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.