by Frank Bosse
Short answer: NO
A recent paper Kim et al. (2023), hereafter K23, got some media attention, e.g. this article at CNN: “The Arctic may be sea ice-free in summer by the 2030’s, new study warns.”
K23’s key conclusion: “Results indicate that the first sea ice-free September will occur as early as the 2030s–2050s irrespective of emission scenarios.“
How did the authors come to this conclusion? They used the CMIP6 Multi Model Mean (MMM)! In the methods section: “We use multi-model CMIP6 historical and DAMIP simulations performed under different climate forcing combinations…”
DAMIP: “The detection and attribution model intercomparison project (DAMIP v1. 0)”
This is the same approach described in this blogpost (for the case of the Antarctic overturning oscillation), with the same pitfalls as described by Gavin Schmidt in 2021.
Gavin’s conclusion: “The default behavior in the community has to move away from considering the raw model ensemble mean as meaningful.” Well, this is not simply Gavin-wisdom, but the IPCC AR6 WG1 did not use the MMM, for the same reasons. This practice has unfortunately not arrived some parts of the community, not to mention the editorial board of “Nature Communications”
To show the impact of the choice of the CMIP6 MMM vs. the not so skewed CMIP5-models, I compared the trend slopes 2020-2050 for both cases for September in the Arctic region:
Fig.1: The September Temperature trend slopes 2000-2050 (K/year) for the CMIP5 MMM (top) and the CMIP6 MMM (bottom). The figure was generated with the KNMI climate explorer.
Note the about 30% steeper trends in CMIP6!
The key figure of K2023:
Fig. 2: Reproduction of parts of Fig.4 of K23.
The authors “scaled” the CMIP6 MMM to the observed Sea Ice Area (SIA) 1979-2019 because the MMM produced too much Arctic Ice in this time. Indeed, the modelled temperatures for 1979-2019 were cooler than the observed data. The reasons are unclear, probably was estimated too much (cooling) aerosol forcing in this time in the forcing data of the CMIP’s.
After the “scaling” (colored lines in Fig2) also the “Sustainable development scenario“ SSP1-2.6 leads to a vanishing SIA (below 1 Mio km²) around 2050, for the SSP2-4.5 it’s almost the same (2045) and also the August Sea Ice will be doomed before 2060! Astonishing, but highly dubious due to the choice of the MMM.
Here is my method to calculate a possible September SIA below 1 Mio km². I regressed the NSIDC- Data (September) with brand new ERF (effective radiative forcings) -data from this paper (still Preprint) for 1979 to 2022.
Fig. 3: The regression of the SIA data vs. the ERF data. Note that the variance of the ERF only defines 55% (R²) of the variance of the September SIA.
The resulting Sea Ice Area sensitivity for doubling CO2 (ERF= 3.9 W/m², following IPCC AR6) gives -3.69 Mio km²/2*CO2. The likely 17…83% range: -3,16…-4,13 Mio km²/2*CO2, calculated with the CI of the regression.
About 45% of the SIA is influenced by internal variability, not described in any MMM because all the variability of single models is zero when averaging many model runs as it the MMM does. Therefore the use of any MMM is misleading just like the result of K23.
The calculated trend slope in Fig. 3 gives the result, that the forced part of the September SIA leads to a remaining amount of 1 Mio km² of 5.24 W/m². However, one has to include the internal variability (iv), described in the residuals between the observations and the trend due to the ERF:
Fig. 4: The trend residuals in Fig.3. The highest impact to lower observations was in 2012 with – 1.18 Mio km² below the trend.
I calculated hence the ERF for 2,18 km² remaining SIA to find the year when it’s possible to reach 1 Mio km² also when considering the most negative iv in the last 45 years. This gives an ERF of 3.92W /m².
Now it’s possible to make estimations in time:
Fig. 5: The ERF data of the SSP over the time. Source
For possible single September ice free years, one can find: never for the SSP1-2.6, about 2060 in the SSP 2-4.5 scenario. A continuous September ice free arctic due to the forcing alone not considering the iv (ERF=5.24 W/m²) that we won’t see, neither in the SSP1-2.6 nor in the SSP2-4.5 W scenario. Compare this result with the result in K23 (Fig.2). My method uses only observed data, and so avoids possible biases in climate models.
A very recent paper (published 12th of June 2023 in “Nature Climate Change”) also uses a climate model approach like K23, but takes advantage of constrained single selected models and not the MMM. It comes to very similar results like my (only ERF-based) approach: An Arctic Sea Ice Area below 1 Mio km² will be possibly observed not more 10 years earlier (as it finds K23) but 10 years later than 2050, also about 2060.
Conclusion: K23 takes advantage of the rejected CMIP 6 MMM and comes to strongly biased results. It’s overdue for the editorial board of “Nature communication” to check the peer review process to make sure not misleading the audience and the media.
Kim et al. 2023 is an absolute peer review disaster. As their figure 4 displayed above as Fig. 2 shows, they use observations from NASA and OSISAF to modify the CMIP6 multimodel mean coming to a greatly enhanced sea ice area decline.
Observation data in this figure reaches 2019 and their modeled data starts in 2021 separated by a vertical dashed line.
If you look at the figure you will see that there is a pretty big jump between the 2019 observation and their 2021 model result. But the paper was submitted in August 2022 and accepted in May 2023, so the data for 2020, 2021, and 2022 was available. It turns out that Arctic sea ice area was in September 2022 1.3 million km2 than their model predicted. That is, their model predicted 33% less sea ice than was observed.
How could this paper pass peer review? Who decided it made a worthwile reporting research in important newspapers all over the world?
What a disaster.
Javier – a peer review disaster – Ask Appell how that happened
I am afraid it is common practice. Did you ever look up Wilber et al 1999, used by Trenberth et al 2008 to support their blackbody assumption and base their model of the Earth’s energy budget on it? The mistakes there are jaw dropping..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-anatomy-of-a-climate-science-disaster
“For possible single September ice free years, one can find: … , about 2060 in the SSP 2-4.5 scenario.”
Your method doesn’t work either. CO2 does not melt sea ice. Enhanced Arctic warming and sea ice decline are the result of an increase in poleward heat transport, after the 1997 climate shift established a high transport climate regime. As heat transport has not increased since then (unlike CO2), after a period of rapid loss, sea ice has stabilized and September Arctic sea ice extent has not declined for 15 years, soon to be 16. This is evidence that your method, IPCC’s method, Kim et al 2023 method, etc, are all wrong, since none predicts such a long pause in sea ice melting.
If/when another climate shift takes place and changes the climate regime to one with less poleward heat transport we should see an increase in Arctic sea ice and some heads exploding.
There is no chance whatsoever of an Arctic free of sea ice in what is left of this interglacial. Perhaps in the next one, scheduled in 70,000 years.
Javier, I wanted show that also on the ground of the IPCC AR6 knowledge this paper is “off the rails”. However I’m quite sure that CO2 warms the earth, also influencing the Arctic Sea Ice.
best Frank
Hi Frank,
I agree with the three things you say in your reply.
The paper is off the rails with AR6 but many sea ice “experts” believe AR6 sea ice predictions err on the side of predicting too much future ice. This paper is consistent with that “school of thought.”
CO2 does warm the climate, but its effect is small and at best a second order driver of climate change. How do we know that? The evidence is everywhere, but for a blog comment it will suffice the scatter plot between CO2 and a temperature proxy over the past 66 million years.
https://i.imgur.com/TsVyCRh.png
This is a figure from:
Westerhold, T., et al., 2020. An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years. Science, 369(6509), pp.1383-1387.
The only period when they form a diagonal is the Plio-Pleistocene. For 63 of the past 66 million years either the temperature changes or the CO2 changes during millions of years, forming horizontal or vertical lines. No correlation is evident. That the authors reach the opposite conclusion to what their own data shows is a sign of how screwed up is climate science.
CO2 affects Arctic sea ice. Possibly, but no evidence is available. The energy budget of the Arctic is very clear that whatever happens there is due to the heat and moisture transported from lower latitudes. A small change in transport completely drowns any indirect, second order effect of the CO2 increase. There is a lot of evidence that a change in transport took place in 1997. See for example:
doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00941-3
Or for an open article, see figure 10 in:
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/15/379/2019/
That is the real cause of the big drop in Arctic sea ice between 1997 and 2007. That’s why we are not observing any further decline, as I already said in 2015. Projecting big future loses indicates they are not paying attention to the data.
And CO2 has a curious effect on the poles. Temperature inversions are frequent, and water vapor almost inexistent, during winters. When that happens emissions are facilitated, and as the lapse rate becomes negative, increasing CO2 produces cooling, not warming. Look no further for why Antarctica refuses to respond to the CO2 increase.
Thanks Javier for linking the interesting study about the northward heat export into the Arctic. Don’t you think that the Trend residuals of the ERF- Trend caputre this, see Fig. 4 of the post? One could think that the “lower phase” went from about 1980 (with delay, viewable in the melting) and in 1997 it turned to the “higher phase” . The test if there is a further swing to a “lower phase” would be an inceasing SIA in the future. I don’t expect this due to the fact that the “heat from the south” gets hotter with the OHC increase due to the forcing. Therefor I tend to defend my calculations.
best Frank
“Don’t you think that the Trend residuals of the ERF- Trend capture this, see Fig. 4 of the post?”
Not really, because the effective radiative forcing is a global calculation of vertical energy flux, while sea ice responds primarily to the amount of energy horizontally transported across a certain latitude (usually 70ºN is considered).
This is what the Arctic shift in heat transport did to the vertical energy flux over the Arctic:
https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Fig-4.7-1.png
It is from one of my articles here:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/08/22/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-iv-the-climate-shift-of-1997/
Javier, are you denying that poleward radiative forcing gradients increase as increasing poleward transport of CO2 continues?
See for yourself what NOAA has made publicly explicit:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-where-it-comes-from-and-where-it.html
I do not deny anything. It is the evidence that supports or contradicts the hypotheses. What I say or think is irrelevant. Same for you.
Javier is an anti-obfuscation machine!
“There is no chance whatsoever of” no ending can repair the first 6 words of this sentence.
If you have problems with it, try:
There is no chance of a sea-ice-free Arctic in the remainder of this interglacial.
Nice post Frank. I too wonder that such totally model based papers continue to get through peer review. I guess it just confirms what I asserted in my previous post here: Peer review is extraordinarily weak filter.
dpy6629 | June 15, 2023 at 8:00 pm | Reply
“Peer review is extraordinarily weak filter.”
A prime example is the Jacobson 100% renewable study. His claim is that he tested the reliability of the model every 30 seconds. However, his appendix for wind utilization is using 20-30% of name plate capacity. Its well known that wind will drop to less than 5% of name plate capacity for 2-3 days at a time every couple of months and longer during peak summer periods. That claim of passing the modeled test every 30 seconds is academic fraud level junk science. Yet it gets passed peer review – peer reviewed by scientists that couldnt get a job in the industry
Thanks, Frank. Nice job.
Thanks Bill, my pleasure.
This was written: Enhanced Arctic warming and sea ice decline are the result of an increase in poleward heat transport, after the 1997 climate shift established a high transport climate regime.
What was not written: Ice core records show that the most sequestering of ice on Greenland occurs in warmest times. Open Arctic is not any kind of disaster, it is necessary to rebuild sequestered ice.
Energy transported into the Arctic by the Gulf Stream does remove sea ice. Open Arctic promotes more sequestering of ice.
Sufficient ice pushes into the turbulent salt water and causes forming of sea ice and halting of snowfall and allows the ice to deplete.
Nice wide prediction. Could be the 2030s, could be the 2050s.
So the newspapers can scream about the 2030s while the predictors can say, “ah, no we said could be 2050s” when it doesn’t disappear by the 2030s.
And by the time 2059 rolls around, they’ll be dead or retired or everyone will have forgotten the prediction.
But there will be a new prediction in 2059 that the ice could be gone by the 2080s or 2090s.
Predictions? Like these?
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/algore_ice_gone_by_2013.jpg
We know that global warming is not proven science. As time has gone on, do we even have circumstantial evidence for global warming?
At 11,053 feet, Mammoth Mountain boasts the highest summit of any California resort, making for deeper, better snow, and beautiful vistas. With 3,500 skiable acres, an average of 400 inches of snowfall, 300 days of sunshine per year, and a season that typically stretches Nov–June, Mammoth delivers big smiles on the slopes from first-timers to Olympians.
The 22/23 winter season is officially our snowiest season on record with over 700″ at Main Lodge and close to 900″ at the summit.
https://youtu.be/2atkBJSwSBk
For people who (like me) did not know: The SSP acronym is “Shared Socio-economic Pathway”. The term is analogous to RCP: “Representative Concentration Pathway”. Most of the articles I found assumed I already knew the terms and immediately dove into attacking or defending them. The pathways appear to be numbered according to severity. The highest and lowest numbered models are best for guessing a less likely good or bad things could happen.
The evidence is explicit, not circumstantial, and has been available for public examination for years:
See for yourself how CO2 adds to 10.6 micron optical depth of our atmosphere as each year evolves:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-where-it-comes-from-and-where-it.html
The link by Russell contains “vvattsupwiththat”. I see two v’s instead of one w, and suppose the link is somehow fake or dangerous.
Why do you view two v’s as more dangerous than the two t’s in ‘watts’, or the two r’s in :
‘Look ! Two squirrels’ ?
They don’t cheat. Two v’s do.
Why spoof someone else’s site name?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/ is the sites real name.
As CO2 rises, frost in southern Australia and South America can be predicted in advance.
https://i.ibb.co/Dt3X8R6/mimictpw-global2-latest.gif
Interesting. But I’m not sure why you’re doing linear trends when a 2nd-order fit is slightly better.
For September SIE the difference is about 1 Mkm2 by 2050.
The 2nd-order fit is < 1 Mkm2 by about 2046, the linear trend in 2058.
(As you wrote, 1 Mkm2 is what I've seen Arctic sea ice people consider as "ice-free," since there will be ice in bays and inlets for a very long time.)
Of course, numerical fits are not the best way to answer this question, you need a more sophisticated model. (Apparently not the mean!)
“I’m not sure why you’re doing linear trends when a 2nd-order fit is slightly better.”
So much time can be wasted thoughtlessly banging away at computerized curve fit options to minimize error. Thought is only required to invent justification. Curve fitting with no predetermined model is yet another job where the ideal driver would be a tireless, efficient AI.
firstcreateyoursitedotcomaccount commented:
So much time can be wasted thoughtlessly banging away at computerized curve fit options to minimize error. Thought is only required to invent justification. Curve fitting with no predetermined model is yet another job where the ideal driver would be a tireless, efficient AI.
You’re right about fitting data to a theoretical expectation.
So why do most people do linear fits to sea level rise? Especially when the acceleration is expected, and obvious?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Hi David, I used scientific methods and NOT curve fitting. I wanted avoid such nonsense: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3fePv5FPmp8/T2qW6MGvfAI/AAAAAAAACVE/Ks8Bm1bsKkc/s1600/8354738453832-650.jpg .
For all measures of the sensitivity one uses the lin. relation of observed values ( eg. GMST, SIA…)vs. ERF. Not curve fitting! Re “you need a model”: I cited a very recent paper that did so. Almost the same result.
best Frank
It’s unfortunate the Arctic ice has stopped melting.
Melting Arctic ice is good news.
It does not affect sea level.
Polar bears are great swimmers.
It might uncover new oil and gas deposits.
Can anyone here describe why melting Arctic ice would be bad news?
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Hennessy – the only civilized way to melt ice :-)
So maybe some of the posited sea level rise acceleration is due to an acceleration in water use?
The shifting of mass and consequent sea level rise due to groundwater withdrawal has caused the Earth’s rotational pole to wander nearly a meter in two decades
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/16/claim-weve-pumped-so-much-groundwater-that-weve-nudged-the-earths-spin/
In spite of the ravings of others, there has been VERY little acceleration in sea level rise (NOTHING ALARMING) since the start of the satellite era. At a local level, changes in land height often dwarf se level change.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Rob Starkey wrote:
In spite of the ravings of others, there has been VERY little acceleration in sea level rise (NOTHING ALARMING) since the start of the satellite era. At a local level, changes in land height often dwarf se level change.
More data-less assertions from Rob, who can never produce the data to back up his claims when asked.
Appell
I provided a link showing the trend since the start of the satellite era in 1993. Cant you read a graph?
Starkey wrote:
I provided a link showing the trend since the start of the satellite era in 1993.
Do you mean https://sealevel.colorado.edu/ ?
Those data clearly show an acceleration. Do you know how to calculate it?
Appell
There is Nothing alarming in the 30 year sea level trend despite your dribble. Humanity will easily adapt
Appell
The inconsequential acceleration is calculated and on the graph. Did you miss what was written on the graph? You seem to ignore facts and data showing sea level rise is a non-issue.
Star-key wrote:
The inconsequential acceleration is calculated and on the graph. Did you miss what was written on the graph? You seem to ignore facts and data showing sea level rise is a non-issue.
Why is the acceleration “inconsequential?”
How much more sea level will happen by
(a) 2100 and
(b) by 2300
given CU’s acceleration of 0.084 mm/yr2?
Let’s see your calculations.
Star-key commented:
There is Nothing alarming in the 30 year sea level trend despite your dribble. Humanity will easily adapt
I’m tired of your useless comments like this that display no evidence of critical thinking whatsoever.
If you can’t do better — THINK better — I’m not going to reply anymore.
Appell
You are a joke who does not respond ethically. You see future disasters when none are probable. Sea level has been rising for a long time and is easily managed.
Appell asks—How much more sea level will happen by
(a) 2100 and
(b) by 2300
As you know about a foot per 100 years. Nothing alarming. As you know but ignore.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Sea level has been rising for a long time and is easily managed.
You claim this again and again but have never once provided any data.
Where is that data, Rob?
Where?
Rob Starkey wrote:
Appell asks—How much more sea level will happen by
(a) 2100 and
(b) by 2300
As you know about a foot per 100 years
Cite your sources.
Rob Starkey wrote;
I provided a link showing the trend since the start of the satellite era in 1993. Cant you read a graph?
LOL.
Tell me about sea level rise before the industrial era?
Tell me about sea level rise from the start of the industrial era to today?
jim2 wrote:
So maybe some of the posited sea level rise acceleration is due to an acceleration in water use?
An interesting little Fermi problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
Why don’t you take a stab at calculating it?
It’s interesting in the northeast Pacific. Temperatures will remain below average.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/06/21/2300Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-132.68,41.37,1484
Such a circulation threatens strong tornadoes in the southern US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/06/17/2100Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=cape/orthographic=-98.12,25.31,852/loc=-95.879,32.814
There is no direct evidence that links us moderns’ release of CO2 to an increase in global warming. Looking to previous periods of climate change – “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer” (see, GlobalChange.gov) – we see nothing happening in the last half of the 20th century that did not also happen, as Walter E. Williams says, “throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.”
Nothing happend? CO2 warms the earth. About the rate we can discuss, not about the fact itself. https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut5_0-360E_-90-90N_n_mean1_anom_30.png
e.g., humanity’s impact on atmospheric CO2 is relatively little, it’s effect on warming diminishes and at the current rate would take 50 years to double- still, CO2-deprived by historical standards, meanwhile… increases of atmospheric CO2 are greening the globe.
https://co2coalition.org/media_category/presentations/
Wagathon wrote:
https://co2coalition.org/media_category/presentations/
Ha ha.
That group counts on low- climate education people just like you to spread their lies.
You are their tool.
Wagathon wrote:
e.g., humanity’s impact on atmospheric CO2 is relatively little,
Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50%.
Wags … thanks for the Co2 Coalition website link. Great videos.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Wags … thanks for the Co2 Coalition website link. Great videos.
“The CO2 Coalition is funded by donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. While the CO2 Coalition does not disclose its donors, tax filings confirm donations from Greater Horizons ($225,000 in 2019), 5 the Mercer Family Foundation ($150,000 in 2016), 6 and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($150,000 in 2018). 7”
Tax ID: 47-3722575
Tax-Exempt Status: 501 (c) (3)
Website: co2coalition.org
The CO2 Coalition – InfluenceWatch – InfluenceWatch
http://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/the-co2-coalition/”
Clearly Bill prefers information sources that agree with his preconceived notions, those that satisfy him emotionally, not what is scientific.
David Appell, What you are doing here looks like a baseless smear. I don’t think this group denies climate change. They are more realistic about our options and also the big advantages of more CO2.
dpy6629 wrote:
David Appell, What you are doing here looks like a baseless smear. I don’t think this group denies climate change. They are more realistic about our options and also the big advantages of more CO2.
Oh please. They are bought and paid for.
I don’t know how they sleep at night.
Global warming alarmism is all politics, going back to Al Gore…
https://youtu.be/KGn-6kGoD0c
Wagathon wrote:
Global warming alarmism is all politics, going back to Al Gore…
Really? Explain to me how a decadal trend in GMST of 0.20+ C/decade is alarmism.
Al Gore might have hurt his own cause in the long term. I wonder whether he’s watched his old movie after 2010? I saw it when it came out and only remember how emphatically he seemed to believe that a severe projection of his exponential temperature chart was true.
Basically – if you believed AG then, you would have expected a different world outside now.
firstcreateyoursitedotcomaccount commented:
Al Gore might have hurt his own cause in the long term. I wonder whether he’s watched his old movie after 2010? I saw it when it came out and only remember how emphatically he seemed to believe that a severe projection of his exponential temperature chart was true.
Show his chart, then prove it was “exponential.”
I highly doubt it, and don’t remember any exponential charts from that time. Or any time. Ever.
Wagathon wrote:
There is no direct evidence that links us moderns’ release of CO2 to an increase in global warming
People like you don’t want to learn.
In fact, you refuse to learn.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
These findings have been confirmed:
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004)
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al,
More papers on this subject are listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
The quoted article “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,”
As AG besmirched movie making, the entire year 1970 was besmirched by inaugural Earth Day quotes that promised extinctions, famines and worlds without snow. I don’t have to exaggerate, they did it for me. I sometimes wonder whether the hydrocarbon industry funds Ehrlich’s continued name recognition as a way to associate their opponents with crazyness.
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount ofv solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
Wagathon commented:
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
Links to the science?
Wagathon commented:
GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo.
More HUGE claims which the author doesn’t feel the slightest need to prove.
Nominally…
See, Earthshine project.
https://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/about/
Wagathon commented:
See, Earthshine project.
What about it?
Let us get some things straight.
Sort of, since words matter.
Entree.
–
frankclimate | June 17, 2023 at 2:38 pm
CO2 warms the earth.
–
Frank, I understand what you are trying to say, eg there is a greenhouse effect.
For all that though, CO2 is not, of itself, a heat producing source.
A point lost on many people
–
The presence of CO2 in an earth like atmosphere, all other things equal, will usually mean a warmer surface temperature.
–
Javier | June 16, 2023 at 7:28 am | also uses the idea of CO2 capable of being both an energy source.
”CO2 does warm the climate”
and a sink,
” CO2 has a curious effect on the poles. increasing CO2 produces cooling, not warming”.
Consistency would help.
Javier | June 15, 2023 at 7:50 pm . CO2 does not melt sea ice.
Javier | June 16, 2023 at 7:28 am |
” CO2 affects Arctic sea ice. Possibly”
angech wrote:
For all that though, CO2 is not, of itself, a heat producing source.
Everybody who knows anything knows this.
Atmospheric CO2 is, in essence, a heat reflector. That’s why it increases the temperature of the surface of the Earth. (A good thing.) There’s no reason to expect it stopped at 280 ppm.
The concept of “The Arctic may be sea ice-free in summer by the 2030’s” is plagued by the same lack of clarity in discussing the concept of ice melt in the Arctic.
It reeks of non existent danger.
The more accurate description would be
“The Arctic may be below one Wadham in summer by the 2030’s,
–
Surprisingly the article is right for the wrong reasons.
The Arctic can easily reach this state considering the actual situation physically and mathematically.
–
Wadhams right?
But he has been debunked.
–
Look at the facts.
The Arctic is currently in a temperature and circulation state that allows the Arctic ocean to melt and freeze significantly every year.
Otherwise people would not be having these discussions..
We are not a 3 degree warmer earth temperature range when it obviously would be < 1 Wadham, possibly all year round.
We are not in a 3 degree cooler ice age when it would be much more frozen all year round.
We are in Goldilocks territory..
–
What does this mean?
Consequent on small changes in the earths temperature upwards for 10 years a < 1 Wadham scenario is entirely possible.
The problem mathematically is that our understanding of the amount of change possible is limited by the use of standard deviations that have no proven historical basis.
–
8-10 years ago a curious thing happened.
Both the Arctic and the Antarctic sea ice levels fell by massive amounts over the course of 2 years at least a 6 fold standard deviation excursion.
The last 3 years the Arctic Sea Ice extent has ranged from near lowest or lowest to near 18th lowest out of 43 years.
Currently in 12th lowest place.
These are massive amounts of area and extent.
CO2 levels did not change dramatically so CO2 was not associated.
The only things that significantly affect surface temperature hence sea temperature and currents are the sun output and the amount that gets through the earths variable cloud cover.
–
Look at where we are.
Look at the maths.
Can it happen?
YES.
Will it happen?
Probably not.
Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in the southern US. The low resembles a tropical cyclone and is now operating at night.
https://www.blitzortung.org/en/live_lightning_maps.php?map=30
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/YLDmtmL/goes16-ir-meso2.gif
Hi angech, “Frank, I understand what you are trying to say, eg there is a greenhouse effect.” Yes. I imagined that the audience of this climate related blog gets it right without more describtion. I hope I wasn’t too wrong.
best Frank
Thanks Frank.
You were not too wrong.
There is a subset of people who in their zeal to argue about the role of CO2 resort to clamping CO2 levels have no correlation with atmospheric and surface temperature.
Some are in your audience.
Hi angech, thanks…one can’t do something about this. I hope that this subset is small. We can talk about the sensitivity to the forcing, this is a field of active research. There are probably significant overestimations like in many (especially CMIP6) GCM leading to unrealistic impacts as it’s shown in K23 above. We can’t talk evidence based about the impact of GHG on the climate system of the earth.
best Frank
frankclimate commented:
We can’t talk evidence based about the impact of GHG on the climate system of the earth.
No???
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
David, you got it wrong, possibly because I’m not a native English speaking person. I meant: There is no use to talk about the influence of GHG on our climate because this is quit sure.
best Frank
Frank, I would agree with Gavin Schmidt that using multiple model means is not appropriate. He seems to confine his caution to CMIP6 models and gives a pass to CMIP5 models. My argument against the mean of models being meaningful is based on my analysis of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models and comparing the historical period temperature changes of the models versus a change that would occur based on the temperature sensitivities of the models as determined by the model temperature changes in the future periods.
The majority of the models produce temperature changes in the historical periods that correlate reasonably well with changes in the future periods. That means that those models have a distribution of changes with some having considerably higher temperature changes than the observed temperature change and a few that have changes close to that of the observed.
The remainder of the models have large differences between the actual temperature change in the historical period and a change that would be expected based on the model sensitivity. These models have, as a group, a tendency to have somehow obtained a temperature change close to that of the observed with an inherent high sensitivity.
In the end there are a few models that have changes close to the observed in combination with changes expected from their sensitivities. I would, therefore, have to conclude that most of the models are either “artificially” emulating the observed temperature change or are missing the mark in emulation because they have not “hidden” their high sensitivities. Taking a mean of the ensemble of these models would appear to be ignoring the three groups the models fall into.
Hi Ken, thanks for your remarks. Indeed the GCM up to now have strong limitations. Much actual physics are not involved because the calculation time is increasing dramatically. The way out was “tuning” of many parameters. It’s descibed in Hourdin et al. (2017) “The art and science of climate model tuning”. The tuning happens to near the temperatures of the historical period or the global energy imbalance. Therfor they give relatively good estimations of the GMST in this time. Another pitfall are the used focing data. Some GCM have a (much too) high sensitivity which is compensated by too much (cooling) aerosol forcing. I selected the time span of Fig.1 (2020-2050) intentionally: The aerosol influence after 2010 or so is small (clean air…) and the sensitivity is on work, showing much steeper trends in the CMIP6’s vs. CMIP5’s due to a lot of models pushing the mean with a very high sensitivity. All in all: IMO it’s very dangerous taking GCM in small areas of the earth like the arctic to anticipate the future behavior of the real world. Perhaps is the simple energy balance approach I used more appropriate than any GCM, for sure when it comes to the MMM..
best Frank
I think the reason most models replicate the historical GMST anomaly data is just conservation of energy. The models are tuned to match the TOA radiative fluxes in the historical period. They probably do a reasonable job at ocean heat uptake. This would imply that their GMST anomaly results are probably reasonable.
But the problem here is that the primary application of the models is to predict patterns of change. They are totally inadequate at this and the best climate scientists implicitly acknowledge.
One could make the case that the massive investment in these models has been a vast waste of resources given the difficulties I outlined in my December blog post here. That money could have been better spent on theoretical work such as improving the moist adiabat theory or generating better data.
I can’t read their minds Appell. It is obvious from their work that they are more honest than Dessler, Mann, and Maslin who are reliable propagandists and activists. Dessler smears people as “deniers” when the label is a lie. He’s quite dishonest. A good litmus test is any scientist who uses the term denier is not fully honest.
“or generating better data”
Yes.
The entire field does not need to be hunched over computers in far flung labs importing the same data into the same computer programs.
Environmentalists in spiky boots and fur-lined coats? Or environmentalists submitting requisitions to buy satellites? Or environmentalists writing computer programs that convert satellite photos to data. Too many people seem to advocate the position that “what I do is too complicated”. Too many? Yes even this person.
dppy6629 wrote:
In response to kenfritsch:
But the problem here is that the primary application of the models is to predict patterns of change. They are totally inadequate at this and the best climate scientists implicitly acknowledge.
Which scientists are these? Names?
Being a science writer Appell, I’m not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the literature. Palmer and Stevens have a paper arguing for eddy resolving climate models in which they are forced to admit the current models are poor. Palmer and Stevens are more honest than most climate scientists such as Maslin, Dessler, and Mann. But there are serious technical and theoretical issues with their new proposal even aside from the huge cost.
dpy6629 wrote:
Palmer and Stevens are more honest than most climate scientists such as Maslin, Dessler, and Mann.
Why?
Why are they “more honest?”
David, try Google with “Saeger et al (2022) Persistent Discrepancies between Observed and Modeled Trends
in the Tropical Pacific Ocean” to learn something about pattern content instead of person calling.
best Frank
Putting this in the correct place:
I can’t read their minds Appell. It is obvious from their work that they are more honest than Dessler, Mann, and Maslin who are reliable propagandists and activists. Dessler smears people as “deniers” when the label is a lie. He’s quite dishonest. A good litmus test is any scientist who uses the term denier is not fully honest.
dpy6629 wrote:
It is obvious from their work that they are more honest than Dessler, Mann, and Maslin who are reliable propagandists and activists.
Why is it “obvious?”
dpy6629 wrote:
Dessler smears people as “deniers” when the label is a lie
To whom has he done this?
Based on what?
You seem to judge science based on your emotional feelings about a few scientists. You’ve done this before (like with AATP).
frank-climate wrote:
David, try Google with “Saeger et al (2022) Persistent Discrepancies between Observed and Modeled Trends
in the Tropical Pacific Ocean” to learn something about pattern content instead of person calling.
Oh please. I don’t call names. That’s the approach of CKid and Joe the Accountant.
What does this Saeger paper mean, in your opinion? That climate models are not perfect?
Everyone knows they aren’t perfect, frank-climate.
frankclimate wrote
Indeed the GCM up to now have strong limitations. Much actual physics are not involved because the calculation time is increasing dramatically.
That’s a sign that MORE physics are involved, not less.
David: One knows much more physics which can’t included from the reason I mentioned.
frank-climate wrote:
David: One knows much more physics which can’t included from the reason I mentioned.
I don’t know what this means.
?i>Bill Fabrizio | June 18, 2023 at 7:36 pm |
Wags … thanks for the Co2 Coalition website link. Great videos.
Here is one video that illustrates what’s missing from the CO2 Coalition’s video ads:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-where-it-comes-from-and-where-it.html
Russell … what I liked about the CO2 Coalition video was the discussion of positive effects of CO2 (earth greening), paleo-climate data seemingly challenging the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the need for a proper physical context when discussing climate change, meaning a review of earth cycles over millions of years, and to have an open discussion of risks and strategies for adapting to potential negative climate changes by maintaining a robust economy. Our existence is precarious, as it is for all life. A proper assessment of a broad spectrum of information is always needed to make informed decisions, and IMO we, unfortunately, live in an age that is seeing the rise of ‘one dimensional’ thinking. As a non-scientist I enjoy the information and the debates presented here. You all have, and continue, to teach me much. As a citizen, voter and taxpayer I will make my decisions accordingly.
Thanks for your link.
With reference to the circulation models, increasingly positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions due to rising CO2 forcing should drive a colder AMO and Arctic.
Cold AMO anomalies in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, were during positive NAO regimes, the negative NAO regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2012 are associated with the AMO and Arctic warming.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Moreover, every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum. And the albedo feedback is negative, as there has been an increase in cloud cover over the Arctic Ocean, mid summer 80-90N mean temperatures have mostly been below the 1959-2022 average since 2000.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Ulric
Thanks for the DMI Arctic graph. I haven’t looked at it in a few years and this reminded me of a question I had before. The variability of peak, above 0, temperatures is almost zero each year, while the shoulders show quite a bit of variability, about what one would expect over the years.
Looking back throughout all the years almost no variability, year after year, in the middle of the graph.
Do you have an explanation or maybe I don’t understand the graph.
Ulric Lyons wrote:
“And the albedo feedback is negative, as there has been an increase in cloud cover over the Arctic Ocean, mid summer 80-90N mean temperatures have mostly been below the 1959-2022 average since 2000.”
No Ulric, science is about quantification.
Your graph isn’t about cloud cover. Nor do you have any science that shows the role of cloud cover.
That is, no science at all that shows the albedo feedback is negative. None.
Is there newer science than this? If so, I haven’t seen it.
“We find that this decline has caused 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of radiative heating since 1979, considerably larger than expectations from models and recent less direct estimates. Averaged globally, this albedo change is equivalent to 25% of the direct forcing from CO2 during the past 30 y.”
“Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,” Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan, PNAS v111 n9 pp 3322-3326 (2014).
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract
So you deny the recent increase in cloud cover over the Arctic Ocean, and you completely ignore the cooler 80-90N mid summers since 2000. While having the nerve to lecture about what science is, shame on you.
Ulric Lyons commented:
So you deny the recent increase in cloud cover over the Arctic Ocean, and you completely ignore the cooler 80-90N mid summers since 2000. While having the nerve to lecture about what science is, shame on you
I haven’t denied anything.
What data shows increased cloud cover over the Arctic Ocean?
What difference does the very narrow window of cooler mid-summers between 80-90 N make?
It seems like cherrypicking. Do you doubt the Arctic is warming at a pace greater than the global average?
Pingback: Is the Arctic September Sea Ice Doomed to Disappear in the 2030’s? • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Is the Arctic September Sea Ice Doomed to Disappear in the 2030’s? • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Is September sea ice in the Arctic going to disappear by the 2030s? • Watts Up With That? - News7g
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
All planets and moons are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.
–
Here it is a very well known scientific observation:
–
Earth’s surface is warmer than Moon’s on average +68°C.
–
But it happens so not because of Earth’s thin atmosphere very insignificant greenhouse effect.
–
Earth’s surface is warmer than Moon’s on average +68°C, because of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
********
The alleged GREENHOUSE GLOBAL WARMING is a common deflection of the facts (which some buy into ) which is a reflection of some people’s inability to examine the full scope of the issues.
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, exactly…
–
It is a very powerful phenomenon. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is what amplifies the planets’ and moons’ the mean surface temperatures (Tmean).
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thus, everything else equals, the higher is the planet’s or moon’s the (N*cp) product, the higher is the planet’s or moon’s the average surface temperature Tmean.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So if the Moon rotated four times as fast, the dawn and dusk terminators would be slightly warmer and cooler respectively, but the mean dark side temperature would be essentially the same as it depends on the regolith heat capacity. The regolith has less time to warm but also less time to cool with a faster rotation period.
The sunlit Lunar hemisphere surface at any given time is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance, so its mean temperature should be largely unaffected.
Thank you, Ulric, for your response.
–
“So if the Moon rotated four times as fast…
–
The dawn and dusk terminators would both be warmer then.
–
Let’s apply the planet rotational warming phenomenon:
The Moon’s mean surface temperature Tmean = 220K would be then 4^1/16 (four in sixteenth root) times higher.
–
(4^1/16)*220K = 1,09050*220K =240K
–
Thus, if Moon rotated four times as fast its mean surface temperature would be 240K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The sunlit side cannot get any hotter, and for the dark side to be 40K warmer it would require greater heat capacity.
Yes, exactly, and the very powerful Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon would do the job!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So you think that a faster rotation would increase the regolith heat capacity?
Ulric:
“So you think that a faster rotation would increase the regolith heat capacity?”
No, a faster rotation would not increase the regolith heat capacity, it is the very powerful Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which would do the job!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
When comparing the various different planets’ and moons’ (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included), when comparing the planetary surface temperatures, the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon emerges:
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^¹∕₁₆
or
[ (N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
–
The difference of rotation speed between Earth and its Moon is the most important factor in our computation of their respective warming!
Also the five (5) times difference in the average surface specific heat between Earth’s and Moon’s surfaces (water vs regolith), is a very important factor too.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth is warmer than Moon because of thermal reservoirs which maintain surface warmth during the night, the oceans, and atmospheric water. This also moderates daytime surface temperatures, so Earth’s sunlit side at any given time is cooler than the sunlit side of the Moon.
Thank you, Ulric, for your response.
” This also moderates daytime surface temperatures, so Earth’s sunlit side at any given time is cooler than the sunlit side of the Moon.”
–
What do you mean by that? Because Earth’s average sunlit side surface temperature is higher than Moon’s average sunlit side surface temperature.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ulric,
…Earth’s sunlit side at any given time is cooler than the sunlit side of the Moon.
–
I think you are right.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
With lower surface albedo no atmospheric absorption it has to hotter.
For the sunlit Lunar hemisphere, we spread the solar heating effect over twice the illuminated disk area (divide by two):
394K * 0.5^0.25 = 331.31K
minus 11% albedo:
331.31 * 0.89^0.25 = 321.8K (48.65°C)
and averaged with a mean Lunar dark side temperature of say 90K for the global surface mean:
(321.8 + 90) / 2 = 205.9K.
The standard divide by four method as applied to Earth gives a Lunar black-body temperature with 11% albedo, of 270.6K or -2.55°C.
has to *be* hotter
Thus, according to Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon,
everything else equals, the higher is the planet’s or moon’s the
(N*cp) product, the higher is the planet’s or moon’s the average surface temperature Tmean.
–
***
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A rotating body will be warmer than one tidally locked to the Sun, but within a wide range of rotation rates, it shouldn’t make much difference. The numbers you give are not enough to account for how much cooler the Moon is compared to Earth.
“… but within a wide range of rotation rates, it shouldn’t make much difference.”
–
Why it shouldn’t make much difference?
Let’s demonstrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon on the:
Earth’s /Moon’s example
Earth is on average warmer 68°C than Moon.
–
Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun. But Moon receives 28% more solar energy than Earth, because Moon’s average surface Albedo is significantly lower (Moon’s Albedo a =0,11 vs Earth’s Albedo a =0,306).
–
Yet Earth is on average warmer 68°C than Moon.
–
The average surface temperature difference of 68°C can be explained only by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
N.earth = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotation spin.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
–
Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
–
Earth also has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr*oC – its soil is a dry regolith).
–
N.moon = 1 /29,53 rotation /per day, is Moon’s rotation spin
cp.moon = 0,19 cal/gr*oC
–
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere having some trace greenhouse gasses content.
–
Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) = (1*1) /[(1/29,53)*0,19] =
29,53 /0,19 = 155,42
…………………………………..
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
–
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K (15°C). Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
……………………………..
Let’s compare the Earth’s and Moon’s (for equal average Albedo) the mean surface temperatures:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
and the Earth’s and Moon’s (N*cp) products sixteenth root:
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16 = (155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
………………………
The results (1,3714) and (1,3709) are almost identical!
–
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
………………………..
The rightness of the Rotational Warming Phenomenon is many times demonstrated and, also, it has been theoretically explained by the physics first principles.
–
What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures.
–
There are not two identical planets or moons in solar system.
–
Nevertheless all of them, all planets and moons in solar system are subjected to the same ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON!
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is expressed QUANTITATIVELY.
And it appears to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” The average surface temperature difference of 68°C can be explained only by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.”
You contradicted yourself.
“Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.”
Earth is warmer because of thermal reservoirs keeping its dark side warmer.
“If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.”
Not possible, it would have to cooler than it is with 11% albedo.
“If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.”
Not possible, it would have to cooler than it is with 11% albedo.
–
Moon’s average surface temperature is about 220K with 11% albedo.
With 30,6% albedo it would be 210K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earth is warmer because of thermal reservoirs keeping its dark side warmer.”
–
Let’s consider another pair of planets and their satellite measured mean surface temperatures:
Moon and Mars (220K vs 210K)
–
Mars is at 1,5 AU from the sun, thus Mars receives 2,32 times less solar energy on its surface than Moon.
Also Mars has higher than Moon average Albedo (0,25 vs 0,11). It can be shown that if Moon had the same as Mars Albedo, Moon’s mean surface temperature would also be 210K, therefore it would be equal to Mars’ mean surface temperature of 210K.
–
Thus Mars receives 2,32 times less solar energy than Moon, yet Mars and Moon would have (for equal average Albedo) the same mean surface temperature 210K.
–
Therefore, there is only the Rotational Warming Phenomenon what justifies for Earth and for Moon, the measured, but the so very much the different, the mean surface temperatures (288K vs 220K).
–
And also, therefore, there is only the Rotational Warming Phenomenon what also justifies, now in the case of Moon and Mars, the measured, but this time the so very much the proximate, the mean surface temperatures (220K vs 210K).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have already established that your rotational heating idea cannot account for the full difference between Earth and Lunar mean global surface temperature. What did the Diviner mission measure the Lunar global mean surface T as? 197K?
“What did the Diviner mission measure the Lunar global mean surface T as? 197K?”
–
Please, Ulric, provide a Link to reference.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So, yes, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon does account for the full difference between Earth and Lunar mean global surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not according to your own figures,
Low temperatures in the upper stratosphere over the southern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png
Pingback: Lois Perry: Fighting for energy/climate realism in the U.K. | Tom Nelson Pod #118 – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
Three tropical storms in the tropical Atlantic are headed for the Caribbean.
https://i.ibb.co/0htny4K/33d75cb7-3e46-4c28-a3d2-7b29e9e01600.jpg
Looks like China is expecting to use fossil fuels for a long, long time. Bet the Church of Climate Doomers won’t like that. But they will keep quiet – fellow travelers and all that.
China agreed another decades-long liquefied natural gas deal with Qatar in a further move to safeguard its energy security.
China National Petroleum Corp. signed a 27-year LNG purchase agreement for 4 million tons annually with QatarEnergy on Tuesday. Supply will begin in 2026 and CNPC will take a 5% equity stake in a production train at Qatar’s North Field East expansion project, the country’s energy minister and boss of QatarEnergy Saad al-Kaabi said at a signing ceremony in Doha.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-20/china-to-sign-another-27-year-lng-deal-with-qatar-ft-says?srnd=industries-energy
Sea ice would disappear if all the temperature and climate exaggerations were actually true. I just ran across this on “The Conversation” https://theconversation.com/ocean-heat-is-off-the-charts-heres-what-that-means-for-humans-and-ecosystems-around-the-world-207902
It’s hard to keep up with all the BS out there. This journal bills itself as “academic rigor, journalistic flair”. The author reports- “Ocean heat is off the charts” and goes on to write about her early June visit to Norway with the subtitle-
“The effects of extraordinary Atlantic heat” and writes-
“In early June 2023, I visited the NORCE climate center in Bergen, Norway, for two weeks to meet with other ocean scientists. The warm waters and mild winds across the eastern North Atlantic brought a long stretch of sunny, warm weather in a month when more than 70% of days normally would have been downpours.
The whole agricultural sector of Norway is now bracing for a drought as bad as the one in 2018, when yield was 40% below normal. Our train from Bergen to Oslo had a two-hour delay because the brakes of one car overheated and the 90 F (32 C) temperatures approaching the capital were too high to allow them to cool down.”
I looked at the June temperatures recorded for Bergen and for Oslo on AccuWeather. The high June temperature until today, June 21, as I write this, has been 73 degrees F for Bergen and 76 degrees F for Oslo. So much for her 90 degrees and the BS about being too hot for the train brakes to cool down!
Judith, do you know the author, Annalisa Bracco,
Professor of Ocean and Climate Dynamics, Georgia Institute of Technology? Arrrrh, it’s so upsetting to read exaggerations like this day after day.
Al Gore gave humanity 10 years… back in 2006.
“ Large Earthquakes in Subduction Zones around the Polar Regions as a Possible Reason for Rapid Climate Warming in the Arctic and Glacier Collapse in West Antarctica”
This recent paper has a new theory about Arctic warming and continues with existing ideas on WAIS instability.
The Arctic discussion certainly is unconventional and is being shared simply for that reason.
Recent papers on the Antarctica geothermal puzzle give hope that by IPCC7, there might be acknowledgement of the obvious, that basal sliding of Thwaites is accelerated by the low viscosity mantle underneath
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/13/6/171
AN EXPLINATION OF THE ICE BLOCK AT THE POLES.
At the beginning of the ice age, the oceans were about 400-feet lower than today.
Nature melted the ice on the continents and dropped it as liquid on the earth. That that landed at the poles froze and grew vertically as freshwater ice, sitting on the solid earth. Because it is freshwater ice it grows vertically 20% faster.
The 28-degree saturated saltwater on the ocean bottom begins eating melting inward between the freshwater ice and the solid earth. As the saturated saltwater warms to 32-degree the salt drops out. The 32-degree lighter freshwater flows along the bottom of the 32-degree back to the ocean.
The ice blocks eventually break into smaller ice bergs and float away!!!!!
Are scientists getting any closer to creating an evidence base underpinning a multi-decadal oscillation in arctic sea ice volumes yet? Are such oscillations out of phase with Antarctic Ice oscillations and do the phase differences change with the passing decades?
Pingback: Neue Panikmache um die atlantische Zirkulation – KlimaNachrichten