by Frank Bosse
A very interesting blog post by Gavin Schmidt provides input on “constraining“ the observed TCR ( Transient Climate Response) in the time window 1979- 2022 using the latest climate models.
Gavin presents a comparison of the “Models screened by their TCR” against observations using the GISS surface temperature data:
Fig.1: Reproduction of the 1st figure in Gavin’s blog post.
What does Gavin mean by “Models screened by TCR“? He refers Tokarska et al (2020). Tokarska et al used all CMIP6 (and CMIP5) models to constrain the TCR using regression against the observed warming. This is not exactly the method Gavin used. From the chapter “Constraints on the TCR” of Tokarska (2020):
“We find that the recent warming trend (1981–2017) is strongly correlated with TCR across CMIP6 models (R = 0.82)”
This also means that the warming trend for 1979 to 2022 is more correlated with the TCR than was found in Tokarska et al (2020) because the time window is longer: 44 vs. 37 years.
The trend slopes tell the story of the implied TCR.
Tokarska et al describe “observations-constrained TCR“ as:
“The observationally constrained TCR likely range (17 to 83%), based on CMIP6 models alone, of 1.20° to 1.99°C with a median of 1.60°C”
The best estimate of TCR based on CMIP6 models (the red line in Fig.1) is 1.6K / 2*CO2, following the cited paper.
Using the preliminary GMST data from GISS for January – October 2022, I reconstruct Fig.1 from Gavin’s post to estimate the warming trend slopes 1979-2022:
Fig. 2: The added GMST for 2022 and the OLS trend slopes for Observations and the “TCR-constrained“ CMIP6 models, digitized from Fig.1 of Gavin’s blog post.
The trend slopes (“which are strongly correlated with TCR“, as Tokarska et al stated) have a difference, the observations (GISS) showing a 21% lower trend slope than the TCR constrained CMIP6-models, which have a TCR of 1.6 as the best estimate.
Considering this fact, the observations point to a TCR of 1.6/1.21= 1.3 K/doubling of CO2 as the best estimate. The 17 to 83 % likely range from the regression is 1.22 to 1.38.
These TCR values are very similar to the estimate of Lewis/Curry (2018).
The TCR of 1.3, confirmed by the latest data, gives a warming in 2100 of 1.75 vs. pre-industrial times, when considering the 4.5 W/m² forcing scenario. We would remain within the “2°C goal“ even with a forcing of 5W/m² to 2100, we would produce 1.9 K of warming.
All available serious literature excludes a catastrophic outcome of the global warming, if we remain within the 2K limit. It seems very likely that we will do so. No doom and no need for glue on streets and paintings. Somebody should inform the scared people who are doing such strange things in the name of “The Science“.
Science tells it otherwise, giving much hope that mankind will avoid the “catastrophic climate endgame”.
That is probably a worst case scenario, given disputes over GISS and how it deals with UHI and infill. UAH shows less warming,and less agreement with the models.
Dr. Roy Spencer posted this article last month that analyzed UHI as having adding a spurious 20% to the official land station record. This, if accurate, would knock actual TCR down another 20%.
I know that land records are only 1/3 of the planet surface but the sea temperature record is very weak and prone to bias, which is supported by the land record.
Because of the difference in specific heat capacity between water and terrestrial materials, one can think of land as a place where the effect of energy absorption is amplified. Thus, it becomes a special sample of a global phenomena where the effects are more easily measured.
Thanks Clyde. This is something I’ve been trying to point out for over 5 years. https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/10/are-land-sea-temperature-averages-meaningful/
Firstly it scientific BS to add or average temperature since it is not an extensive property. If you want to use it as a proxy of energy (which is what they are trying to do when calculating effects of radiation change), you need to take account of heat capacity. Land is damp rock and has about half the H.C. of sea water, so land “anomalies” need to be halved.
Pingback: Transient Climate Response from observations 1979-2022 - Climate- Science.press
“The TCR of 1.3, confirmed by the latest data, gives a warming in 2100 of 1.75 vs. pre-industrial times, when considering the 4.5 W/m² forcing scenario.”
Non-disclosed assumptions in this statement that are very likely to be untrue:
1) All or nearly all warming observed is due to the increase in CO2. No natural climate change allowed.
2) The CO2 airborne fraction is not going to continue decreasing
3) The conversion of future emissions into future temperature is correct. The conversion of past emissions into past temperature is incorrect. See the Early Twentieth Century Warming.
Disclosed assumption in this statement that is very likely to be untrue:
4) CO2 emissions will grow to 2045 and then decline to about half by 2100. RCP4.5 scenario.
In my opinion we can expect global warming to lose steam in the 21st century (it is already doing that) and result in less warming than in the 20th Century regardless of our emissions. This is contrary to what models predict. This is even in the absence of significant volcanic activity. If volcanic activity is high then it will provide an excuse for utter model failure. Modelling is not science, you can always adjust your models to whatever happens to give the desired result. The overestimation of CO2 forcing is compensated by an overestimation of sulfate aerosols forcing.
Javier
“ Non-disclosed assumptions in this statement that are very likely to be untrue:
1) All or nearly all warming observed is due to the increase in CO2. No natural climate change allowed.”
Since I haven’t read the 1990 IPCC in several years I wanted to refresh my memory about what they said relative to natural climate change. They implied, but didn’t explicitly say, it affected temperatures over the previous 100 years. IPCC 6 references it, but in an oblique way in the Summary for Policy Makers.It is there, though, with up to 38% of the lower likely range of past warming.
It seems any models that are influencing public policy ought to be building some kind of assumptions for natural variability. Otherwise it’s not reflecting reality.
If temperatures go flattish for a few decades, I expect they will be referencing natural variability more than they have in the past
just to make excuses for their failed predictions.
Speaking of failed predictions, we are on our way to a couple made in the 1990 IPCC. It said by 2030 SLR would be up by 200mm. Not close. And the Great Lakes levels would drop by 8 feet from doubling CO2. The Great Lakes were at historic highs a couple of years ago.
Much of the warming is due to albedo change from fertilization. While we can expect the bio sink to continue growing, I think the albedo effect might diminish as greened areas soak up more and more CO2 and water before greening expands into more remote, high albedo areas.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
“ Enhanced plant growth also directly affects the global average radiative forcing of the climate system. It does this by changing surface albedo (the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected from the surface), but also by directly altering the amounts of heat and water vapor in the atmosphere. Such fluxes – as they are called – alter patterns of clouds and precipitation from what they otherwise would be in the absence of the vegetation changes.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428
“ Our analysis suggests that the airborne fraction increased steadily from the 1960s to the 1990s (1.8% per year, P=0.03; Fig. 1b), albeit with large interannual variability reflecting year-to-year variability in the terrestrial sink4. Since the start of the twenty-first century, however, the airborne fraction has been declining (−2.2% per year, P=0.07; Fig. 1b), despite the rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions (Fig. 1b). Changes in the airborne fraction are reflected in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. For the three decades from the start of the measurement record in 1959, the atmospheric CO2 growth rate increased from 0.75 to 1.86 p.p.m. per year (Fig. 1a). However, for the period 2002–2014 there has been no significant increase in the growth rate of CO2 (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 1). The decline in the airborne fraction since the start of the twenty-first century has therefore been sufficiently large as to result in a pause in the rate of increase of the atmospheric CO2 growth rate (Fig. 1a).“
Recent papers have suggested area greening isn’t increasing as fast as previous decades despite substantial increase in the biological sink.
I’m glad I read your comment before I left my own comment. You said what I intended to say,, but written better.
The only change I would make is to say that not one person on this planet knows whether the average temperature in 2100 will be warmer or cooler than today. We have over 100 years of wrong climate predictions as evidence. Based on climate history, warmer is better than cooler.
The only climate prediction that makes sense is my own, from 1997: “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets cooler”
That prediction has been correct for the past 4.5 billion years, so why change it?
Javier, I used (intentionaly) the assumptions of the IPCC to show, that also with respect to them a “Climate endgame” ist very unlikely.
Is there any way we can read your website in English?
My attempt to get an English translation failed.
IMO you totaly missed the point of the post. Read it more carefully! It has nothing to do with English!!
Frank Climate
I was curious so clicked on your name and that took me to a website with the name Frank. But it was mot in English. I tried to translate it into English, and that did not work. So now I will move on to other reading.
Feel free to consider this comment as “ignorant” since I am not a climate scientist — but a layman’s explanation of the above post would be appreciated by those of us who might like to enlighten our Climate Change “friends” when we get into discussions. Not being a climate expert, I think I found this article useful in trying to understand the above post: https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/#:~:text=Transient%20climate%20response%20(TCR)%20is%20the%20mean%20global%20warming%20predicted,increase%20at%201%20%25%20per%20year. I am guessing that TCR assumes a 1% increase in CO2 annually in the models — componded annually to result in doubling CO2 by 2100. The CMIP6 models which assume this CO2 increase are showing a 1.6 Centigrade (Kelvin) increase in the temperature by 2100? Observations extrapolated based on history since 1979, on the other hand, would indicate a 1.3 Centrigrade increase in the temperature by 2100? Both of these are lower than the +2 Centigrade portrayed as catastrophic by the majority of world political opinion? Is this interpretation close?
It is.
All these models should be tested by extrapolating back to about 1750, over which time we have at least some reasonable data. They have all been optimized over the 1979-present timeframe, so the damned well better fit there; that’s not a rigorous test. Only extrapolations to timeframes over which they have not been optimized AND for which we have some data, are meaningful.
CMIP scenarios are typically run 1850 to 2100 and output data is publicly available.
The ocean is a thermometer bulb and sea level tells us global temperature. Lack of acceleration in sea level rise is all I need to know. Everything else is fluff.
Not necessarily land is retaining more water each year, offsetting sea level rise, though I see no reason to expect this to stop. It is likely mostly due to warming and CO2 fertilization.
2022 land biosphere carbon uptake is estimated at 3.4 gigatons https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/. 5.1 gigatons water consumed in photosynthesis, for a dry mass increase of 8.5, 28.3 wet mass, amounting to 24.9 km^3 of water captured, possibly more than sea level rise from global warming.
This is only 32% of the water accumulating on land, which is about half of all annual glacier melt (only a small portion is likely due to climate change). https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115
Before industrialization, sea level was rising due to the Holocene. If man in any way is warming the planet, there will be a CHANGE in sea level rise, namely an acceleration. Your theory of water being retained by plants on land needs better proof that “possibly more than sea level rise.” You need to get the calculator out and see if it is. “Possibly” and “Might” and “Maybe” is the language of politicians, not scientists. Do the math.
Do you see acceleration of sea levels here:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
Morgan – I see a lot of very short term acceleration periods , followed by several short term acceleration periods.
the point of my comment is that a 5-10 year period is vastly too short to ascertain any level of acceleration simply due to the measurement error. Probably need a 20-30 year period at minimum to have any confidence in the accuracy.
The second point is David Appell constantly points out the acceleration of SLR, especially over the last 10 years. The acceleration is partly an effect of the shift in the method of measurement from tide guages to satellite, and likely due to a short term trend.
In summary, it is difficult to ascertain if there is in fact any actual increase and/or acceleration in the rate of SLR based on existing measurement tools.
Climate scientists use weasel words all the time. “Projection,” not Prediction is a big one. But they also love the word “may.”
As long as climate scientists use weasel words, they will continue to prove they are not scientists at all. Real scientists use controlled experiment and math to learn the truth. Climate scientists use neither, to prove a lie. Atmospheric physics is real science, as is meteorology. Climate science, not so much. Aaron needs to tell us how many mm of sea level rise corresponds to his estimates of plant retention of water.
Joe, you don’t see any acceleration periods on the graph. What you see are short periods where wea level goes up and short periods where it goes down. Acceleration of sea level rise is the first derivative of velocity of sea level rise, which is the first derivative of sea level. So, acceleration of sea level rise is the second derivative of sea level. It would be seen as an upward curve in the trend line. I see no curve, I see a linear velocity of sea level rise, meaning no acceleration.
David Appell should hush. You cannot merge tide gauge data with satellite data. That’s bad science. You stick with one set or the other, but you can’t suddenly switch from one to the other in 1993, which is what they did. There is no acceleration, unless you cheat and do what David Appell condones.
Thanks Aaron. I’m not going to check your math but do you think 0.214 mm of sea level rise is anything but negligible? A trivial amount like that shouldn’t even be mentioned.
That’s 8.5 inches a century, which I believe is a substantial portion of the sea level rise expected from warming.
“ According to the IPCC, the projected 21st century sea level rise depends on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The likely range of projected sea level rise by the end of the 21st century is from 0.26 to 0.82 m [10 to 32 inches], depending on the emissions scenario.”
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/
Doh, scratched that. One tenth of that.
Morgan Wright wrote:
As long as climate scientists use weasel words, they will continue to prove they are not scientists at all. Real scientists use controlled experiment and math to learn the truth. Climate scientists use neither….
Explain how you would do a controlled experiment in climate science when you can’t explicitly start in the same initial state every time.
There is no second Earth to compare observations to, one where atmospheric CO2 doesn’t increase from anthropogenic activities.
Many sciences can’t use controlled experiments: astronomy, geology, medicine, and meteorology, to name a few. These are observational sciences. So is climate science.
Morgan Wright wrote:
Before industrialization, sea level was rising due to the Holocene.
Hardly. Sea level rose only about 1 m in the 5000 years before the industrial era, and average of 0.2 mm/yr.
Sea level is now rising at 4+ mm/yr, and accelerating. So yes, there has been a large acceleration since the Holocene.
jim2 wrote:
Climate scientists use weasel words all the time. “Projection,” not Prediction is a big one.
Explain how you would do a prediction without knowing the future emissions of CO2, CH4, NO2, aerosols, changes in solar irradiance, brown carbon, CFCs and more.
Joe – the non climate scientist wrote:
The second point is David Appell constantly points out the acceleration of SLR, especially over the last 10 years. The acceleration is partly an effect of the shift in the method of measurement from tide guages to satellite, and likely due to a short term trend.
Tide gauges also show acceleration — in fact, higher than satellites:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
Morgan Wright wrote:
Joe, you don’t see any acceleration periods on the graph. What you see are short periods where wea level goes up and short periods where it goes down.
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
aaron wrote:
Doh, scratched that. One tenth of that.
No, your original numbers were correct.
from the IPCC 6AR SPM B.5.3 p21:
“It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century. Relative to 1995–2014, the likely
global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.28–0.55 m under the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9); 0.32–0.62 m
under the low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6); 0.44–0.76 m under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5);
and 0.63–1.01 m under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5); and by 2150 is 0.37–0.86 m under the very
low scenario (SSP1-1.9); 0.46–0.99 m under the low scenario (SSP1-2.6); 0.66–1.33 m under the intermediate scenario
(SSP2-4.5); and 0.98–1.88 m under the very high scenario (SSP5-8.5) (medium confidence).35 Global mean sea level rise above the likely range – approaching 2 m by 2100 and 5 m by 2150 under a very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5) (low confidence) – cannot be ruled out due to deep uncertainty in ice-sheet processes.
{4.3, 9.6, Box 9.4, Box TS.4} (Figure SPM.8)”
David Appell wrote:
𝕊𝕖𝕒 𝕝𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕝 𝕚𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕨 𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕥 𝟜+ 𝕞𝕞/𝕪𝕣, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕝𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘. 𝕊𝕠 𝕪𝕖𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕒 𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕘𝕖 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕝𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕤𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 ℍ𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕖.
No, sea level is rising at 1.55 mm/yr, same as a century ago, according to a tide gauge not subject to any continental rising or sinking because it’s not on a continent:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
Dave Appell continues to write untruthfully about sea level rise.
Sea level has been rising at near to the current rate for over 1000 years. Before the satellite era it was very difficult to estimate a global rate of rise since changes in local land height often dwarf actual sea level change. That is why looking at the change of sea level at a particular location is nearly meaningless.
There has been VERY little change in the rate of rise since the start of the satellite era in 1992.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2022rel2-0
David Appell wrote:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
This chart is clearly a fabrication and a lie. There are no tide gauges anywhere on earth that show acceleration. Look at this list of tide gauges and find just ONE:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.html
Morgan Wright wrote:
This chart is clearly a fabrication and a lie.
So you’re one of those — any data you don’t like must be a lie, any data you do like is good.
There are no tide gauges anywhere on earth that show acceleration. Look at this list of tide gauges and find just ONE:
Easy:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=647-023
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=175-071
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8724580
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8638610
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=220-031
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=220-021
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-191
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-211
Your mistake is eyeballing. Thinking that because these sites choose to do a linear fit, a linear fit is the best fit to the data. Try doing a second-order polynomial fit.
Morgan Wright wrote:
No, sea level is rising at 1.55 mm/yr, same as a century ago, according to a tide gauge not subject to any continental rising or sinking because it’s not on a continent:
No, it’s 3.87 mm/yr, according to a tide gauge not subject to any continental rising or sinking because it’s not on a continent:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1617433
Rob Starkey commented:
There has been VERY little change in the rate of rise since the start of the satellite era in 1992.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2022rel2-0
That chart shows a quadratic fit. And gives the acceleration. Over the 30 years of that chart SLR would have increased by (0.084 mm/yrs)*(30 yrs) = +2.5 mm/yr.
David Appell wrote:
𝔑𝔬, 𝔦𝔱’𝔰 3.87 𝔪𝔪/𝔶𝔯, 𝔞𝔠𝔠𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔬 𝔞 𝔱𝔦𝔡𝔢 𝔤𝔞𝔲𝔤𝔢 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔰𝔲𝔟𝔧𝔢𝔠𝔱 𝔱𝔬 𝔞𝔫𝔶 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔞𝔩 𝔯𝔦𝔰𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔬𝔯 𝔰𝔦𝔫𝔨𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔟𝔢𝔠𝔞𝔲𝔰𝔢 𝔦𝔱’𝔰 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔬𝔫 𝔞 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔢𝔫𝔱:
𝔥𝔱𝔱𝔭𝔰://𝔱𝔦𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔞𝔫𝔡𝔠𝔲𝔯𝔯𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰.𝔫𝔬𝔞𝔞.𝔤𝔬𝔳/𝔰𝔩𝔱𝔯𝔢𝔫𝔡𝔰/𝔰𝔩𝔱𝔯𝔢𝔫𝔡𝔰_𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫.𝔰𝔥𝔱𝔪𝔩?𝔦𝔡=1617433
I thought you were going to be serious, but this is obviously a joke.
Hilarious, Appell chooses graphs where there hasn’t been updated data for 40 years, where recent sea level is lower than 80 years ago, where there is well known vertical land motion dynamics, where there are clearly multi decadal cycles and there is evidence of groundwater subsidence. Is it any wonder we question his knowledge of the science.
Morgan Wright wrote:
I thought you were going to be serious, but this is obviously a joke.
No more of a joke than was your original comment.
CKid wrote:
Hilarious, Appell chooses graphs where there hasn’t been updated data for 40 years, where recent sea level is lower than 80 years ago, where there is well known vertical land motion dynamics, where there are clearly multi decadal cycles and there is evidence of groundwater subsidence.
All those graphs show acceleration, which was the question.
Morgan Wright won’t admit he was wrong.
You have provided any evidence for your claims, as usual.
And the Liverpool graph *does* show acceleration.
David Appell wrote:
𝐼 𝑠𝑒𝑒, 𝑠𝑜 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑖𝑖. 𝑅𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡.
Why not? Global CO2 is measured there. Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean where the currents are stable, it is not subject to continental lifts or subluxations, it sits on solid rock which extends all the way to the mantle and the islands are not subject to erosion, except what takes millions of years to occur. Oahu, where Honolulu is, is volcanically extinct and far from Maui or the Big Island
Morgan Wright wrote:
𝐼 𝑠𝑒𝑒, 𝑠𝑜 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑖𝑖. 𝑅𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡.
“Why not? Global CO2 is measured there. Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean where the currents are stable, it is not subject to continental lifts or subluxations, it sits on solid rock which extends all the way to the mantle and the islands are not subject to erosion, except what takes millions of years to occur. Oahu, where Honolulu is, is volcanically extinct and far from Maui or the Big Island”
In that case why not use the Hawaii station that shows 3.87 mm/yr of sea level rise instead of the one that shows 1.55 mm/yr?
CKid wrote:
where there is well known vertical land motion dynamics, where there are clearly multi decadal cycles and there is evidence of groundwater subsidence.
Has vertical motion or land subsidence accelerated in recent years?
These data go back to 1880:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
A noticeable change in the rate of SLR is apparent about 1945.
“Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s,” Sönke Dangendorf et al, Nature Climate Change volume 9, pages705–710 (2019).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8
02
Based on your illogic I can conclude that GMSLR is actually going down, not up.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/040-321_meantrend.png
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/050-141_meantrend.png
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/060-351_meantrend.png
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/970-141_meantrend.png
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9452210_meantrend.png
The problem is we don’t have a good idea of what portion of sea level rise, if any is due to “climate change”. What I provided was a good lower bound to what the fertilization effect is taking out of the ocean.
Your answer was 24.9 cubic kilometers of water. Not everybody can calculate how many inches of sea level rise that corresponds to without help from Texas Instruments. Can you do that for us?
24.9 km^3 is .07mm sea level rise.
1 km^3 is 2.78microns
The 77 km^3 gravimetric data shows land accumulating is .214mm .
Morgan Wright wrote:
No, sea level is rising at 1.55 mm/yr, same as a century ago, according to a tide gauge not subject to any continental rising or sinking because it’s not on a continent:
I see, so global sea level is measured in Hawaii. Right.
Thank you, Frank. Nice piece.
Not so sure it’s a great idea to use fundamentally flawed mathematical models as the basis for forecasting the distant future. The average of a bunch of crap is still crap.
TCR is nothing more than an artifact of (GCM) model construction and doesn’t actually exist in the real world to any measurable extent.
You are all intelligent commentators here. But can you explain to this poor fellow why on Earth the temperature readings of the air are only referred to the usual 3 suspects without proper reference to why the remaining 7+ gases are excluded.
For example, how can climate change cause rain, floods, etc., when there is no mention of water vapour? Should we not get back to basics?
Climate is usually thought of as an average of 30 years of weather in a particular place. And, weather conditions often lead to rain, floods, etc. Focusing on a rise in ppm of atmospheric CO2 in particular (the increase due to modernity) as causing the climate of the globe to warm over time is a scientific hypothesis going back to the ’70s and some believe it – much like some people believe in astrology – but, the global warming hypothesis cannot be proven scientifically because nothing is happening now that is distinguishable from what has happened in the past and having nothing to do with modernity. Nevertheless, fear of global warming has been found to be politically useful (a Left versus right issue) and that is what prevents us from getting back to basics.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDYOC053.Global.SSTAnomaly.shtml
Here is what causes all weather.
Water vapor in the troposphere depends on the temperature of the troposphere. It is a climate change feedback, not a cause of climate CHANGE.
Back to basics supports some amount of AGW
There is no science or observations to support B CAGW
Climate change is the common name for CAGW.
Also, climate change causes every problem in the world, from cancer to warts, and don’t you forget it.
“Water vapor in the troposphere depends on the temperature of the troposphere.” No. There is a dry air and a moist air.
The AVERAGE water vapor content of the troposphere depends on the AVERAGE temperature of the troposphere.
Are you happy now, Curious George?
It may be, but it is not obvious, for example it depends on the average temperature of the sea surface – actually not, because evaporation is nonlinear and depends on other factors like winds. Also a ratio of seas, jungles, and deserts should play a role. Could you provide a reliable reference?
“The AVERAGE water vapor content of the troposphere depends on the AVERAGE temperature of the troposphere.”
I think that the distribution is very skewed because hot deserts such as the Sahara and the Atacama are very dry, and the poles are very dry. Perhaps some other statistical parameter such as mode should be used.
thecliffclavenoffinance wrong:
Climate change is the common name for CAGW.
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
This is wrong. There are only warming events not “warming”.
The last 2 warming events are clearly identifiable, they were 2015/16 and 1997/98. There was no warming between these events and no net warning since the end of the 2015/16 warming event.
GISS is the only data set that shows warming between the warming events of 1997/98 and 2015/16.
Previous to the warming event of 1997/98 there were 2 volcanic cooling events and a warming event in 1982/83 which was muted by a volcanic cooling event at the same time.
The planet will not warm again without another warming event similar to 2015/16 and 1997/98.
There has been global cooling at 17,000 m during this period.
There has been no warming at 10,000 m during this period.
There has been some warming (but much less than surface) at 4,000 m during this period, but it shows the same pattern as the surface. There should be clear and obvious continual warming from CO2 at this level but there isn’t.
There is no positive feedback to any warming and no clear and obvious warming from CO2.
“There is no positive feedback to any warming and no clear and obvious warming from CO2.”
Only in your science denying imagination
I think Neil is right, Earth is cooling for 4,5 billion years now.
All planets do, even Mercury is cooling.
–
The changes in surface temperatures cannot stop, or reverse, the continuous cooling of the molten spheres.
–
And yes, there is not GHE on Earth’s surface. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin even to assume something like that. And the greenhouse gases are trace gases in an atmosphere which is already very thin.
–
Trace gases in a very thin atmosphere –
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Neil McLachlan wrote:
There is no positive feedback to any warming and no clear and obvious warming from CO2.
{eye roll}
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cumulativeemissions.jpg
From:
“The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions,” H. Damon Matthews et al, Nature v459, 11 June 2009, pp 829-832.
doi:10.1038/nature08047
“We find that the recent warming trend (1981–2017) is strongly correlated with TCR across CMIP6 models (R = 0.82)”
What that means is that approximately 64% of the variance of the dependent variable (temperature?) can be predicted or explained by the independent variable. I’d call that an obvious correlation, but I’d be hesitant to call it “strongly correlated.” Personally, I’d reserve “strongly” for an R value of at least 0.97.
However, considering that everything before about 2014 on Gavin’s plot is hindcast tuning, even an R of 0.99 wouldn’t tell us much about the skill of the CMIP6 models in forecasting, or the reliability of predicted future temperatures based on TCR derived from mostly historical temperatures.
Yes, correlations are misleading.
The only warming this century was 6 months in 2015/16, which model predicted that?
I never heard that false claim before
> The only warming this century was 6 months in 2015/16, which model predicted that?
Does that really make sense? As if the Earth’s climate system only gained net heat during those 6 months, and the rest of the last 22 years, the heat content stayed the exact same?
Absent some weird event where the Sun got a lot brighter during those 6 months… doesn’t that seem unphysical?
You confuse ENSO and Forcing! During an ElNino the Pacific ocean releases the heat he gained during LaNina(s). If it only would be the result of internal variability the GMST would go down inbetween those events. BUT: This is not observed. If it would go on and on the GMST would increase more and more. So it looks like a stepchenge albeit it’s the result of the Forcing.
I hate to spoil the party but it has been known for many decades that TCS resembles actual warming post-1975, especially when used with RCP 4.5 rather than RCP 8.5.
TCS with RCP 8.5 is in IPCC documents, BUT they ONLY publicize ECS with RCP 8.5, which has a warming rate roughly double of TCS with RCP 8.5.
The IPCC also lets people believe ECS is for the next 50 to 100 years, rather than the next 400 years. TCS is for the next 70 years.
None of this means much, however, because humans do not know enough about every cause of climate change to construct a correct climate model.
What we actually have are computer games that make wrong projections. Wrong projections are not science.
If a climate computer game happens to make a correct projection, that could only be a lucky guess.
In reality, climate computer games have never, and will NEVER, make correct projections, because their purpose is to scare people and defend the coming global warming crisis narrative.
they are NOT intended for accurate projections.
I find it comical that people think models are intended for accurate projections, especially after about 40 years of “refinements”, and 40 years of wrong projections. Also, the Russian INM model, which overpredicts global warming the least, gets pehaps 1% of the attention, when it deserves 99% of the attention.
Some people are very gullible, not realizing that climate computer games are actually climate propaganda to support the coming climat crisis narrative.,
Thanks for giving knowledge
Dr. Cliff Mass of the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department defends the accuracy and usefulness of the climate models in this recent post on his weather blog:
How can we predict the climate 50 years from now if we can’t forecast the weather next week?
My response to Dr. Mass’ opinion, posted on his blog as a comment to his article, goes like this:
——————-
Having spent part of my time in the nuclear industry assigned to software QA tasks, I’ve been watching with some interest the ongoing technical and scientific debates concerning the accuracy and reliability of the climate modeling codes.
A basic question about these modeling codes concerns their ability to reliably simulate the complex physics of the earth’s atmosphere over long timeframes ranging from ten years to one-hundred years.
Are the dynamic cores of these climate modeling codes actually capable of simulating the real-time operation of the earth’s atmosphere in the presence of ever-increasing concentrations of carbon GHGs?
Back in 2010 over on the WUWT blog, I asked this question: ‘Why do we need these modeling codes? Why do we need to make assumptions about how the atmospheric physics actually operate? Why do we need to parameterize these assumptions in various ways for use inside the modeling codes, as opposed to using direct dynamic simulation for each physical process?’
A larger question presents itself. Rather than relying on these complex codes, why don’t we just observe the real-time physical processes as they occur in the earth’s atmosphere and then draw our conclusions from those direct observations, ones being made in real time as the physical processes themselves are happening?
Said differently, the earth’s atmosphere itself as it exists in the real world might become the ‘computational computer’ which predicts where global mean temperature will be going over the next eighty years.
The response to my question was that it is not possible at the current state of science to directly observe the assumed physical processes as they might operate in real time inside of the earth’s atmosphere. Their presence, and the modes in which they operate, must be inferred from other kinds of observations and from other kinds of scientific analysis.
It has been demonstrated fairly conclusively by various authors posting on WUWT that the mainstream climate models, for all their massive internal complexity, do little more than transform the initial parameterized inputs into predictable temperature trend outputs — trend outputs which are fairly well correlated with the parameterized inputs.
If that is the case, then we might as well just assume a range of climate sensitivities to the presence of carbon GHGs and then use simple linear extrapolation methods based on each assumed sensitivity.
For one example, if we look at the ups and downs of the HadCrut4 global mean temperature data set since 1850; and if we assume that the variations in GMT trend patterns seen over the last 170 years will continue for another eighty years, then we might extrapolate the Year 2100 GMT anomaly as being simply 0.08 C per decade times 25 decades yielding a +2C rise in GMT over 1850 pre-industrial.
Or, for another example, we might assume that the greater concentration of carbon GHG’s seen more recently has increased the rate of GMT rise, and assume that the GMT trend pattern in HadCrut4 seen between the year 1980 and the year 2020 will continue for another eighty years. In this example, we extrapolate the Year 2100 GMT anomaly as being the sum of: a) the roughly +1C rise seen between 1850 and 2020; and b) +0.2 C per decade times 8 decades. Thus yielding a total rise by the Year 2100 of +2.6C over 1850 pre-industrial.
IMHO, the mostly likely outcome is a +2C rise in GMT over 1850 pre-industrial by the year 2100, occurring as a consequence of some combination of natural and anthropogenic climate change processes.
If the climate activists believe that even a +2C rise over pre-industrial is highly dangerous and must be prevented, the ball is in their court to produce a credible plan of action for just how it can be prevented. As it stands today, neither the Biden administration nor anyone else in the climate activist community has presented such a credible plan.
(End of comment)
———————————–
Like most universities in this country, the University of Washington is a hotbed of climate activism. Much of the activist attention at UW is focused on the alleged dangers of climate change; on the need to greatly reduce America’s and the world’s carbon emissions; and on a variety of proposed low carbon and zero carbon energy technologies.
However, as is the case with most all climate activists, most of those who inhabit the UW climate change culture have no clue as to how the nation’s transition into a Net Zero future can be achieved in actual practice.
In the next several weeks, I will suggest to Dr. Mass in a comment made to his blog that the UW academic staff and a research staff composed of interested UW students work with him as the assigned academic lead to create a credible plan of action for achieving President Biden’s climate policy targets — Net Zero for the US power sector by 2035, Net Zero for the entire US economy by 2050.
“… for all their massive internal complexity, do little more than transform the initial parameterized inputs into predictable temperature trend outputs — trend outputs which are fairly well correlated with the parameterized inputs.”
The model outputs capture the general upward trend of measurements. However, they do a poor job of fitting even the hindcast transient downturns, let alone the downturns during the forecast period. To me, this is suggestive of spurious correlation.
Yes, the climate model outputs do capture the general trend of the GMT measurements. At least some of the models do. This is the basis for claiming the models accurately simulate the assumed physical processes driving atmospheric warming in the presence of carbon GHGs.
As long as the 30-year running average of GMT continues its upward trend, however small that upward trend might be, the mainstream climate science community will claim that their models have been fully verified. Including those models which project a +3C, a +4C, or even a +5C increase in GMT by 2100 under ever-higher CO2 concentrations.
If one is primarily interested in the debate over energy policy, and how that public policy debate is being conducted, exposing the numerous technical and scientific issues with the climate models will not be one of the more influential factors in shaping the course of where the policy debate goes.
What will become most influential over the next decade in shaping the public debate concerning energy policy will be the growing cost of energy for the average Joe and Jane on Main Street, and the growing lack of adequate supplies of energy as the decade progresses.
Adding to Beta Blocker’s excellent comment:
it’s sad that weatherman Cliff Mass would shoot himself in the foot by defending climate models. He said climate models are “possible”. That statement is just speculation. He is speculating that the future climate will someday be predictable — predictions are the ultimate use of climate models. But that is not a fact — it is just speculation. We may someday find out that predicting the climate in 100 years is no more possible than predicting the rainfall in London one year from today. In fact, we may already know that.
The lack of detailed knowledge of the effect of EVERY climate variable does not allow the construction of a climate model for our planet. There are too many climate variables, interactions of those variables, and feedbacks. Any model used today is just a meaningless computer game. If it appears to be “right”, that’s just a lucky guess.
The model projections (predictions) have to support the coming climate crisis narrative, or they will be ignored, or not funded in the future. CAGW, aka “climate change”, is a political movement, not science. CAGW is a prediction, not reality. A prediction that has been wrong for 50 years in a row … so far. CAGW is imaginary — it has never existed in observations. IT’S A “FIG NEWTON” OF OVERACTIVE LEFTIST IMAGINATIONS !
The Russians apparently did not get that “political memo” for their INM model. It’s current ECS appears to be lower than the current IPCC”s wild guessed range (+2 .5 to +4 C.). That has never happened before CMIP6. For CMIP5, the INM model was just above the low end of the old ECS range (+1.5 C to +4.5 C).
The INM prediction was never scary enough to support the IPCC narrative, so it gets almost no attention, in spite of having the predictions closest to observations. Who does that? Ignoring the best model, I mean? Weather forecasters would never ignore their best model. Only in climate (junk) science does this happen!
The most important point that Cliff Mass missed, and this is shocking, is the consistent inaccuracy of climate predictions in the past century. Models are actually irrelevant — they predict whatever they are programed to predict, and they MUST support the CAGW narrative if they want continued funding. The prediction of the average model was DECIDED IN ADVANCE by political considerations. Originally from the 1979 Charney Report ECS, revised a few years ago by the IPCC. I doubt if Cliff Mass got the message: The predictions for the average model are decided in advance!
Based on the model’s sorry track record, it’s obvious the knowledge to construct a useful climate model does not exist. To claim such a model is “possible”, as Cliff Mass does, is meaningless. Lots of things are possible. It’s possible that aliens will land in Washington DC and demand to meet with our President too. (Doing so would be quite a shock — they’s probably never come back to Earth!).
Cliff Mass missed many points:
(1) Climate models do not predict “The climate”.
At best, if they worked, they would predict the global average temperature, which is far from being “The climate”. No one lives in the global average temperature. Not one person. We live and work in local climates, and could be affected by changes to our local climates. Unfortunately, such changes are not predictable.
(2) Article title: “How can we predict the climate 50 years from now if we can’t forecast the weather next week?”
That is a strawman argument conflating two different subjects. The right question is: “How can we predict the climate 50 years from now if we can’t predict the climate NEXT YEAR?”
(3) Mass claims: Such projections are only as good as our estimate of the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 50 or 100 years. ”
That Cliff Mass statement falsely assumes greenhouse gases are the ONLY climate change variable. I have nine climate change variables on my personal list, including unknown variables and unknown interactions among two or more variables.
CONCLUSION: These are among the reasons I never read the Cliff Mass blog. He is a weatherman, not a climate scientist, but apparently doesn’t know that.
If I want to read a climate scientist, there is Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and for energy the Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler) is an expert.
I don’t claim to be a climate science or energy expert — my only claim to fame is knowing who to believe.
Richard, in addition to living in the US Northwest, the reason I post commentary on the Cliff Mass weather blog is that he is one of the few members of the mainstream climate science community who will allow, and even encourage, contrarian but well-reasoned opinions to be presented and discussed.
Furthermore, he is a champion of academic freedom and is constantly under attack for not hewing to the dictatorial woke agendas of many of his UW academic colleagues.
In my own mind at least, Dr. Cliff Mass is the best candidate we have in the US Northwest for managing the difficult task of brokering an honest public policy discussion concerning the realities of achieving a Net Zero for the region, and for all of America as well.
Would he take on that kind of assignment if asked? I don’t know. But there’s no harm in asking, is there?
In an earlier comment I wrote:
“I hate to spoil the party, but it has been known for many decades that TCS resembles actual warming post-1975, especially when used with RCP 4.5 rather than RCP 8.5.”
Reconsidering:
The author picked a very important subject that gets far too little coverage.
This subject was covered, for devious purposes, by Zeke H. who wrote an article a few years ago claiming climate models were accurate. Climate Howlers quote that article like trained parrots.
Zeke H. merely used the existing models for TCS with RCP 4.5, rather than the usual ECS with RCP 8.5. The results were similar to the 1975 to 2020 warming rate (not based on UAH, of course), so he declared the models to be accurate … based on assumption changes to create a false illusion of accuracy.
I read at least one dozen climate science and energy articles every day of the year. I just realized that almost no one writes about TCS in 70 years. The debate seems to be only over ECS in 200 to 400 years,
Any examination of the climate that starts in 1979 or 1981 or before the year 2000 is flawed because of the massive uncertainty of SO2. And it doesn’t matter if one uses climate models or observational data. It is the elephant, the massive elephant in the room. But the good news is, is that in SO2 uncertainty lies the answer to climate madness.
I assume SO2 would be cooling, as is widely believed, so if that SO2 wasn’t there, it would have been warmer. This means any trend derived from temperature data would too high. So, the warming due to CO2 is even less than calculated from empirical data.
Correct, SO2 peaked in the late 1970s early 1980s at levels in the Northern Hemisphere equivalent to about 6 annual Mt. Pinatubo eruptions. Since this time European and North American countries massively decreased SO2. So starting a temperature trend in the late 1970s is ideal for climate opportunists, but also not based in reality. A 30 year temperature record from 2010-2040 will tell a completely different story. Time will tell, but I am not at all concerned about CO2 or other GHGs having any impact on the climate. SO2 cooling was real. It is ignored, and now virtually negligible relative to 40 years ago. And that unfortunately is giving the climate crowd a ripe opportunity. But it will fizzle out!
jim2: The (indeed nagative) forcing from aerosols ( also SO2) is considered in the ERF data which are used to actuade climate models. Therefore the difference in the trend slopes of the GMST tell the story of a lower TCR in obs. vs. Models.
Isn’t interesting that circa 2013 when the IPCC started using the ERF they were able to get the same results as the prior reports using RF? Suddenly aerosols, water vapor, and a whole host of climate drivers that were not accounted could be explained through the magic box of ERF. While at the same time qualifying their results with high uncertainty with aerosols, cloud cover, water vapor. Forked tongue come to mind? Folks, our sun drives our global energy flux. It’s strength causes dynamic fluxes with natural processes that in of themselves have more day-day, week-week, uncertainty than the tiny, tiny amount GHGs. But the IPCC doesn’t have to deal with the dynamic flux of the sun, because they gave themselves a rule that us humans are the only perturbation on the climate. First In the eyes of the IPCC,natural processes are static, then they saved their bacon with the ERF. And back to playing in the sandbox and pretend the catastrophic calamity is on its way. At the top they are misanthropes, with legions of minions that accept the junk. And they need to be called out, because it is affecting our kids.
SO2 en missions were rising rapidly from 1975 to 1980, which should cause global cooling. But we actually had global warming since 1975. Did the SO2 aerosols suddenly fall out of the sky in 1975, allowing a 1940 to 1975 global cooling trend to reverse toa 1975 to 2015 global warming trend? I don’t think so.
Explain that.
SO2 emissions were falling in the past 8 years, which should cause global warming, but the UAH temperature trend was flat in the past 8 years.
Explain that.
There are other examples after 1980 of the global average temperature falling, or being steady, when SO2 emissions are falling, which should have caused global warming.
The poor correlation of SO2 levels and the global average temperature proves SO2 is just one of many climate change variables. Definitely not a “climate control knob”.
James Dukett wrote:
Any examination of the climate that starts in 1979 or 1981 or before the year 2000 is flawed because of the massive uncertainty of SO2.
How much uncertainty?
Show the data.
What does it help, if you still assume the warming was because of CO2? “Global warming” is a thing of the north, and there is a reason for it. It is a secret hidden in plain sight..
IPCC:
“The potential effects of contrails on global climate were simulated with a GCM that introduced additional cirrus cover with the same optical properties as natural cirrus in air traffic regions with large fuel consumption (Ponater et al., 1996). The induced temperature change was more than 1 K at the Earth’s surface in Northern mid-latitudes for 5% additional cirrus cloud cover in the main traffic regions.”
NASA:
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.:”
It’s aviation induced cirrus, stupid!
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with
GISS and other data sets are measurements of atmospheric temperature. GISS is the only data set that shows any warming in the atmosphere between 1998 and 2015. UAH data set showed cooling through this period and the other data sets where flat.
Since 2016 there has been no net warming in these data sets.
These data sets are measurements of atmospheric temperature.
Greenhouse warming occurs in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation and then colliding with non-greenhouse gases and transferring the energy from the greenhouse gases to the non-greenhouse gases.
Continually increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should show at continual warming of the atmosphere.
As far as the atmosphere temperature warming observations are concerned there at only warming events not “warming”.
There was no warming in the atmosphere between 1998 and 2015. There has been no warming of the atmosphere since 2016.
There will not be any more warming of the atmosphere until another warming event occurs.
Will it be another 17 years before another warming event or longer or not at all?
1998 and 2015 are years with unusually large EL Nino Pacific Ocean heat releases. Those years should not be used as starting and ending points for a data mined short term trend line. El Ninos are not caused by greenhouse gases.
“Continually increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should show at continual warming of the atmosphere.”
NOT TRUE.
CO2 is one of many climate change variables. Climate change is the net effect of ALL climate change variables. Therefore, the global average temperature trend often does not correlate in the expected way with the CO2 level trend. Examples include 1940 to 1975 global cooling as CO2 levels rose, and the past eight years with a flat temperature trend, as CO2 rose rapidly.
thecliffclavenoffinance wrote:
CO2 is one of many climate change variables. Climate change is the net effect of ALL climate change variables. Therefore, the global average temperature trend often does not correlate in the expected way with the CO2 level trend. Examples include 1940 to 1975 global cooling as CO2 levels rose, and the past eight years with a flat temperature trend, as CO2 rose rapidly.
CO2 isn’t the only influence on climate. When are you going to learn that?
In these cases, aerosols and back-to-back-to-back La Ninas play significant roles.
The +2 degree C. “limit” is non-science claptrap pulled out of a hat, or from two feet below the back of a hat. Same for the +1.5 degree limit that was already reached twice. temporarily. during strong El Nino heat releases in April 1998 and February 2016.
When we hit +1.5. millions of people died from the heat — dropping like flies — it was in all the newspapers!
All predictions of the future climate have been wrong for at least one century. Flipping a coin would have been more accurate. The predictions and alleged +1.5 and +2.0 tipping points are complete nonsense. Leftist propaganda to scare people into demanding that their governments “do something”.
But Predictions is another square, Dave.
You should not tell porkies like that all the time. It is not helping troglodytes, and imagine if we paid due diligence to it, e.g.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
Cheers.
Willard wrote:
But Predictions is another square, Dave.
It is impossible to do predictions of the future in climate science — I explained why above.
You of all people should understand that.
Please do not force me to choose between a PhD dropout turned journalist dropout and the IPCC, David:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-1992-the-supplementary-report-to-the-ipcc-impacts-assessment/task-a-prediction-of-the-regional-distribution-of-climate-change-and-associated-impact-studies-including-model-validation-studies/
“dropout” LOL. I see you’re another one jealous of advanced degrees.
I can always tell when I’m hitting the mark here because people start making personal attacks.
BTW, read the document you linked to. From that document:
“Uncertainties in the predictions of climate change, particularly those concerning timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, are associated with imperfect knowledge of
– Future rates of man-made emissions
– How these change the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
– The response of climate to these changed concentrations.”
That is, they’re saying predictions aren’t possible in climate science.
Everyone knows and understands this.
Yes, David. Everything confirms your biases. Which of course proves you are a genius:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/narrowing-the-uncertainties-a-scientific-action-plan-for-improved-prediction-of-global-climate-change/
Keep denying the obvious while pretending you are winning right now.
thecliffclavenoffinance wrote:
All predictions of the future climate have been wrong for at least one century.
Please be careful you don’t read any science. It might rearrange your carefully constructed denial.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
– “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
– figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
David Appell | December 14, 2022 at 9:28 pm | Reply
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
they found 14 projections out of a few hundred ? Why did they add the extra 3 ? So that they could show that they werent 14 out of 14?
Instead of 14 out of 100 or so?
Willard wrote:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/narrowing-the-uncertainties-a-scientific-action-plan-for-improved-prediction-of-global-climate-change/
Keep denying the obvious while pretending you are winning right now.
You keep quoting the AR1. You know that was published in 1990, 32 years ago, right? Modern climate science was in its infancy. It has evolved a great deal since then and people now recognize the difference between “predictions” and “projections.”
Try to get into the 21st century, Willard.
Try to keep up.
Yes, a global cooling trend that reversed to a warming. SO2 has been falling since the late 1970s, albeit it picked up steam in the last 15 years. Yes, and why not a SO2 control knob. It makes far more sense than CO2. Just look at Arctic and Antarctic Sea ice extent. SO2 concentrations were elevated in the Arctic until the controls started and the SO2 and sea ice extent trend reveals the relationship since 1979. SO2 was never elevated in the Antarctic, because of residence time and there is no trend in sea ice extent. According to the climate alarmists CO2 has 100 plus year of residence time it mixes all across the globe, and on and on with the nonsense. But the Antarctic fails to conform to IPCC models and yet nobody talks about this. Yes, this is a smoking gun and yes, why not, SO2 for the control knob. Time will tell.
Greenhouse gas warming should affect the cold, dry Arctic much more than it affects the warm, humid tropics
Greenhouse gases should NOT affect Antarctica in the same way,
because Antarctica has a temperature inversion, so greenhouse gases cause global cooling there.
“The persistent temperature inversion causes high-altitude greenhouse gases to actually emit more heat to space than they trap, Sejas says. Recent studies identified this negative greenhouse gas effect over Antarctica, but those analyses typically looked at the effect only in terms of CO2”
SOURCE:
https://www.science.org/content/article/greenhouse-gases-are-warming-world-chilling-antarctica-here-s-why#:~:text=The%20persistent%20temperature%20inversion%20causes,of%20CO2%2C%20Sejas%20notes.
Don’t mind what the “models” say.
They start with the conclusion of rapid dangerous manmade global warming (CAGW). Funding would stop if they predicted something else. They are just computer games used for climate scaremongering propaganda. They predict what they are programmed to predict. And that is what government bureaucrat scientists are paid to predict. Climate computer games are politics, not science.
Yes, they needed to fix that not conforming Antarctic, since in 2014 the truth was starting to peak… “It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”
SOURCE: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming
Garbage in…garbage out
thecliffclavenoffinance wrote:
Greenhouse gas warming should affect the cold, dry Arctic much more than it affects the warm, humid tropics
Why?
The Cliff Claven of finance wrote:
𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘥𝘳𝘺 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮, 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘴
David Appell wrote:
𝘞𝘩𝘺?
Because most of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor as everybody knows. 90-something percent depending on whom you ask. There is very little water vapor at the poles, so CO2 has a more-pronounced effect there, and there is such a huge amount of water vapor in the tropics that CO2 doesn’t do much. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know this, because you really don’t know much at all.
Morgan Wright wrote:
Because most of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor as everybody knows. 90-something percent depending on whom you ask. There is very little water vapor at the poles, so CO2 has a more-pronounced effect there, and there is such a huge amount of water vapor in the tropics that CO2 doesn’t do much. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know this, because you really don’t know much at all.
Who says 90-something percent?
Less water vapor means a lower greenhouse effect. Less warming, not more.
“The greenhouse warming effect resulting from water vapour is one of the chief causes of the observed global temperature rise. But the surface of the Arctic would be cooled if the water vapour concentration was reduced.”
from “Arctic ‘greenhouse effect’”
Jean-Pierre Blanchet & Eric Girard
Nature volume 371, page 383 (1994)
https://www.nature.com/articles/371383a0
Morgan Wright wrote:
𝐵𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑠. 90-𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑚 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑠𝑘. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠, 𝑠𝑜 𝐶𝑂2 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒-𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎 ℎ𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐶𝑂2 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑑𝑜 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ. 𝐼𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠, 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙.
David Appell wrote:
𝑊ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑠 90-𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡?
𝐿𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡. 𝐿𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒.
“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒. 𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑.”
𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 “𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐 ‘𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡’”
𝐽𝑒𝑎𝑛-𝑃𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒 𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑡 & 𝐸𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝐺𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑑
Everybody says 90 something, for the whole earth in general. The reasons are obvious, there is 50 times as much water vapor as there is CO2. Compare 2%, which is 20,000 ppm, to 400 ppm. But at the poles, there is very little water vapor, so an increase in CO2 would have a much more pronounced effect there.
OF COURSE there is a lower greenhouse effect at the poles, that’s why it’s cold there. You aren’t the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree are you?
Morgan Wright wrote:
Everybody says 90 something, for the whole earth in general. The reasons are obvious, there is 50 times as much water vapor as there is CO2. Compare 2%, which is 20,000 ppm, to 400 ppm.
Sorry, that’s not how physics works. LOL. It depends on the absorption of each molecule. The Einstein A and B coefficients. You can look it all up on the HITRAN database.
Maybe then you can do a real calculation, but with reasoning like the above I highly doubt you are capable.
50 years of warming and all of it is transient? Must not be any significant warming from CO2 after the transient stage or some of that would have to be warming to equilibrium. If some of it is warming to equilibrium, then the transient warming is even less. The bottom line is even if you assume all the warming was from CO2 you still get a less than worrisome amount of warming.
Your conclusion is correct
Think of the IPCC’s ECS in 200 to 400 years as being the IPCC 70 year TCS x2. With the x2 caused by that pesky, imaginary huge water vapor positive feedback, that exists only in predictions, not in observations. Of course the IPCC prefers the unreasonably fast RCP 8.5 CO2 growth rate scenario — better to scare people with.
Because our planet is never in thermodynamic equilibrium, the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) concept never made sense to me.
thecliffclavenoffinance wrote:
Think of the IPCC’s ECS in 200 to 400 years as being the IPCC 70 year TCS x2. With the x2 caused by that pesky, imaginary huge water vapor positive feedback, that exists only in predictions, not in observations.
So you think water vapor isn’t a greenhouse gas.
Ren.
what does this mean?
December 8th, 2022:
10,970,478 km2, a two century break increase of 269,910 km2.
And with GISStemp being heavily modified to show warming, where there is none, we can conclude there’s even less of a problem.
Adam Gallon wrote:
And with GISStemp being heavily modified to show warming, where there is none, we can conclude there’s even less of a problem.
GISS data is “homogenized” not “modified.”
This required to measure real temperatures, not changes that are solely the result of station changes.
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done,” Scott K. Johnson @SJOnEarth, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding adjustments to temperature data,” Zeke Hausfather
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
“Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data,” Robert Rohde, Zeke Hausfather, Steve Mosher
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
Pingback: Transient Climate Response from Observations 1979-2022 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climate transient response from observations 1979-2022 – What can be done about that? - News7g
Pingback: Transient Climate Response from Observations 1979-2022 – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Let’s get real. CO2 pre-industrial was around 300 ppm, currently, it is about 400 ppm, which means that at best man has contributed 100 ppm over the past 300 years, What does that mean? Man has added 1 molecule out of 10,000, and that molecule vibrates with the energy of a -80 C Blackbody when activated by 15-micron LWIR. Does anyone actually believe that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 9,999. Newsflash, that is a joke, and the greatest scientific fraud in world history. There is a reason COVID economic shutdown didn’t impact the trend in atmospheric CO2. Real scientists need to speak, silence is complicity.
co2islife | December 9, 2022 at 10:51 am | Reply
“Let’s get real.
CO2 pre-industrial was around 300 ppm, currently, it is about 400 ppm.
Man has added 1 molecule out of 10,000, and that molecule vibrates with the energy of a -80 C Blackbody when activated by 15-micron LWIR.
Does anyone actually believe that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 9,999.?”
Yes.
Yes. Yes.
Worse, you know it does.
Yet you have to resort to claims like this to support your belief that CO2 has no GHG effect.
You are right to be a skeptic.
Just you have nailed your skepticism to the wrong reasons.
“Does anyone actually believe that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 9,999.?”
Newsflash, that is not a joke.
You forget to mention that the CO2 atoms, and the much greater H2O atoms, are activated millions or more times a second and that some of that energy is translated millions of times to other atoms and that that energy is accumulative.
15-micron LWIR is what goes out eventually at the TOA.
Has to .
That is how the earth loses heat.
You know that as well.
In the smaller surface constrains at the earth’s surface, that energy is represented by the transferred movement to other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere magnified by the millions of times per second [or a lot more].
15-micron LWIR is not a lot.
15-micron LWIR x1.000.000 or more is a lot and is why the air is warm at the surface.
Give it a rest or acknowledge science is life.
“Yet you have to resort to claims like this to support your belief that CO2 has no GHG effect.”
I never even came close to making that statement. My very point is that CO2 absorbs and thermalizes 15-micron LWIR. My very point is that the Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 molecule is to put a temperature floor in the atmosphere, not warm it. Simply look where the Stratosphere temperature floor is, it is between -60 and 80 Degrees. Why? Because that is the temperature of CO2 when 15-microns activates it. You should learn the basics.
https://www.weather.gov/images/jetstream/atmos/atmprofile.jpg
co2islife wrote:
Simply look where the Stratosphere temperature floor is, it is between -60 and 80 Degrees. Why? Because that is the temperature of CO2
No it isn’t. Photons of a certain wavelength don’t have a temperature. But they do if they are blackbody radiation, which consists of all possible wavelengths. The average temperature of CO2 is the same as the atmosphere, proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
A CO2 emission line, i.e. photons of a particular wavelength, doesn’t have a temperature. The temperature of atmospheric CO2 is the temperature of air.
co2islife wrote:
Let’s get real. CO2 pre-industrial was around 300 ppm, currently, it is about 400 ppm, which means that at best man has contributed 100 ppm over the past 300 years, What does that mean? Man has added 1 molecule out of 10,000, and that molecule vibrates with the energy of a -80 C Blackbody when activated by 15-micron LWIR. Does anyone actually believe that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 9,999. Newsflash, that is a joke, and the greatest scientific fraud in world history
LOL {double eye roll}
Study physics. Learn.
BTW, without the preindustrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere the average surface temperature of Earth would be below freezing and much of it covered in ice. Life as we know it would be impossible.
BTW, small concentrations can often have large consequences. In the ozone layer of Earth’s atmosphere, ozone’s concentration is less than 10 ppm. Maximum.
But without it we’d all be dead and would never have evolved.
Dear Physicist: regarding ozone, why do we tan much faster in mountains than at sea level?
Pingback: Transient Local weather Response from Observations 1979-2022 – Watts Up With That? - news page
Frank Bosse, I thank you for updating the TCR from observations relationship. I realize that your intent was to duplicate your update based on what had been published previously, but the questions remaining in this method are 1) any effects from multidecadal temperature variations, 2) the use of OLS versus TLS regression, 3) using alternative measures of GMST , like HadCRUT5 and/or the Cowtan-Way infilled version and the assurance that the aerosol forcing trend is very near constant over the period in the temperature series.
A few years back I did my own analysis of TCR using observations (GMST) from the various datasets, both OLS and TLS regression and CEEMDAN in R in an attempt to account for multidecadal temperature variations. My derived TCR value depended mainly on whether I used OLS or TLS regression with TLS giving a lower value of TCR of 1.35. Ross McKitrick on another climate topic pointed to some biases that can occur using either OLS or TLS here at Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/05/31/biases-in-climate-fingerprinting-methods%ef%bf%bc/
I thought that perhaps TLS might be better applied in the TCR from observations case but could not confirm this from theoretical considerations.
The aerosol forcing trend appears to be rather flat in the period of the temperature series I was working with, and I did not attempt at that time to adjust for it.
You have reminded me with your post to go back and update my analysis.
Ken Fritsch
the questions remaining in this method are
1) any effects from multidecadal temperature variations,
I note a large dip in Climate models and observations just after 1990.
I ask myself how can this be?
Did Climate models really predict the dip then?
Silly question .
They are back fitted to match observations before the models and then are forced to go upwards away from observations due to the inbuilt CIO2 forcing algorithms with high Climate Sensitivity.
I do not see how multidecadal temperature variations which are seen in both models and observations could have any effect on the method that produced them.
There are really only the last 7 years to focus on.
2) the use of OLS versus TLS regression, ??
3) using alternative measures of GMST, like HadCRUT5 and/or the Cowtan-Way infilled version.
Cowtan-Way using Kriging in the past infilled virtually every square with algorithms and assumptions including the same high CO2 induced Climate sensitivity assumptions.
Only useful as another failed climate model.
Ditto the others.
They all fit into a circular loop supporting each other and continually adjusted downwards in the past to this very day.
So no.
Good questions.
I hope the author answers them.
and the assurance that the aerosol forcing trend is very near constant over the period in the temperature series.
Thanks Ken for your thoughtful comment which I read a little bit late due to “afk” due to a journey.
re: (multi)decadal temperature variations from internal variability: of course this is always a “hidden issue” and as longer the time window as smaller it’s influence. In the window 1979 to 2022 it’s AFAIK mostly the AMO which is in suspect, undergone a +swing in the late 90s. However, it’s allowance would further reduce the sensitivtiy, therefore the conclusion would hold also: no catastrophical outcome due to the anthropogenic forcing if we remain within a scenario of 4.5 ( up to 5) W/m² which is very likely. .
re TLS ( or “Deming”) regression vs. OLS: I tested this issue and the slopes are identical for TLS ( 0.023 vs. 0.019 K/a) therefore I used OLS because the majority of the audience will be able to replicate this value easier than TLS.
Glad to reminded you updating your analysis… :-)
Are the weather ducks lining up in a row?
2022 is obviously not a year to warm one’s hearts.
60 years being the extent of most human memory or two units of climate change in the human perspective is not very much.
Two years a long time in a climate blog.
I may will have to eat these words in 2 years, Willard will no doubt oblige.
But if trends begin to accelerate downwards, and the world energy crisis worsens we may well regret the spin put on science in the misguided belief that the end justifies the means.
angech:
“Mass is mass and energy is energy.
Mass cannot store energy and energy cannot be stored in mass.
Mass can be motionless and energy moves at the speed of light
Mass can react to the presence of energy and Energy can react to mass.”
–
“You forget to mention that the CO2 atoms, and the much greater H2O atoms, are activated millions or more times a second and that some of that energy is translated millions of times to other atoms and that that energy is accumulative.”
–
angech, “mass cannot store energy and energy cannot be stored in mass.”
or
“energy is accumulative”?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I will give you the answer this way.
Mass in the form of particles at rest and energy in the form of Electro Magnetic Radiation which is always moving at the speed of light have been shown to have a complex relationship,
E=MC2[plus spatial and time vectors].
–
We are not pure mass or pure energy.
–
We observe with the limited senses we have a world in which the two operate together and build up a picture of what we think is the real world.
–
Take a disc of iron 100 cm diameter on its own 1 mm thick and tell me where the energy is in it at absolute zero.
The answer is none.
Take a photon of red light and tell me what its mass is traveling through space.
The answer is none
Hit the disc with the ray and tell me where the accumulated energy is.
The answer is there is no accumulated energy.
As soon as it interacts it is emitted living the mass pristine.
It wont come back.
Whether there is one or a billion particles present this basic rule of physics does not change.
When we talk about activated molecules accumulating energy this is not the energy of EM radiation, it is the phenomenon of matter altering the time and space environment between and around each particle or molecule.
The appearance of rotation and acceleration and collision of mass particles is set in concrete by the rules of physics.
This is needed for the EM to emit and transmit and reflect as it does without stopping ever.
It is much easier to talk at the lay level with people who insist on molecules as accumulating energy.
As being little solar systems with orbiting electrons.
Like gravity, what you see and feel is a perception.
“mass cannot store energy and energy cannot be stored in mass.”
The energy described in “energy is accumulative” is another way of saying mass distribution in a space involves changed positioning of mass particles in respect to each other in the presence of a change in the energy level of the space time continuum as EM passes through it.
angech wrote:
Energy of mass is something that can only be described when you have more than one mass present together.
No.
For example, the kinetic energy of an electron. Or its potential energy.
Also, E=mc2.
Energy of mass is something that can only be described when you have more than one mass present together.
It is not an EM energy.
A disc cannot have have any energy per se.
An observer would see no movement.
Well would not even see the disc as it is not emitting EM it is invisible.
When we heat a house in winter, it keeps warm for some time after turning the heater off.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
When we heat a house in winter, it keeps warm for some time after turning the heater off.
When we pour hot tea int a tea pot it keeps warm for some time afterward.
The question you are asking is is energy retained in the house or the teacup.
Correct?
Because you see and feel the house and the cup are warm you say they have retained heat, correct
The problem is that you only consider the heat of the house and the teacup as something the house and teacup have, otherwise called stored or retained energy which is releasable over time.
Correct?
Physics is both complex in the parameters that need to be considered, and simple in the way that the principles are applied.
Neither the house or the cup of tea exist as isolated physical objects with heat stored in them.
They both exist on the surface of a planet heated by the planet, the atmosphere, the sun and whatever local heating source you choose.
You choose to see the cup as having stored the energy and slowly releasing it over time as it cools down.
We all do.
But….
This is wrong.
Think it over
Ok.
Take a cup of tea in empty space at zero Kelvin.
No reference point.
Put energy into it, enough to heat it up to the same amount of energy in the cup on earth.
In one zap.
Energy in, no storage, energy out and gone in the speed of light
Zero Kelvin cup of frozen tea.
Now take your cup of tea on earth.
Liquid at 90C, is that 363K?
Cup at same temperature? Make it a metal cup.
All the energy that went into that liquid from the kettle coil has left that water at the speed of light.
Coming into it at the speed of light however are the infrared waves from the metal cup and from the saucer and table the air and the walls and everything in that room.
Back radiation it is called.
Can colder objects heat up warmer objects?
No.
But the air directly around the cup (or your house) is not immune. It is receiving energy both from its surrounds and the cup (or house)
This is not the same energy that went into making the tea hot.
It is the energy of all the things on earth escaping to space through the mass in the way.
The tea in the teacup appears to. Stay warm to. You because it is in a zone of increased incoming radiation, not because it has stored energy in it that it is releasing.
The molecules are not moving because they contain energy.
Rather they are taking up the positions determined by the interplay of the ‘Em fields passing through them and the dictates of where they need to be in time and space due to all the different time and space changes that occur in small particles moving already at tremendous speeds.
The particles of the house cannot retain or store energy.
The heat you claim is coming from the house is extra heat going anew into the house from its surrounds.
THANK YOU, angech!!!
I agree with everything you said.
Thank you again!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech wrote:
Now take your cup of tea on earth.
Liquid at 90C, is that 363K?
Cup at same temperature? Make it a metal cup.
All the energy that went into that liquid from the kettle coil has left that water at the speed of light.
Only the infrared photonic energy (and then less than c, the speed of light in vacuum, since the index of refraction of air > 1).
Conduction and convection happen << c
David,
EM does not travel through something called air.
It travels through space.
There is no air between molecules.
Your point is that EM seems to travel more slowly through space that also contains matter.
Thank you.
Both being pedants I appreciate your comments more than most.
I hope this explains the difference is an observational problem
Einstein,elevators,clocks and trains.
Scientifically we know that the speed of light is not changeable.
The presence of mass alters the time and position of other masses around it.
Including or perhaps only for observers.
The observer measures a slower passage of light due to the time dilatory property of nearby matter.
In the world of physics there is no change in the speed of the EM .
In the physical world we measure a change which in reality does not exist.
Like gravity is real in the physical world and non differentiable from acceleration in the world of physics.
Conduction and convection do not cause heat to move around .
They are the end results of the movement of energy through the spaces between matter, not the cause.
Anything you think you see happened has already happened.
So when you measure the temperature of a cup of tea the tea no longer has that temperature.
It is colder by exactly the amount of energy you are measuring,. After all it has already left the cup of tea so the tea must be that amount of energy colder..
Tough business proper physics
“Because you see and feel the house and the cup are warm you say they have retained heat, correct”
–
Something happens, though, we do not freeze to death at nights, when there is not solar incoming energy. Some amount of energy does get retained, for a while…
angech wrote:
The observer measures a slower passage of light due to the time dilatory property of nearby matter.
In the world of physics there is no change in the speed of the EM .
In the world of physics, speed is defined at delta(X)/delta(t). So yes, the speed of light does slow down when it passes through matter. We don’t measure it by the speed between one molecule and another — it’s measured between any point in space and another. Light’s speed is < c when passing through a macroscopically meaningful body.
angech wrote:
Conduction and convection do not cause heat to move around .
Conduction and convection literally *are* the movement of energy. That movement is less than the speed of light, contrary to what you wrote earlier:
All the energy that went into that liquid from the kettle coil has left that water at the speed of light.
CV
All the energy you do not see.
What keeps the night side of the world from crashing to 100K at night?
Not retained heat
The energy coming in from the sun over half the world has to leave from the TOA all over the world.
Every second the TOA all over the world puts out the same amount of energy which equals the extra energy coming in that second from the sun on the sunlit side of the world .
In a world with no atmosphere the TOA is simply the surface of the planet.
The energy going out follows a straight path back out.
With an atmosphere the path back out at the speed of light goes sideways as well as up from the surface as well as sideways ,up and down at the upper levels.
The warm half of the world provides energy to keep the dark side from freezing rapidly at night because of the paths that energy has to travel both in and out through any atmosphere.
angech:
“The warm half of the world provides energy to keep the dark side from freezing rapidly at night because of the paths that energy has to travel both in and out through any atmosphere.”
–
Does not explain why the polar regions are so much colder.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
Does not explain why the polar regions are so much colder.
–
You are confusing where the incoming energy goes to (why poles are colder)
With where the out going energy goes to on its way out.
Here is real data.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6395fb0472960.png
This is actual “measured” Downwelling IR from the thin atmosphere.
–
From the graph in the link there is “measured” about 300 W/m2 IR downward radiation at night.
–
Also the 255K refers to the 240 W/m2 outgoing IR radiation to outer space. And at night too.-
Thus we shall have at night from atmosphere:
300 + 240 = 540 W/m2
–
It is impossible!
–
Our atmosphere is invisible, but we cannot do without it.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David Appell angech wrote:
The observer measures a slower passage of light due to the time dilatory property of nearby matter.
In the world of physics there is no change in the speed of the EM .
–
“In the world of physics, speed is defined at delta(X)/delta(t). So yes, the speed of light does slow down when it passes through matter. We don’t measure it by the speed between one molecule and another — it’s measured between any point in space and another. Light’s speed is < c when passing through a macroscopically meaningful body.”
–
David there is a world of physics where the laws of physics apply.
There is a physical world we live in where apparently impossible things happen.
Examples are gravity which we feel and are subject too but is merely acceleration in a physical frame of reference.
Ditto planets revolving around a sun with no apparent real force acting on them.
Light travels at a universal constant speed in a vacuum.
There is a vacuum between all points not occupied by a mass.
Hence light must travel at the speed of light no matter what points it is travelling between.
Light does not travel through matter it goes around it as a wave.
Matter is not solid. It consists of point masses in largely empty space, AKA as a vacuum.
–
Now as to each of your points in turn.
Speed is defined as distance over time.
Distance is a 4 dimensional measure between two points in 3 dimensional space modified by time which is an elastic quantity depending for an observer only on how much mass is present in the vicinity.
The only constant about time is no matter what the distance the speed of light is constant over that distance.
It does not slow down.
It does not slow down when passing through a space with matter (mass) in the vicinity.
It cannot slow down.
You state it is measured between any point rrelin space and another and then say the opposite. Molecules are at points in space.
Light does not slow down to <C when passing through a microscopically meaningful body, it only appears to slow down to the observer measuring it in their time frame.
As Einstein showed this is irrelevant to the true speed of ligh5 in the medium.
Hope this helps and is right.
angech wrote:
David there is a world of physics where the laws of physics apply.
There is a physical world we live in where apparently impossible things happen.
No there is not.
You have badly misunderstood the Principle of Equivalence if you think that gravity is just acceleration.
Your physics is consistently bad and you should stop commenting here.
There are literally hundreds of locations that show no warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Until you can explain why CO2 didn’t warm these locations you can’t blame CO2 for warming other locations. At least that is how it works in real science.
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
co2islife wrote:
There are literally hundreds of locations that show no warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Until you can explain why CO2 didn’t warm these locations you can’t blame CO2 for warming other locations. At least that is how it works in real science.
“The surprising reasons parts of Earth are warming more slowly,” Washington Post, 12/14/22.
https://wapo.st/3YksZ45
By predicting when the solar wind will strengthen again and drive a colder AMO and increase low cloud cover, one can predict the lifespan of the models.
Ulric Lyons (fake name) wrote:
By predicting when the solar wind will strengthen again and drive a colder AMO and increase low cloud cover, one can predict the lifespan of the models.
Why?
Show your analysis that comes to this conclusion.
CO2 is life wrote:
There are literally hundreds of locations that show no warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Until you can explain why CO2 didn’t warm these locations you can’t blame CO2 for warming other locations. At least that is how it works in real science.
No it isn’t. Local climate change (and you’re talking about a station here, which measures about 1 cc of air) depends on much more than local CO2, just as weather varies from place to place — local geography especially. Random fluctuations (just as the local temperature of any gas varies from point to point, and isn’t a constant). And more. You’re not thinking correctly.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #532 – Watts Up With That?
Figure 2 shows and upwards offset a few years after the Mt Pinatubo dip. Looking at TLS shows us a corresponding, persistent drop in the stratosphere on the same time scale.
https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/tls-2022-1.png
That warming step was caused by Mt. P destroying ozone and letting more solar energy into the lower climate system. No climate scientists are aware of this and NONE of the models reproduce this feature of the climate record.
It is all averaged, trended and blended into being attributable to AGW.
“No climate scientists are aware of this …” This should alarm YOU!
David, what I think Climategrog meant was that no climate scientist are aware that the ozone depletion would let in more solar radiation and thus warming the lower atmosphere. Check that one out.
Climate models use volcanic eruptions in hindcasts show more dip in global temperature response compared to real life observation. This could be an effect of the warming the lower atm he is talking about. Or, it could be that climate scientists model aerosols too much cooling power. So if the ozone depletion really does cause warming then the aerosols cool more, CO2 warms more and the IPCC has to lie a less. But its all just simple physics (sarc).
climategrog wrote:
That warming step was caused by Mt. P destroying ozone and letting more solar energy into the lower climate system. No climate scientists are aware of this
LOL. In 10 seconds of looking on Google Scholar I see at least 6 scientific papers on ozone depletion from Pinatubo:
https://t.ly/Axm3
Aerosols blocked sunlight after Mt Pinatubo, which is why the surface cooled about 0.5 C in the year following the eruption.
Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor
BRIAN J. SODEN, RICHARD T. WETHERALD, GEORGIY L. STENCHIKOV, AND ALAN ROBOCK
SCIENCE
26 Apr 2002
Vol 296, Issue 5568
pp. 727-730
DOI: 10.1126/science.296.5568.727
LOL climategrog had no reply….