has no impact on what is happening now. The earth has no memory. Whatever happened in the past was a result of the conditions at that time.”
True – but you cant know where you are going if you dont know where youve been.
Ignoring the past along with not understanding past climate changes is a winning formula in the JJ’s version of climate Science
We can take direct measurements now. In the distant past, nobody was around to take measurements. The thermometer wasn’t invented until the 18th century. The information we have about the distant past is by inference. In other words, it’s a SWAG (Scientific Wild A$$ Guess).
Here’s some information on “The Great Dying”.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/
It’s all speculation. You want to claim that CO2 is benign based on information like that? Many on this site will use any piece of garbage as long as it supports their view. That’s not science. In their view it is because they don’t know a damn thing about science.
We can take direct measurements now. In the distant past, nobody was around to take measurements. The thermometer wasn’t invented until the 18th century. The information we have about the distant past is by inference. In other words, it’s a SWAG (Scientific Wild A$$ Guess).
JJ- You proved my point – making predictions about the future when you dont understand the past – is SWAG (Scientific Wild A$$ Guess).
You didn’t understand what I said. Today we have direct measurements. For the past we have no direct measurements, and we infer what happened from other things we can measure today. That’s a big difference.
JJ – you have a unique talent to respond multiple times without ever addressing the point raised.
If you dont understand the past and what caused the changes in the past, any predictions about the future, no matter how accurate the current measurements may be are SWAG – scientific wild a- – guesses
Not really.
From the data we have, we can predict, fairly accurately, the capability of CO2 to drive up temperature. What we can’t predict from the data is how long it will take to get there. For that, you need modeling
All of the modeling assumes there isn’t some unforeseen event. If the sun suddenly started to output more or less more radiation, then you can throw the current predictions out the window.
The majority of the work I do is done with a steady state analysis. That means I look at the final state. From that I can pretty much design an entire plant. Sometimes I need to do a dynamic analysis. That means I need to study how the process gets to its final state. A steady state analysis yields a lot of information without resorting to the complexity of a dynamic analysis.
Joe, you are assuming they are “scientific” wild ass guesses. They are actually “ideological” wild ass guesses.
No one is foolish enough to apply steady state analysis to the Earth system.
What do you know? It’s done all the time in many areas because of the valuable information it yields. Climate change is no different.
Let me tell you something else you don’t know. A steady state model is a subset of a dynamic model. Why? Because the endpoint of a dynamic model is steady state.
Normally I wouldn’t have to explain that, but in your case, everything has to be explained.
JJ would need to provide some published climate science in support of his anecdotes.
Ignorant application of narrowly construed basic science is dangerous, JJ.
Oh so little understanding of the scientific method.
‘The report does not focus on large, abrupt causes—nuclear wars or giant meteorite impacts—but rather on the surprising new findings that abrupt climate change can occur when gradual causes push the earth system across a threshold. Just as the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light, the slow effects of drifting continents or wobbling orbits or changing atmospheric composition may “switch” the climate to a new state. And, just as a moving hand is more likely than a stationary one to encounter and flip a switch, faster earth-system changes—whether natural or human-caused—are likely to increase the probability of encountering a threshold that triggers a still faster climate shift.’ https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/1#v
https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-019-03595-0/d41586-019-03595-0_17868276.jpg
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0
JJ has a narrative inconsistent with climate observations. He defends it by hand waving at the 1st LOT – and then claims that only he understands it. But if it can’t be falsified – and narratives cannot be – it is not science. If you have an idea first check the literature and then understand the observations. WE CALL IT EMPIRICAL SCIENCE FOR A REASON. The alternative is called physical reasoning or deductive reasoning – suitable for framing hypothesis but not proof of anything in itself. Do they not teach chemical engineers the scientific method?
Robert I. Ellison, the estimates of “risk” levels of various “tipping points” based on average global temperatures is pure speculation. There is no empirical data that shows their speculations have any validity in the real world. The 2018 work was done to support the new political goal of limiting average warming to 1.5 C; prior work was based on limiting warming to 3 C.
You cite political documents, not scientific work. Actual science does not support CAGW. The data says things are getting better, not worse. Paid “sciency” speculation and propaganda is not science. And JJ’s unsupported assertions also don’t reflect science.
I’m listening – just where is this science that is inconsistent with the notion of abrupt climate change?
Where abrupt climate changes are documented in the paleo record, glacial to interglacial and back, IIRC the changes from warm to cool are more abrupt than vice versa. Anyway, changes over the Holocene show no “tipping points.” “Tipping points” are fearmongering when looking at possible global average temperature increases from the depths of the Little Ice Age of around 2-plus C, which is well within historical ranges.
‘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.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
Abrupt shifts happen all the time scales. Harold Hurst revealed this in analysis of more than 1000 years of Nile River level records. Holocene proxy records are pretty convincing as well.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/moy-2002.png
But David is yet to cite any science that supports his bold claim otherwise.
JJ’s stories are not climate science. 😊
JJBraccili is strong on rhetoric but short of proof – of just about anything (s)he says. As far as I can tell, it’s just a bunch of bluster and pomp.
I agree. Short on facts. Long on talk.
Markets need fair, transparent and accessible laws – including on open and equal markets, labor laws, environmental planning and management, consumer protection and whatever else is arrived at in the democratic arena. Optimal tax take is some 23% of GDP and government budgets are balanced. Interest rates are best managed through cash markets to restrain inflation to a 2% to 3% target. These nuts and bolts of market management are mainstream market theory and keep economies on a stable – as far as is possible – growth trajectory. The Heritage Foundation embodies these principles in their Index of Economic Freedom. Follow the guidelines and economies grow – don’t at you peril.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGv2ymqGznc
The best way to foster innovative technology is with private/public partnerships for first of a kind (FOAK) builds. Modular nuclear for instance. In the interim technology should be the best available technology (BAT). High efficiency low emission coal generation – super clean and lower carbon emissions – are the least that is needed for health and environmental reasons and are the lowest cost option for much prospective global energy demand. Disrupting energy supplies is potentially destabilizing.
You go off topic and spew a bunch of unrelated gibberish. Is that supposed to prove how smart you are? It’s not working.
It seems no one wants to discuss what you post. Maybe, you should take the hint.
Braggadocio is not working for JJ – but it is all he has.
JJBraccili
Let me play devils advocate.
You say the climate of the past is not relevant as it is todays circumstances as regards atmospheric composition that matters.
So lets go back through our 12000 year long Holocene, by which time the shape of continents has become fixed, although sea level changes have oceanic flow impacts, such as when Britain became separated from the European land mass and became an island.
You do not seem to be disagreeing that in the past it has at times been warmer than today and colder than today. That sea levels have been higher than today and lower than today. That ice extent has been greater than today and less than today. That weather extremes have been greater than today and less than today
That was all achieved at 280ppm.
Might some third party examine the available evidence to date and comment that as the much higher co2 levels of today have not reproduced the extreme temperatures and extreme events that we can witness in the past, might they reasonably ask whether the gas has quite the overwhelming impact that is attributed to it?
Of course we can go all through the logarithmic progression of CO2 with many scientists having different views, but on evidence to date, by 280ppm or thereabout, might our observer suggest that perhaps Co2’s impact has now become largely indistinguishable from natural variability?
tonyb
I just went through this. Climate variability cannot be the cause of climate change. It cannot change the energy of the planet because it cannot add energy to the planet. I linked a graph that showed the earth’s temperature change from 1880-1960 the temperature change correlated with solar irradiance variation. People are claiming that the temperature rise after 1960 was not the result of increasing CO2 but was caused by climate variability. What happened in 1960? Temperature change between 1880-1960 shows no sign of being caused by climate variability.
I don’t doubt there were cold and warm periods in the past. Just because CO2 is the cause of climate change now, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be caused by something else then. If you assume that because climate change now is being caused by increasing CO2 it is always caused by CO2, you are wrong.
Solar radiation is varying right now, but CO2 is the stronger effect and therefore drives temperature. If solar radiation started increasing, it could be the main driver of temperature change. Increasing CO2 is still having an impact. It’s just not strong enough to be the main driver.
I haven’t read what the IPCC report has to say about climate variability, but I suspect what they have to say is about the response of climate variability to climate change and not that it is a cause of climate change.
JJ Braccili
thank you for your detailed response. As Devils advocate, what I am asking for is scientific proof that co2 levels above say 350ppm will increasingly result in temperature rises, sea level rises and catastrophic weather events, that are far more severe than those previously experienced at the co2 levels seen through the Holocene.
A variety of people are claiming they will be far worse than in the past at enhanced co2 levels, but evidence that will happen-other than by the use of models-seems to be thin on the ground.
Judging by the past, this worsening of the climate can not be seen, but you say we can’t use the past as any template, so we are left with a bit of a Catch 22 and confused complexities worthy of Kafka
tonyb
Evidence would be the planet, Venus. We are about the same size and if you put the same amount of CO2 it has in our atmosphere, we would be at the same temperature — 460 C. It would probably take millions of years to get there.
You don’t need models to know that if you keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature will keep rising. The models tell us how fast.
Since the vast majority of Earth’s CO2 is locked up in rocks, I don’t see any mechanism to get to Venus’ 96% atmospheric CO2. I know you don’t like history, JJ, but past CO2 concentrations in the multi-thousand ppm didn’t trigger Venus-like conditions. It appears Mankind would be unable to get up to CO2 concentrations of more than about 800 ppm, and that is under some pretty high scenarios. High-end UN IPCC CliSciFi CO2 scenarios are physical impossibilities under currently accepted population, economic and technological estimates.
JJ, since you are an ideologically driven nut, I accept that nothing I nor others can say that will penetrate the intellectual fog surrounding you. Other than the benefit others might get, I regret the time spent in responding to your inanities.
The earth doesn’t have to get to Venus conditions. The temperature only has to rise about 10 C. Since you are such a student of history, you must know that has already happened during “The Great Dying” or they think that’s what happened.
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/what-if-we-burn-all-the-fossil-fuels/
Your numbers are low. That’s what happens when you only read the publications of the WCJS.
“JJ, since you are an ideologically driven nut, I accept that nothing I nor others can say that will penetrate the intellectual fog surrounding you. Other than the benefit others might get, I regret the time spent in responding to your inanities.”
I don’t remember anything you said that was based in actual science. Those inanities are climate science accepted by the scientific community. Yup, just us dopes who understand science up against your massive intellect. Guess who wins? Hint: It’s not you.
I think this site is your security blanket. You sit in a bubble with a small minority of other like-minded individuals, and you support each other. The world is wrong, and you are right. It’s akin to group therapy, but it’s mostly shouting at the rain.
JJ, our NASA Homicide Detectives tell us that the Permian Triassic murder happened in Mama Pangea’s living room and was committed by Big Bolide using the Siberia Volcano mobs’ extra CO2 and aerosols. I know you don’t like history, but Mankind’s minor CO2 in Mama Gaia’s current living room won’t reproduce that murder scenario.
JJ,
“I haven’t read what the IPCC report has to say about climate variability, but I suspect what they have to say is about the response of climate variability to climate change and not that it is a cause of climate change.”
You should read what they have to say. As I recall, they say that climate variability is about the same as the amount of warming we have in recorded temperatures. It was negative, though, and that leads them to the conclusion that because of climate variability, the CO2 response is twice the historical record.
Endlessly posting a graph that on temperature and sunspots misses the point repeatedly.
My interest is primarily economically rational policy, practical energy policy, food security and environmental conservation and restoration. JJ swamps the post with AGW fanatic echo chamber rhetoric and extreme neo-socialist ideology. And complains that I am off topic!
I suspect that he is one of those ideological extremists dedicated to overthrowing democracy and capitalism using climate anecdote, faux science and apocalyptic excess as stalking horses.
Nobel Prize-winning economist, William Nordhaus, disagrees with your ill-informed, Leftist ideological opinion.
Frankly, I don’t pay attention to economists — especially conservative economists. Only a conservative economist could think of doing a cost benefit analysis when lives are at stake. That’s how much conservatives value human life other than their own. They only pretend to be pro-life. When money is involved, they quickly become pro-death.
There are no economics that justify doing nothing or little about climate change. Nordhaus is not a climate scientist. He has no idea what the risks are. He only cares about how government policy affects the wealthy.
Besides, conservative economic ideology has totally screwed up this country. What makes you think taking the advice another conservative ideologue is going to do anything different?
Here’s what another Nobel Laurate in economics has to say:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/opinion/climate-change-republicans-economy.html
There is no economic justification for doing the wrong things.
JJ Braccili
Thank you for your response. With co2 at something like 96% and being much closer to the sun, I think the evidence from Venus is much weaker and more theoretical than actual evidence from our own recent past, whereby weather and climate incidents worse than today occurred at 280ppm.
You need to demonstrate that enhanced co2-to levels that can be attained on Earth-will mean the weather./climate of the past will be exceeded, because there is little to demonstrate that, as yet.
tonyb
“Thank you for your response. With co2 at something like 96% and being much closer to the sun, I think the evidence from Venus is much weaker and more theoretical than actual evidence from our own recent past, whereby weather and climate incidents worse than today occurred at 280ppm.”
Here’s some facts you can check out for yourself:
1. Venus has highly reflective clouds that make it the brightest planet in the solar system.
2. Because of 1, Venus only absorbs about 10% of incident solar radiation at TOA. Earth absorbs about 70%
3. Because of 1&2, Venus absorbs less solar radiation than the Earth does.
4. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. Hotter than Mercury, which is much closer to the Sun.
My evidence isn’t weak. Your rebuttal is. You have your evidence. Nothing is theoretical about it. That’s measured data. Your’re the same as JC any evidence that disagrees with your desired conclusion is “unconvincing” for any reason you can think up.
You’re still stuck on the “worse things happened at 280 ppm argument.” I told you, CO2 isn’t always the cause of climate change. What’s so hard to understand about that?
“You need to demonstrate that enhanced co2-to levels that can be attained on Earth-will mean the weather./climate of the past will be exceeded, because there is little to demonstrate that, as yet.”
I don’t have to demonstrate anything. What happened in the past was caused by conditions at that time and has nothing to do with what is happening now. I posted an article yesterday where it was estimated if we burn all known reserves of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will be at 1400 ppm CO2, and the temperature of the planet will rise 16 C. I also did a calculation where I showed that the 15 mm CO2 absorption band is capable of raising the temperature of the planet by 30-50 C.
The physics of clouds can be simulated at eddy resolving scales. Low level marine stratocumulus dissipate at concentrations of CO2 possible in this century with high growth and continued reliance on fossil fuels. With some 8 degrees C rapid warming. It explains the PETM in a way that CO2 on its own cannot.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
JJBraccili | January 6, 2022 at 10:18 am |
“Thank you for your response. With co2 at something like 96% and being much closer to the sun, I think the evidence from Venus is much weaker and more theoretical than actual evidence from our own recent past, whereby weather and climate incidents worse than today occurred at 280ppm.”
Here’s some facts you can check out for yourself:
1. Venus has highly reflective clouds that make it the brightest planet in the solar system.
2. Because of 1, Venus only absorbs about 10% of incident solar radiation at TOA. Earth absorbs about 70%
3. Because of 1&2, Venus absorbs less solar radiation than the Earth does.
4. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. Hotter than Mercury, which is much closer to the Sun.
Is Venus really a good comparison? –
There is a huge difference between 96% and 0.028% or 0.044%
Absorbsion rate of 70% vs 10% when the delta of CO2 is a factor of 2200x.
doesnt look like you are comparing apples to apples
Here’s what you don’t get. The CO2 on Venus raised the temperature by 400 C. The temperature of the earth only needs to rise 10 C to wreak havoc on the planet and kill billions of people. Large areas of the planet that are currently habitable will become uninhabitable.
JJBraccili
You are expounding the theories of James Hansen which were hotly debated 20 years ago but have little credence today.
The circumstances of Venus bear no relationship to that of earth for a large number of reasons and to cite it as evidence that we may follow the same route has no credibility.
I think you have previously written that you have never read the IPCC reports. You might find it helpful if you did, but the full version not the summary for policymakers..
tonyb
“You are expounding the theories of James Hansen which were hotly debated 20 years ago but have little credence today.”
Hansen made an estimate of what would happen if we burned all known reserves of fossil fuels. What is the source of your estimates? Hansen and Mann are boogeymen to those in the climate denial bubble. Mention their name and that discredits anything else said. With all the climate denial junk science that roams around in the bubble, it is laughable.
“The circumstances of Venus bear no relationship to that of earth for a large number of reasons and to cite it as evidence that we may follow the same route has no credibility.”
What are those reasons? If we add the same amount of CO2 to our atmosphere we will eventually wind up at the same temperature. Why is because of how blackbodies radiate energy, and the IR absorption bands of CO2 — there are more than one.
“I think you have previously written that you have never read the IPCC reports. You might find it helpful if you did, but the full version not the summary for policymakers..”
I haven’t read AR6. I have read previous versions, but not the entire report. Usually, the executive summary and areas that are of interest to me. I’m not looking for minor discrepancies that some want to scale to full blown controversies.
JJBraccili | January 6, 2022 at 11:32 am |
“Here’s what you don’t get. The CO2 on Venus raised the temperature by 400 C. The temperature of the earth only needs to rise 10 C to wreak havoc on the planet and kill billions of people. Large areas of the planet that are currently habitable will become uninhabitable.”
JJ – As others have paraphrased – No kidding sherlock – if earth’s temp was increased by 10c, then it is the end of world – or close to it.
However, your comparison with Venus based on 96% co2 atmosphere with a temp of 400f is extremely weak. Comparing 96% co2 on venus with earth’s 0.028% or 0.044% or even 0.1% is absurd by any scientific analysis – 2200x delta .
It’s not to compare Venus with the Earth. It’s to show what CO2 can do.
Some feel there is some sort of limit, and that CO2 can’t trigger a mass extinction event. There is nothing to prevent CO2 from triggering a mass extinction event. The current main CO2 absorption band is capable of driving the Earth’s temperature 30-50 C higher
JJ insists that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Of course it is.
JJ’s comment – “Some feel there is some sort of limit, and that CO2 can’t trigger a mass extinction event. There is nothing to prevent CO2 from triggering a mass extinction event. The current main CO2 absorption band is capable of driving the Earth’s temperature 30-50 C higher”
While theoritically true, its going to take a lot more CO2 than a mere 0.044% or even 0.1% to get there
But no reason to limit your assessment to anything resembling reality.
Since you’re not a climate scientist or know anything about science, what would you know?
If you knew anything, you’d know that relative concentrations are not a good indicator of the greenhouse effect of CO2. Small means nothing. It’s the change in ppm that matters. You also forgot that increasing CO2 increases H2O — another greenhouse gas. That amplifies the impact of CO2. Venus doesn’t have any H2O in its atmosphere. It’s apples and oranges.
JJBraccili | January 2, 2022 at 4:32 pm |
https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/16/tornado/#comment-967545
Here it is a very important, a very concerned, and a very responsible statement:
“There is at least forty years of research into climate science. Thousands of scientists and generations of scientists have worked on this, some of whom have credentials as good or better than yours. Name me a significant scientific organization that doesn’t accept consensus climate science. What makes them wrong and you right? You are in a small minority.
I usually don’t have a problem with dissent, but in this case the clock is ticking. We’re at the point where a decision has to be made to do something or nothing. That means going with the best available science. That’s not the planet rotation theory or the climate variability theory or anything I have read on this site or other sites. We are not entering a new ice age. What I see on this site is a misunderstanding of basic scientific principles or outright junk science.”
The emphasis in bold is mine.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is it reasonable to lump intrinsic climate variability – observed at all scales – with Christos’ planetary rotisserie notion? No one can doubt radiative physics and retain any credibility. But equally denying internal climate variability is unsupported by theory or observations.
Please let me share my thoughts with you.
Yes, we are in small minority…
Yes, a decision has to be made to do something or nothing…
Yes, that means going with the best available science…
And yes, what you see on this site is a misunderstanding of basic scientific principles or outright junk science.
Also you are questioning:
“Name me a significant scientific organization that doesn’t accept consensus climate science. What makes them wrong and you right? ”
Now, JJBraccili, the decision is already made, the decision wont change if you continue to fight us, because we are in small minority…
There is no need to fight us to preserve consensus climate science.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos is in a minority of one. Everyone else accepts that greenhouse gas emissions – all other things being equal – warms the planet.
Robert, I never denied internal climate variability…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you don’t think you’re going to change the majority’s view on climate change, what are you doing posting here? It’s a gigantic waste of time. You and the others in the minority aren’t being persecuted, you’re being ignored because you’re wrong.
I’ll tell you the same thing I told JC. If you think you have proof that consensus climate science is wrong, get all your theories and evidence together and go see the people at Exxon, or Shell, or BP, or Chevron. If that doesn’t work, try Koch Industries. If your evidence has any merit, they’ll see to it that it gets out. Climate science is an existential threat to their business. Why would they not? You’re just wasting your time here.
Let’s just remind ourselves what this ‘consensus’ is. That human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere and – all things being equal – warming the planet.
Where JJ goes with that is massive straw men.
What I go with is a great deal of published science and data from authoritative sources. JJ goes with his own questionable authority. 🤣
Great! You must support the conclusions of the IPCC. That’s the most authoritative source on climate change.
JJBraccili
“If you don’t think you’re going to change the majority’s view on climate change, what are you doing posting here?”
I am posting here because you people know what Planetary Albedo is.
Also you know what planet average surface temperature is, among many other things…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I read the original sources – and not the summaries for policy makers. So I know a great deal more than JJ. JJ is not a defender of science – he and his extremist delusional ilk are a clear and present danger to the scientific enlightenment.
The 1st law of thermodynamics is not climate science – and I don’t think he’s to the second law yet. JJ’s narrative science is not science at all. He should read something.
“The best available science” is not found in government pronouncements, UN IPCC report summaries, CliSciFi models nor NGO fund-raising blurbs. The actual science as conducted (not ideological “pee reviewed” speculations) indicates little to no reason for alarm.
If one is not aware of the actual scientific studies which indicate not much is going on in the climate, I can’t help.
My thoughts after reading this:
1) It’s possible that climate change has contributed to an increase in tornados.
2) It’s possible that climate change has no affect on tornados.
3) It’s possible that climate change has contributed to a decrease in tornados.
1 and 3 yes.
2 is therefore virtually impossible.
Not to say effects somewhere over some time might not balance out but in general if the climate change can make the variability go up or down, and it does, then it cannot have no effect
JJBraccili
“If you don’t think you’re going to change the majority’s view on climate change, what are you doing posting here? It’s a gigantic waste of time.”
But you are, JJBraccili, in the absolute majority! What you are doing here?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I already answered that. To defend the science and the reputations of climate scientists who get routinely trashed. There might be a naive individual who comes here and starts to believe the drivel posted here.
To come on Dr. Curry’s site to defend cargo-cult science and the frauds like Michael Mann and his ilk is a heroic endeavor, JJ.
‘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.’ https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1593238_3/component/file_1690443/content
The energy balance of the planet is stark where the climate system meets space. The change in heat energy content of the planet – and the work done in melting ice or vaporizing water – is approximately equal to energy in less energy out. There are minor contributions with heat from inside the planet and the heat of combustion of fossil fuels – for instance – that make it approximate but still precise enough to use. Energy imbalances – the difference between energy in and energy out – result in planetary warming or cooling – and Earth’s strong exponential temperature feedback response tends to drive the planet to a transient energy equilibrium. Maximum entropy is when there is an energy equilibrium at the top of Earth’s atmosphere – energy in equals energy out – and occurs when oceans are neither warming or cooling. The oceans are by far the greatest part of Earth’s energy storage – and the Argo record gives us a real sense of whether the planet is warming or cooling – or both at different times. Some 92% of global heat is in the oceans, 4% in the atmosphere and 4% in latent heat – the latter in liquid water and water vapor.
But that doesn’t explain multiple equilibria in the Earth system present in observations. That requires an understanding of systems theory – something seemingly beyond JJ’s imagination and intellect.
“in heat energy content of the planet – and the work done in melting ice or vaporizing water – is approximately equal to energy in less energy out”
The only work done that matters is the work done at TOA. That’s zero because you can’t do work into the vacuum. The rest is an internal energy transfer. It does nothing to change the energy content of the planet. Even if it did, it would be too small to matter. BTW do you know what work is?
“Maximum entropy is when there is an energy equilibrium at the top of Earth’s atmosphere – energy in equals energy out – and occurs when oceans are neither warming or cooling.”
I don’t think that’s right, but I’m not sure and I’ll have to think about it. I don’t think you know what entropy is. It has a very specific meaning in thermodynamics.
“But that doesn’t explain multiple equilibria in the Earth system present in observations. That requires an understanding of systems theory – something seemingly beyond JJ’s imagination and intellect.”
That has nothing to do with planetary temperature.
Where did you copy that from? From your past demonstrations of your acumen in energy balances, that didn’t come from you.
The numbers I use are from Jim Hanson. Does JJ really imagine that melting ice and evaporating water have nothin to do with Earth energy dynamics?
Do you know the difference between work and heat? Based on you past performance, the answer is NO.
Melting, freezing, evaporation, condensation, and transpiration have no impact on the earth’s temperature.
Tropospheric moist enthalpy is the true measure of heat in our nonequilibrium thermodynamic dissipative Earth system.
“Tropospheric moist enthalpy is the true measure of heat in our nonequilibrium thermodynamic dissipative Earth system.”
There is no such thing as “moist enthalpy.” There is only enthalpy. There isn’t much energy in the atmosphere. It’s mostly in the oceans. Enthalpy is the wrong term. Internal energy is the correct term. Enthalpy accounts for the “flowing work.”
WOW!! Three errors in a single sentence with 16 words. That must be some kind of record.
Atmospheric moist enthalpy is discussed by Pielke Sn. Enthalpy in general is the sum of heat and and kinetic energy. The latter is some 4% of the total energy content f the planet according to Jim Hansen.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2005/07/18/what-does-moist-enthalpy-tell-us/
He’s using the wrong term. The right term is Internal energy. Usually, enthalpy includes kinetic energy, flowing work, and latent heat. Sometimes, it includes the heat of formation. BTW the heat you’re talking about is the kinetic energy. You’re counting it twice.
I don’t know of anyone who distinguishes between enthalpy and moist enthalpy. I assume that “moist enthalpy” refers to what the rest of us call enthalpy.
I can see why you are so screwed up.
The heat content of a moist atmosphere is the sum of sensible and latent heat.
‘H = Cp T + L q
where Cp is the specific heat of air at constant pressure, T is the air temperature, L is the latent heat of vaporization, and q is the specific humidity [Haltiner and Williams, 1980].’
You can lead a jackass to water…
I see that “moist” enthalpy has a humidity term, but in practice, anyone doing a calculation would correct the saturated enthalpy for humidity or they’d use a psychometric chart.
https://extension.psu.edu/psychrometric-chart-use
Notice they use the term enthalpy in the chart. When I see a standard chart or table with the term “moist” enthalpy, I’ll believe it.
All the terms are defined for atmospheric heat content. Specific humidity included – which is a measured quantity and of course varies across the planet and over time.
A thought experiment!
Let’s say the artificial barrier built across Atlantic ocean which stops the Gulfstream current circulation.
What will be the change (everything else equals) in Earth’s average global temperature?
1. No change at all.
2. Average global warming.
3. Average global cooling.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Who can tell? Today’s global average temperatures are an illogical application of a temperature metric to dissimilar energy regimes. Averaging the temperature impacts of a small diversion of energy from the tropics which has little temperature impact to the Arctic where it has high temperature impact is illogical. But we are stuck with the old dice player’s dilemma: Its the only game in town.
The thought that that anything can be learned about the Earth system without experiment and observation is ludicrous.
In my opinion there would be an average global cooling.
My answer is the 3.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.umass.edu/news/article/winter-coming-researchers-uncover-surprising-cause-little-ice-age
Here’s something from Michael Ghil and colleagues describing the real physics of climate. The facts are apparent but I have no doubt JJ will continue to revel in his ignorance.
‘The climate system is a forced, dissipative, nonlinear, complex and heterogeneous system that is out of thermodynamic equilibrium. The system exhibits natural variability on many scales of motion, in time as well as space, and it is subject to various external forcings, natural as well as anthropogenic. This paper reviews the observational evidence on climate phenomena and the governing equations of planetary-scale flow, as well as presenting the key concept of a hierarchy of models as used in the climate sciences. Recent advances in the application of dynamical systems theory, on the one hand, and of nonequilibrium statistical physics, on the other, are brought together for the first time and shown to complement each other in helping understand and predict the system’s behavior. These complementary points of view permit a self-consistent handling of subgrid-scale phenomena as stochastic processes, as well as a unified handling of natural climate variability and forced climate change, along with a treatment of the crucial issues of climate sensitivity, response, and predictability.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.00583.pdf
“Here’s something from Michael Ghil and colleagues describing the real physics of climate. The facts are apparent but I have no doubt JJ will continue to revel in his ignorance.”
That paragraph does no such thing. It describes a new way of looking at the problem. The physics remain the same regardless of how one looks at it. I doubt you are qualified to critique it. In fact, I know it. You don’t understand what that paragraph means.
I understand – the 86 page review shows that JJ’s simple narrative notions are not sufficient to explain a nonequilibrium spatiotemporal chaotic climate system.
Michael Ghil is an actual authority – JJ repeats doofus hipster AGW memes – all of them. Seeing further is a matter of standing on the shoulders of giants. JJ digs a hole.
“I understand – the 86 page review shows that JJ’s simple narrative notions are not sufficient to explain a nonequilibrium spatiotemporal chaotic climate system.”
Which has nothing to do with climate change. You just don’t get it, and never will. It responds to climate change — it doesn’t cause it. How many times did I say that? Too many, and it still doesn’t sink in.
JJ is an object lesson. One can’t grasp what is understood about climate without knowing the scientific literature.
We’ve all seen what reading the scientific literature has done for you. You have to understand the science to understand the literature. That’s your problem in a nutshell.
JJ imagines he is proceeding from 1st principles. He makes ignorance a virtue.
It is more in evidence that he is proceeding from hipster doofus echo chamber memes.
JJ
There is an inverse correlation between the amount of the scientific literature read and the level of certainty of CAGW.
JJ
It’s becoming more obvious every day you haven’t read much of the science. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies that goes against the establishment narrative. Try harder. You aren’t convincing anyone on this site since they have read the literature. You might try it.
The truth will set you free.
Why would I read junk science? There is peer review and then there is peer review. Most of that garbage is published in pay-to-publish or little-known journals. One thing they have in common is little or no peer review. The garbage that somehow passes peer review and winds up in a respectable journal winds up being revised multiple times. What I do know is that you don’t know a damn thing about science. That’s been evident for a long time.
If all this peer reviewed material is available, why aren’t the oil companies promoting it? What you and the others promoting this garbage should do is to gather all the information together and ship it to the oil companies along with your “analysis”. Let me warn you, the oil companies probably have this information because they sponsored the research as part of a sophisticated disinformation campaign.
Want to know what the oil companies are up to now? They want to trade a toothless carbon tax for immunity from legal liability for lying about their products for the past 40 years. You can read about it here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/opinion/carbon-tax-lott-breaux.html
If climate change was a hoax or not serious, why would they do that? They wouldn’t. They’re scared that as the things get worse, they are going to be sued out of existence. They are right to be worried.
The link was to a NYTimes article. It didn’t go through. Let’s try Salon:
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/27/whats-next-for-big-oil-a-carbon-tax-for-them-and-a-whole-lotta-concessions-from-us_partner/
ROTFLMAO, JJ! An analysis by Salon?!? #ExxonKnew turned up bupkus and nothing came of it. The politicized oil company lawsuits are systematically being thrown out of the courts. The oil companies only fear the political and Deep State Leftists in government legislating and regulating them out of business. I think it is not likely that will happen because people all over the world are increasingly buying Big Oil’s much-needed product.
Big Oil supports a CO2 tax because it will harm coal much more than oil and they will get some big political concessions by supporting it. The price of gasoline and deasil at the pump is relatively unaffected by any possible cost increases caused by a CO2 tax that has any chance of making it through Congress. And Let’s Go Brandon’s release of some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil wasn’t reflected by lower prices at the gas pump.
Coal-fired electric generation would become less competitive and peoples’ electric bills would “necessarily skyrocket” with an Obama-type CO2 tax. Additionally, don’t plan on making steel, aluminum & etc. in the U.S. anymore with such a tax.
This whole issue consists of nothing more than a Leftist masturbatory fantasy. A serious CO2 tax proposal by U.S. politicians would cause a run on yellow vests and the average politician knows it. Now, Leftist ideological politicians will never understand the common man so there will always be a bunch of unhinged progressive yammerings.
That must have touched a nerve. That was a rant full of falsehoods and political rage. That’s what happens when you are on the wrong side of an issue, and all you have is ideology as an argument. DF should apologize for that — not that BS he apologized for. Victimhood is for losers.
The only thing Salon did wrong was to report the truth. Of course, the first thing attacked is the source. Don’t like that source? How about a conservative website set up to promote this nonsense?
https://www.afcd.org/a-conservative-answer-to-climate-change/
The website is from the Americans for Carbon Dividends, a front for the conservative Climate Leadership Council. The website title is the first bit of deception. They didn’t want to call it Americans for a Carbon Tax. The rest is a lot of happy talk designed to fool the public — no mention of immunity from civil liability for emitters. I had to search around to find it. It’s in the fifth paragraph, the last sentence of the link I provided.
“Robust carbon taxes would also justify ending federal and state tort liability for emitters.”
There are only two reasons for this charade — eliminating the fossil fuel industry’s legal liability and regulation. Those will require overcoming a Senate filibuster to reimpose. The only thing they are giving up is a toothless carbon tax — $40/ton is too low to have an impact. That tax can be removed by a simple majority vote in the Senate.
That is a typical conservative solution to a problem. Don’t solve the actual problem but appear to do so. Protect the interests of the wealthy and corporations at all costs.
“The politicized oil company lawsuits are systematically being thrown out of the courts.”
Some have been thrown out on technical grounds — not the merits. With attribution science improving, it’s just a matter of time before a $ value can be assigned to the damage climate change is causing. In Europe, lawsuits have had much more success.
“Big Oil supports a CO2 tax because it will harm coal much more than oil and they will get some big political concessions by supporting it.”
Ridiculous. Coal is already on the way out. Soon, it won’t be able to compete with renewables. It can’t compete with natural gas. Getting rid of regulation will help coal — not hurt it.
Claiming Exxon knew nothing about the harm climate change causes doesn’t pass the laugh test. There is NOTHING that impacts Exxon’s business that it doesn’t investigate thoroughly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
With all that psychobabble, DF has not addressed my point. If climate change is a hoax or CO2 is not causing it, and there is all this evidence that proves it, why does Exxon continue to behave like climate science consensus is correct and the climate denial lunatics are wrong? The only thing I can conclude is that DF has no defense against that argument.
Until this moment I didn’t realize how deluded you are. As I said there are hundreds of papers from well known, well respected journals etc, that are not pay for publishing. You have just divulged for the world to see how little you actually know.
Enjoy staying in your bubble.
JJBraccili
“To defend the science and the reputations of climate scientists who get routinely trashed. There might be a naïve individual who comes here and starts to believe the drivel posted here.”
What you do is to give without a thought of return!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When I quote an abstract my expectation is that going beyond the abstract goes without saying.
Let’s delve a little deeper into the Ghil et al 2020 review. These are just words describing the broader physics of the Earth system. Real science is a matter of understanding underlying empirical evidence.
‘The climate system is a forced, dissipative, chaotic system that is out of equilibrium and whose complex natural variability arises from the interplay of positive and negative feedbacks, instabilities and saturation mechanisms. These processes span a broad range of spatial and temporal scales and include many chemical species and all physical phases. The system’s heterogeneous phenomenology includes the microphysics of clouds, cloud–radiation interactions, atmospheric and oceanic boundary layers,
and several scales of turbulence (Ghil, 2019); it evolves, furthermore, under the action of large-scale agents that drive and modulate its evolution, mainly differential solar
heating and the Earth’s rotation and gravitation. As is often the case, the complexity of the physics is interwoven with the chaotic character of the dynamics. Moreover, the climate system’s large natural variability on different time scales is strongly affected by relatively small changes in the forcing, anthropogenic as well as natural (Ghil and Childress, 1987; Lucarini et al., 2014;
Peixoto and Oort, 1992) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.00583.pdf
Michael Ghil is a giant of climate science – JJ is a gnat. JJ’s ‘useless information’ is the conceptual core of climate science. A James McWilliams – another climate science giant – on Ed Lorenz – an original giant – was cited.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000434
But one does have to have some intellectual humility and not simply repeat a tribal idée fixe.
At CO2 concentrations of some 1200 ppm there is a chance of triggering a PETM – based on math and physics and not JJ hand waving.
But given the volatility of oil and gas prices – new energy technologies.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/crude-oil-price-history-chart-2022-01-06-macrotrends-1.png
I suggest fast neutron nuclear reactors for which the fuel is already just sitting around in ponds and drums.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-cycle.jpg
e.g. https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
General Atomics is developing a range (they’ll come in different colours) 50MWe reactors.
“Proved” with a 2019 CliSciFi model: “In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm.” No evidence, but the model output sounds good with CO2 far above any current projection.
This is fine scale simulation using equations of state rather than approximate parametrisations. To do it on a global scale would requires quantum computing at the least.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/cloud-physics.png
It explains the PETM in a way that CO2 alone cannot.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/65-million-years-temps-co2.png
While science cannot provide certainty about the future – rejecting it on spurious grounds doesn’t add anything but confusion.
Using equations of state or not, I don not act on unvalidated models.
The PETM temperatures still remain unexplained; speculations abound. Suffice it to say it was a whole different world 56 million years ago.
The logical fallacy of demanding impossible evidence.
The top of the thread was David response to my comment on Tapio Schneider et al on cloud tipping points. Fascinating science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGshzvKAM3w
The link between thermohaline circulation and ice sheet growth in transitions to glacial states I first came across in a Wally Broecker quote.
Are either of these diametrically opposed futures certain? How could that be?
The rest is just politics. I don’t read NCA or IPCC documents. They are not original science and never even good reviews. Here’s a good review.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.00583.pdf
The review inauspiciously starts out with a whitewash of Mann’s Hockey Stick and denial of the obvious malfeasance of the Climategate Team. The politics of the UN IPCC is brushed aside.
The first part is a summary of climate related issues and processes. Nothing controversial there. Later, they get into the various mathematical approaches to understanding the dynamical and chaotic nature of climate. The mathematical approaches are standard but, as always, the devil is in the detail (assumptions). No conclusions about the course of climate change can be drawn from the survey.
The hockey stick is ancient history – unimportant in any reasonable context – and no one can predict the future. Except that surprises are inevitable. Looking for certainty – David – is far from realistic.
Gee, RIE, I sure would like a little bit of certainty to justify the world spending hundreds of trillions of dollars and fundamentally changing my lifestyle and surrendering my freedom of choice. Am I being unreasonable?
Energy innovation, conserving and restoring soils and environments, building resilient infrastructure, reducing pollution – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate – and BBQ beef ribs are all more affordable in high growth economies. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. All of this is just good policy – and is well in hand in developed economies.
It is also politically expedient as your Republicans are discovering. Solve the problem without breaking the bank and make political hay.
RIW, first I’m not a Republican. I’m not a member of any political party left, right nor one of the various “politics light” parties.
Second you’ve provided a list of happy-though, motherhood-and-apple-pie vague ideas, not plans. You have not given any ideas that are relevant to policy-level decisionmaking. Without specifics and cost/benefit analysis there is nothing to which I might agree. “Its the [whole] economy, stupid.”
I meant your republicans as an American. Dave is obviously struggling with these pragmatic policy options – but these things are well in hand.
https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/summary-australias-2030-emissions-reduction-target.pdf
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/
A slowing AMOC in a period of low NH summer insolation allowing runaway ice sheet growth and rapid cooling seems more likely to me.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z
I assess the risk of making changes in a chaotic Earth system – and suggest – inter alia – fast neutron nuclear engines and more cows.
RIE, I’d have to read the (paywalled) study before opining. With S. Rahmstorf as an author, however, it already has at least on strike against it; not fatal, but one would have to review it with a microscope.
I got a shareedit stream. And opened a preprint version in unpaywall. But the science has been replicated a number of times. That’s how science is meant to work.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00182-x
It’s the result of dramatic changes in the North Atlantic and Arctic.
“… calibrated with an ensemble of model simulations from the CMIP5 project …” “The attribution of this reconstructed trend to external or internal factors remains an open problem of fundamental importance in climate research.”
I’ll wait for Ross McKittrick’s analysis of their study methodology:
“Here we investigate a potential contribution of atmospheric CO2 concentration to AMOC slowdown, based on observational and reanalysis data. First, we separate the SST-based reconstructed long-term AMOC weakening trend and emphasize the routes through which this greenhouse gas could affect AMOC. Then we probe the associated causal chains using the Convergent Cross Mapping (CCM) technique, a method based on the theory of dynamical systems used to identify causation in weakly coupled systems based on two timeseries11.
In practical terms, CCM causation is tested using the technique of “cross mapping”: a time delay embedding is constructed from the time series of Y and the ability to estimate the values of X from this embedding quantifies how much information about the later has been encoded into the former variable. The accuracy of the prediction is measured using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (ρ), between observed and predicted values. One notes the counterintuitive fact that the cross map estimate runs in the reverse direction of causality: if Y predicts X, then X causes Y. However, one key property that distinguishes causality from mere correlation is the convergence of the cross estimation. When constructing the embedding, only a given portion of the time series is used. Increasing this library length should improve the accuracy of the prediction, since the additional points fill in the trajectories in the attractor, resulting in closer nearest neighbors. At some point, the information contained in the affected variable has been exhaustively harnessed and the cross map saturates to a plateau. The asymptotic increase of the cross-map skill with library length is called convergence. The strength of the causal interaction may be linked with the rate of growth toward the convergence level with library size, but also with the level of the cross map skill.”
Their claim that “if Y predicts X, then X causes Y” is worrisome.
The Arctic isn’t warming and the AMOC isn’t slowing? At some time you need to get off the fence and drop pettifogging complaints about names and words.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/50/6/JPO-D-19-0188.1.xml
https://os.copernicus.org/preprints/os-2019-134/os-2019-134.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076350
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14474-y
RIE, each of your 4 studies indicate the AMOC is weakening over differing timeframes. One study even suggests changing winds as the cause for its recent period of choice. Your first is the only one to speculate CO2 is the culprit. Given the AMO has an approximately 70-year cycle, I think we have a couple of decades before we have to decide to turn the world over to the Marxists.
The Arctic has warmed, but early 20th Century warmth was on par with today’s. Your study says the AMOC has been weakening during the entire 20th Century, more so since mid-Century. I’ll wait for Ross McKittrick’s analysis of their statistical methods before adjusting my lifestyle downward.
I have not said about the cause of warming. Nor have I suggested anything but nuclear engines and BBQ beef ribs. You are getting ahead of yourself.
But this is thought to be the mechanism by which warm conditions give way to cool every 100,000 years or so. Potentially any day now – unless you can cite the science that says otherwise.
So, RIH, “Potentially any day now” a slowing AMOC will trigger the next glaciation which will take place The Day After Tomorrow?
The data is archived and available. Ross can feel free to have a go at it. But perhaps it is not a bristlecone pine?
https://data-search.nerc.ac.uk/geonetwork/srv/api/records/702d185350a55abd8af81582a736d34b
Its not the data, RIE, its the statistical methods and their application to the data. Michael Mann’s abuse of data and its relevance is a separate issue.
I sent an email to Steve McIntyre asking if he or Ross McKittrick were interested in checking out the statistical approach. We’ll see.
So you are sitting on the fence until Ross runs the tape measure over it. That’s a lot desperate.
Ross has had a chance – the 26 degree north array has been generating data since 2004.
The data is not the question; its the statistical technique used. You know, one of the two problems with Mann’s Hockey Stick.
Actually, there were ALOT of problems with the data, this was the topic of the first M&M paper that was published
Sorry for the confusion, Dr. Curry. I meant that the other of the two problems with Mann was data manipulation. My focus of the comment was misuse of statistical methods.
Thanks for the information on M&M’s first paper.
What we usually depend on to check methodology and results is replication.
Yeah, RIE, like all those studies over the years replicating Mann’s Hockey Stick before M&M came along. That was one of CliSciFi’s “shining hours.” Still no repercussions, though.
So no climate science passes muster unless Ross says so? What a burden for poor Ross. And Dave may as well join JJ and read no science at all. I’m talking to the wrong end of the horse here.
Don’t be a smartass, RIE. I’m saying we’ve been burned by “novel” statistical analyses before in CliSciFi. I trust validated scientific studies. The problem is I was badly fooled by Mann’s Hockey Stick and have seen a number of dodgy studies since. I’m more wary than before.
‘Actually, there were ALOT of problems with the data, this was the topic of the first M&M paper that was published.’ JC
Trust the process.
The CliSciFi “process” did not catch Mann and the team, it took two uninvolved economists and a Climategate whistleblower. CliSciFi is still covering for Mann and the Team. You want me to trust that “process?” Science is not as pure as you seem to imply, RIE.
“So, RIH, “Potentially any day now” a slowing AMOC will trigger the next glaciation which will take place The Day After Tomorrow?’ DF
The alternative notion is that CO2 means that a glacial won’t happen any tie soon. I’d put money on somewhere between +/- 5 to 10 degree change at a pace dictated by the internal dynamics of the system.
RIE, I have no idea as to what you are trying to say. I’m not going to spend time in unpacking your unclear statement.
M&M were published. The process is not nearly as corrupt as Dave would like it to be. There is lots of fine science published. Science progresses and David is milking a 20 year old controversy on just one small area of climate research that intrinsically is rife with difficulties and uncertainties. We are – in contrast – speaking here of modern instrumental data.
All so as not to answer the question of whether the Arctic is warming and AMOC slowing.
Yes, RIE, I am aware that the Arctic has recently (a few decades) warmed at rates consistent with historical warming rates and levels. So what?
It also appears that the AMOC has slowed at different rates at different times. The reasons for the differing timings and rates are not clear and the driving causes are uncertain based upon previous studies. The recent novel statistical modeling of CO2 impacts on AMOC weakening is not definitive; maybe yes, maybe no: Its so new it awaits validation, especially since it uses new paleo data.
There is no doubt that “There is lots of fine science published.” There is also no doubt that policymaker monetary feedback has corrupted the climate field. Have you read the U.S. National Climate Assessments (NCA)? They are prepared by a group of 13 large Executive Branch agencies with lots of funding on the line. You tell me that the NCAs reflect “lots of fine science.”
Additionally, the UN IPCC practices of allowing self-interested Lead Authors unlimited authority to cherry-pick the “fine science” and governmental politicians writing wildly subjective summaries are just another example of CliSciFi corruption.
It is another indication of corruption that prominent scientists and governing scientific organizations do not correct the ubiquitous practice of politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and media all publishing wild lies about worsening climatic metrics. Their public silence shames their profession.
Anyway, I’m not giving up my PU to achieve a climate nirvana.
Meant to put this here – https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/16/tornado/#comment-968146
And of course neither David nor JJ understand spatiotemporal chaos in the Earth system. Which is where I started.
‘Weather and climate are manifestations of spatio temporal chaos of staggering complexity because there is not only Navier Stokes equations, but there are many more coupled fields. ENSO is an example of a quasi standing wave of the system.
Of course I hope that the reader now knows that ENSO cannot be explained by something depending on time only (like indexes, time series and such) because if it could, we would have classical temporal chaos where space doesn’t matter. We would have solved the problem long times ago. But as ENSO is a pattern resulting of interaction of ALL fields in the system, it vitally depends on how these fields interact in space. That’s why all interpretations of ENSO (and other multidecadal quasi standing waves) are failing – people are using functions (series) that depend on time only which cannot clearly encode all the spatial interactions.’ Tomas Milanovic – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/#:~:text=Weather%20and%20climate%20are%20manifestations,standing%20wave%20of%20the%20system.
It manifests as a ‘stadium wave’.
https://youtu.be/7VbgzCahx8o
It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t impact climate change.
You must have a degree in useless information.
I’ve replied to David’s many comments arm waving about about the corruption of science The frustration was in introducing science to have it cursorily denied on spurious grounds. There is one thing that counts – and it creates a deep uncertainty,
It was clear enough when I said this above.
I assess the risk of making changes in a chaotic Earth system – and suggest – inter alia – fast neutron nuclear engines and more cows.
Christ, RIE! I go by the name of Dave, not David that you insist on using. Before I gave up in trying to have productive conversations with you some time ago, I used your full name as reflected in your postings. I’ve come back now because I have ceased trying to have a productive conversation with you and just use the abbreviation of your given name for brevity in commenting.
I do not “arm wave” about the corruption of science. I point out the many obvious corruptions of contemporary CliSciFi as reflected in UN IPCC, U.S. NCA, and other entities’ reports and their refusal to correct politician, Deep State, NGO, media & etc. obvious and outlandish lies about climate change. They do not reflect actual science concerning climate and its many uncertainties.
I have not “cursorily denied” any of the science you have presented on Dr. Curry’s fine blog. I have questioned the validity of some of their novel, untested methods, their inherent uncertainties and their ultimate relevance to the huge policy questions before us.
Science cannot dictate policy determinations in democracies; they don’t produce “The Day After Tomorrow” or “Don’t Look Up” certainties. The closest I have seen are some recent work of cloud fraction decreases in response to huge, unrealistic increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There is a long way to go, however, before the sub-grid statistical methods can be validated.
Additionally, I have seen no work presented by you that would provide any basis for your ability to “assess the risk of making changes in a chaotic Earth system.” Speculative dynamic and chaotic models do not provide enough certainty to support rational risk assessments to guide significant and fundamental changes to our societies, economies and energy systems. They are interesting intellectual exercises by themselves, but do not provide for rational policy making in an uncertain and resource-limited world.
In conclusion, nobody takes seriously your (flippant?) suggestion for “fast neutron nuclear engines and more cows.”
These are yet more pettifogging quibbles going nowhere but in circles.
‘Fast neutron reactors (FNRs) are a technological step beyond conventional power reactors, but are poised to become mainstream.’
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
China just bought it’s 2nd online.
Cows can be carbon positive and we know exactly what it costs. There is no excuse for ignorance of regenerative farming.
RIE, I’m not pettifogging anything. I’m telling you my position on accepting actionable science and pointing out the deficiencies of CliSciFi.
What’s not to like about advanced nuclear reactors and rational and profitable farming practices? They will both come in the natural course of societal, technological and economic advances. I support both by voting against Leftist politicians.
This goes well beyond what JJ learned in clown school.
‘The climate system is a forced, dissipative, chaotic system that is out of equilibrium and whose complex natural variability arises from the interplay of positive and negative feedbacks, instabilities and saturation mechanisms. These processes span a broad range of spatial and temporal scales and include many chemical species and all physical phases. The system’s heterogeneous phenomenology includes the microphysics of clouds, cloud–radiation interactions, atmospheric and oceanic boundary layers, and several scales of turbulence (Ghil, 2019); it evolves, furthermore, under the action of large-scale agents that drive and modulate its evolution, mainly differential solar heating and the Earth’s rotation and gravitation. As is often the case, the complexity of the physics is interwoven with the chaotic character of the dynamics. Moreover, the climate system’s large natural variability on different time scales is strongly affected by relatively small changes in the forcing, anthropogenic as well as natural (Ghil and Childress, 1987; Lucarini et al., 2014;
Peixoto and Oort, 1992) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.00583.pdf
I believe that’s the third time you posted that. Get some new material. You complained about CV posting the same thing over and over. You’re just as bad.
Trivially true. So what?
Twice is not hundreds of repetitions of the insane it climate and not climate change meme. It’s recent and very good – as I would expect from Michael Ghil. Not to mention the dozens of peer reviewed papers I have discussed under this post.
Sadly – such disingenuous games are the playbook for pissant progressive drones.
Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions – transport 14%. Mitigating greenhouse gases nd and radiatively active aerosols requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/global_emissions_gas_2015.png
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png
source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Taxes ain’t going to do it – and the developing world is going to continue to develop their economies powered by the cheapest available energy source.
‘A key part of the ecomodern discourse of a ‘Good Anthropocene’ is the vision of a ‘high-energy planet’ characterized by universal access to modern energy. Recognizing the crucial historical role that rising energy consumption has played in driving social transformations, ecomodernists imagine a future with substantial global equality of opportunity powered by clean and abundant energy. Whereas traditional environmental thinking has advocated land-intensive distributed forms of renewable energy, ecomodernists have argued that such technologies are fundamentally incompatible with a world in which 7–10 billion people can live modern lives. Instead, ecomodernists believe that only breakthrough innovation can overcome the current political and cultural polarization surrounding climate change and provide a unifying pathway towards climate stability. Yet, resurging populism and nationalism, but also the statist frame of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process, make such a future unlikely as rich countries remain focused on meeting their own domestic emissions targets rather than decarbonizing the global economy as a whole. As a consequence, overall political polarization is bound to increase as radical environmental voices will call for ever harsher demand-side reductions while technocratic elites may come to see solar radiation management as the only feasible way of preventing an irreversible destabilization of the climate system.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14781158.2018.1428946
JJ may argue for whatever nonsense e is in favour of. We are equally entitled to tell him where to go and what to do when he gets there.
“A key part of the ecomodern discourse of a ‘Good Anthropocene’ is the vision of a ‘high-energy planet’ characterized by universal access to modern energy.”
Yes, that is right.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Solar flux at Earth’s distance (R=1AU) from the sun
So =1361 W/m²
Earth’s Albedo a=0,306
Moon’s Albedo a=0,11
Earth’s Tmean=288K
Moon’s Tmean =220K
Solar irradiance (Moon’s surface /Earth’s surface) ratio
(1-0,11)So /(1-0,306)So = 0,89 /0.694 = 1,2824 or 28,24% more SW EM incident energy available on the Moon’s surface.
(Earth’s Tmean=288K /Moon’s Tmean =220K) ratio
288K/220K = 1,3091
(Earth’s Tmean⁴ =288K⁴ /Moon’s Tmean⁴ =220K⁴) ratio
(288K /220K)⁴ = 1,3091⁴ = 2,9368
The simple and logical conclusion:
Earth’s surface emits 2,94 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moon’s surface does.
On the other hand Moon’s surface receives almost 30% more solar SW EM energy than Earth’s surface.
This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earth’s thin atmosphere’s trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!
There is no way Earth’s atmosphere can balance this huge
(Moon’ s surface /Earth’s surface) IR emission difference:
2,9368 *1,2824 = 3,766
3,766 -1 = 2,766 the 2,77 more than Moon’s surface IR EM emission the Earth’s atmosphere downward IR EM emission impossible !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.’ Richard Feynman
A thin atmosphere or a trace gas are just words. They are not an experiment that falsifies a greenhouse gas theory based from the beginning almost 200 years ago on experiment and observation.
Pingback: 토네이도 – 그걸로 왓츠업? – Blog Ciencia