by Judith Curry
Politically-motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions
An essay with excerpts from my new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk.
In the 21st century, humankind is facing a myriad of complex societal problems that are characterized by deep uncertainties, systemic risks and disagreements about values. Climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic are prominent examples of such wicked problems. For such problems, the relevant science has become increasingly like litigation, where truth seeking has become secondary to politics and advocacy on behalf of a preferred policy solution.
How does politics influence the scientific process for societally relevant issues? Political bias influences research funding priorities, the scientific questions that are asked, how the findings are interpreted, what is cited, and what gets canonized. Factual statements are filtered in assessment reports and by the media with an eye to downstream political use.
How does politics influence the behavior of scientists? There is pressure on scientists to support consensus positions, moral objectives and the relevant policies. This pressure comes from universities and professional societies, scientists themselves who are activists, journalists and from federal funding agencies in terms of research funding priorities. Because evaluations by one’s colleagues are so central to success in academia, it is easy to induce fear of social sanctions for expressing the ideas that, though not necessarily shown to be factually or scientifically wrong, are widely unpopular.
Activist scientists use their privileged position to advance moral and political agendas. This political activism extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. This activism has a gatekeeping effect on what gets published, who gets heard at conferences, and who receives professional recognition. Virtually all professional societies whose membership has any link to climate research have issued policy statements on climate change, urging action to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.
The most pernicious manifestation of the politicization of science is when politicians, advocacy groups, journalists, and activist scientists intimidate or otherwise attempt to silence scientists whose research is judged to interfere with their moral and political agendas.
Speaking consensus to power
A critical strategy in the politicization of science is the manufacture of a scientific consensus on politically important topics, such as climate change and Covid-19. The UN climate consensus is used as an appeal to authority in the representation of scientific results as the basis for urgent policy making. In effect, the UN has adopted a “speaking consensus to power” approach that sees uncertainty and dissent as problematic and attempts to mediate these into a consensus. The consensus-to-power strategy reflects a specific vision of how politics deals with scientific uncertainties.
There is a key difference between a “scientific consensus” and a “consensus of scientists.” When there is true scientific certainty, such as the earth orbiting the sun, we don’t need to talk about consensus. By contrast, a “consensus of scientists” represents a deliberate expression of collective judgment by a group of scientists, often at the official request of a government.
Institutionalized consensus building promotes groupthink, acting to confirm the consensus in a self-reinforcing way. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has worked for the past 40 years to establish a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. As such, the IPCC consensus is a “manufactured consensus” arising from an intentional consensus building process. The IPCC consensus has become canonized socially through a political process, bypassing the long and complex scientific validation process as to whether the conclusions are actually true.
The flip side of a manufactured consensus is “denial.” Questioning the climate change narrative has become the ultimate form of heresy in the 21st century. Virtually all academic climate scientists are within the so-called 97 percent consensus regarding the existence of a human impact on warming of the Earth’s climate. Which scientists are ostracized and labeled as deniers? Independent thinkers, who are not supportive of the IPCC consensus, are suspect. Any criticism of the IPCC can lead to ostracism. Failure to advocate for CO2 mitigation policies leads to suspicion. Even a preference for nuclear power over wind and solar power will get you called a denier. The most reliable way to get labeled as a denier is to associate in any way with so-called enemies of the climate consensus and their preferred policies—petroleum companies, conservative think tanks, or even the “wrong” political party.
Covid-19 provides a very interesting example of a manufactured consensus. The consensus that COVID-19 had an entirely natural origin was established by two op-eds in early 2020—The Lancet in February and Nature Medicine in March. The Lancet op-ed stated, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” The pronouncements in these op-eds effectively shut down inquiry into a possible origin as a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan. Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape to be out of the question or extremely unlikely.
The enormous gap between the actual state of knowledge in early 2020 and the confidence displayed in the two op-eds should have been obvious to anyone in the field of virology, or for that matter anyone with critical faculties. There were scientists from adjacent fields who said as much. The consensus wasn’t overturned until May 2021 with the publication of a lengthy article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that identified conflict of interests in the scientists writing the Lancet letter in hiding any links with the Wuhan lab. This article triggered a cascade of defections from scientists – the fake consensus was no longer enforceable.
What is concerning about this episode is not so much that a consensus was overturned, but that a fake consensus was so easily enforced for more than a year. A few scientists spoke up, but they were aggressively cancelled from social media. The vast majority of scientists who understood that there was a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the origins of the virus did not speak up. It was becoming increasingly clear that any virologist who challenged the community’s declared views risked being labeled as a heretic, being canceled on social media, and having their next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency. The ugly politics behind this fake consensus are only now being revealed.
Political and moral biases in a manufactured consensus can lead to widely accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions. A manufactured consensus hampers scientific progress because of the questions that do not get asked and the investigations that are not undertaken. Further, consensus enforcement interferes with the self-correcting nature of science via skepticism, which is a foundation of the scientific process.
Broken contract between science and policy makers
Speaking consensus to power acts to conceal uncertainties, ambiguities, dissent, and ignorance behind a scientific consensus. Greater openness about scientific uncertainties and ignorance, plus more transparency about dissent and disagreement, is needed provide policymakers with a more complete picture of policy-relevant science and its limitations.
A manufactured consensus arises from oversimplification of the problem, which leads to restricting the policy solution space and mistaken ideas that the problem can be controlled.
A manufactured consensus on a complex, wicked problem such as climate change or Covid-19 leads to the naivete of thinking that these are simple risks, and the hubris of thinking that we can control the risk. Even beyond the technical issues, greater realism is needed about the uncertainties and politics underpinning the pursuit of control for wicked societal problems.
The pandemic illustrates that our tools for acting on a complex global problem—experts, precise scientific metrics, computer models, enforced restrictions— have resulted in much less than the desired quality of control. The global energy transition and worldwide transformations to sustainability are far more challenging than the global COVID-19 pandemic. The modernist paradigm of mastery, planning, and optimization is not appropriate for the wicked problems of the twenty-first century.
As a consequence of the exaggerated sense of knowledge and control surrounding climate and Covid-19 policies, some highly uncertain issues that should remain open for political debate are ignored in policy making. Premature foreclosure of scientific uncertainties and failure to consider ambiguities associated with wicked problems such as climate change and pandemics results in an invisible form of oppression that forecloses possible futures.
With regards to climate change, what is going on represents more than politically motivated consensus enforcement and cancel culture. Climate change has become a secular religion, rife with dogma, heretics and moral-tribal communities. The secular religion of climate change raises concerns that are far more fundamental than the risks of bad policy. At risk is the fundamental virtues of the Scientific Revolution and the freedom to question authority.
The road ahead requires moving away from the consensus-enforcing and cancel culture approach of restricting dialogue surrounding complex societal issues such as climate change. We need to open up space for dissent and disagreement. By acknowledging scientific uncertainties in the context of better risk management and decision- making frameworks, in combination with techno-optimism, there is a broad path forward for humanity to thrive in the twenty-first century and beyond.
This article includes excerpts from my new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk.
Excellent writing and analysis as always Dr. Curry, but I really would like to see more people like yourself pointing out the blatant TOTAL lies and deception used to manufacture the LIE of a consensus.
There is NO 97% consensus, there never has been, and there does not exist even ONE survey showing such a consensus.
So even when we refer “the 97% consensus” or “the so-called 97% consensus” we give it credence by the pure mention. If we are to reference the TOTALLY FAKE and TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED LIE at all, I believe we should always indicate that is a totally unsupported LIE, or we will never have a possibility of defeating the Goebbels-style disinformation campaign that it represents.
So the “FAKE 97% consensus” or the “non-existent 97% consensus” would be much better language to use in that context. It doesn’t exist, it has never existed. We cannot cede language to liars. Language is powerful and they are and have been using language very successfully to date to control the minds of generations of young and naive people.
We need to put a stop to it, by insisting on TRUTHFUL language and calling out the LIES every time.
97% consensus about what? I think you need to be more specific. If the question is: Is human caused global warming a significant problem? Answer: 70-74% of the general public believe it is (Pew Research). If the question is, do scientists believe humans are the major (>50%) cause of current global warming and climate change? That needs a further breakdown with approximate numbers: scientists in general ~90%, earth scientists ~ 95%, publishing climatologists (and closely associated fields) >99%. If the question is, how much of current global warming is caused by humans? The answer from published papers that do a full analysis of the various forcings is about 110% (allowing that humans also have a cooling contribution through aerosols and land use.
There are plenty of surveys, even if you may object/try to discredit their methodologies. Saying they don’t exist is not true.
P.S. Whenever I see “FAKE,” my first inclination is to think it is probably true.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
In the 2016 Bray and Von Storch real survey of climate scientists themselves, on the question:
“How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?”
2% answered not at all, and in total some 10% were not convinced to neutral, 90% were convinced to very convinced:
https://www.hereon.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf
See page 11.
The full forcing of CO2 (and other GHGs) is around 1 K for a CO2 doubling, while the different climate models show 1.5-4.5 and higher sensitivity to a CO2 doubling.
The real, measured increase in the atmosphere gets about 1.7 K for a CO2 doubling since 1950, where human emissions started to have any importance, up to 2100 (when a doubling of CO2 is expected).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950
Thus most models are already far too high in their expected warming, thus what model is the 110% based on?
Further, the period of warming 1910-1945 was as fast as in the period 1976-current, without much help of CO2. What caused that and what caused the slight cooling 1946-1975 with increasing CO2?
What do we know of ocean currents? Nearly nothing.
What causes an El Niño, that can increase global ocean surface temperatures with 0.6 K in only 6 months? Nobody knows and ENSO is “neutral” in all models, only some random noise, while a few subsequent El Niño’s show a residual warming of 0.2 K…
There is a natural warming / cooling cycle of around 1000-1200 years that did give the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and at least part of the current warm periods and cold(er) periods in between like the Little Ice Age. What caused that?
As long as climate science can’t answer these questions, they simply can’t attribute all current warming to humans alone.
Last but not least, if Carbonbrief shows a head picture from the tailpipes from cars in Alaska, where water vapor freezes out in winter, who then is the faker here to suggest that this is what increases the GHG effect?
Ferdinand,
ray & von Storch (2015/16)
Figure 2. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?
(1) Answers are on a scale of 1-7, ranging from “not at all” to “very much”. Your percentages are approximately correct, if you assign verbal values to the intermediate values. However, if you simply use their statistics: the mean is 5.97 out of 7 (5.86 – 6.08, 95% C.L.). My subjective evaluation is, that is consensus, and
(2) that was 8 years ago. There is more consensus more recently:
Meyers et al. (2021) surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed.
Lynas et al.,(2021) assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies and analysed a random subset of 3000. Excluding papers which took no position on the question of human cause (1869 – at this point, it was widely accepted as Fact”), the remaining 1131 papers were found to have 99.53% consensus (98.8 – 99.87, 95% c.l.)
As consensus was my subject, I do not feel compelled to respond to the rest of your sea lioning. Except to say that if you really want to go the route of the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger (CarbonBrief), I would be glad to put their scientific reputation up against that of Climate Etc. And the point in the particular article is, as noted, supported in the peer reviewed literature:
A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution A Ribes et al., Climate Dynamics volume 48, pages367–386 (2017)
” we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ±
0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02 K).”
103% +/- 20% (includes negative human forcings: aerosols and land use)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6
Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period, N. Gillett et al.
Nature Climate Change volume 11, pages 207–212 (2021)
“anthropogenic forcings caused 0.9 to 1.3 °C [1.1 +/- 0.2 C] of warming in global mean near-surface air temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900, compared with an observed warming of 1.1 °C.”
100% +/- 18% (includes negative forcings).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9
P.S. “What do we know of ocean currents? Nearly nothing.”
You are free to confess your lack of knowledge, but not apply it to others, particularly those that actually study it – The ENSO mechanism is well understood.
Ganon1950, as you were talking on “FAKE” the first thing I saw was that picture on Carbonbrief that was a picture of car tailpipe exhaust which has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect…
But of course, that the is not the point of discussion.
Even the question posed by Meyers ea. is wrong: I am sure that CO2 is a GHGs, that humans have increased it with some 40% in the atmosphere and thus that CO2 helped to increase the earth’s temperature. Thus I am totally within the “consensus”.
That question is not important at all, the important question is: how much is that influence? And then there one gets the answer from climate models which only look at known inputs, guess some fortifying factors like water vapor feedback, which is nowhere found where the highest effect should be (in the higher troposphere of the tropics, according to all models). And estimates natural influences near zero, without knowing anything about natural influences…
Then take the result of your second reference:
“anthropogenic forcings caused 0.9 to 1.3 °C [1.1 +/- 0.2 C] of warming in global mean near-surface air temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900”
There they include the 0.3-0.4 K natural warming (1900-1950) in the “anthro” warming…
One knows the mechanism of an El Niño and even can predict one some 6 months before the event, but nobody knows the direct cause or even can predict one, one year before the event.
Or the sudden blob of warm water in the North Pacific a few years ago, or the sudden warming of near the whole North Atlantic this year, with an energy many times higher than the few W/m2 that all extra CO2 could have delivered…
https://ncas.ac.uk/whats-driving-unusually-high-temperatures-in-the-north-atlantic-pacific-and-antarctic/
Your right Ganon, falsified is a more truthfully accurate descriptor….
Ferdinand,
(1) Seems you are non longer interested in refuting recent consensus data, and even try to include yourself (that’s OK). Instead, just more sea lioning, In which you claim to not know a lot of things. That’s OK too, but you don’t know enough to assign your lack of knowledge to others.
“picture of car tailpipe exhaust which has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect …”
I don’t think you know what “fake” means. Are you implying that automobile exhaust in has no CO2 (or NOx) and therefore nothing to do with the greenhouse effect?
” I am sure that CO2 is a GHGs, that humans have increased it with some 40% in the atmosphere and thus that CO2 helped to increase the earth’s temperature. Thus I am totally within the “consensus”. ”
It’s more like 50% increase (420/280). You are not within the “consensus” unless you think CO2 is the MAJOR cause of recent GMST rise. Do you? If so, glad to hear it.
“And then there one gets the answer from climate models which only look at known inputs”
Yes, it is damn difficult to include unknown inputs (what do you think those might be?). Therefore, we should ignore the all results, even though the CIMP sets have done quite well with back casting and half-casting?
“There they include the 0.3-0.4 K natural warming (1900-1950) in the “anthro” warming…”
How do you know that the 1900 – 1950 warming is “natural”? CO2 emission increased substantially during that period. Even if that were correct (it isn’t), 2/3 of the warming would still be human caused.
Gannon1950,
As I said, I am in the 99.x “consensus” if the question is that our CO2 has helped to increase the temperature of the earth.
I am out the “consensus” if one says that it is 100% and more, as the latter is based on climate models, which show a range of 1.5 to 4.5 and more for 2xCO2.
That are two different points which may overlap, but quite a difference for future warming and its effects.
A range of 1:3 of the models! That is not science, that is just guessing: all have exactly the same inputs. All do hind cast the temperature of the previous century reasonably well…
And that extremely wide range didn’t even get more narrow in the past 30 years of modelling effort, to the contrary…
That means that their output has about the same validity as the weather forecast for next day: somewhere between freezing and a heat wave…
I have spent about halve my working life, amongst other things, trying to get better products with (chemical) models. That was including one disastrous outcome as a little fact was not known (a supplier who swindled with the pH of his raw material). Since then very critical to any “model” where some parameter is not known to any accuracy, as is the case for several influences on climate.
Therefore I was eager to know something more about climate models and followed a short course of climate models at the University of Oxford, where I obtained a simple spreadsheet that calculated the future warming, based on the main four inputs (human emissions, natural and human aerosols and solar) on basis of input x (assumed) effect.
By playing with only two assumed effects (on the increase in GHGs and aerosols) one could double or halve the effect of a CO2 doubling, while the performance to hind cast the past was similar:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
As a side effect, Kaufmann compared the performance of the multi-million dollar “real” climate models with that of a simple (spreadsheet) Energy Balance Model (EBM) and they didn’t perform better… See the above link.
Even over recent times of modelling, some 95% of the models are way to high in their prediction of the “hot spot” in the upper troposphere of the tropics:
https://clintel.org/new-presentation-by-john-christy-models-for-ar6-still-fail-to-reproduce-trends-in-tropical-troposphere/
RealClimate reacted (on a similar study for AR5 models) with:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
Just obscuring the main problem of the models by looking at baseline, smoothing, etc. while the speed of warming is the only variable of interest. But if you look at the histograms at the end: 75% of all models globally show a warming that is higher than all different calculated satellite trends, including their error width and 80% are “too hot” in the tropics…
Indeed it is very difficult to include unknown influences in a model, like the recurrent 1000-1200 warm(er)/cold(er) periods, the real influence of solar (beyond its W/m2 variability), clouds (mostly used in models as enhancing the GHG effect, in reality a negative feedback). But there is extremely little research to look into natural effects that may influence climate, compared to what is invested in the effect of CO2 and other GHGs.
The straight-forward conclusion is that current models are simply worthless, because a lot of (mainly natural) effects are unknown, under/overestimated and mainly used to scare people with unrealistic scenario’s and not seen disasters…
And on this (bad) performance, the (Western) world is spending trillions of euro/dollars to get rid of fossil fuels…
Even the IPCC assumes that the warming 1900-1945 is not caused by increasing CO2, as good as another natural influence caused more cooling in the period 1945-1975 than the increase of CO2 over the same period caused warming…
The main, unanswered question (only some guesses): what were these natural influences and did these stop working in the period 1976-current?
BTW, why didn’t Carbonbrief show a tailpipe photo of cars in summer from Chicago, because GHGs are invisible?
Ferdinand,
“Even the IPCC assumes that the warming 1900-1945 is not caused by increasing CO2, as good as another natural influence caused more cooling in the period 1945-1975 than the increase of CO2 over the same period caused warming…
The main, unanswered question (only some guesses): what were these natural influences and did these stop working in the period 1976-current?”
–
the warming 1900-1945 is not caused by increasing CO2, it is the continuous millennials long orbital forced warming trend.
–
in the period 1945-1975 some influence caused cooling.
–
and did these stop working in the period 1976-current?
–
Good point. Aren’t we should be puzzled?
Because there is always is the continuous millennials long orbital forced warming trend.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ferdinand,
“As I said, I am in the 99.x “consensus” if the question is that our CO2 has helped to increase the temperature of the earth.”
But, if CO2 has “helped” is not the question. The question is whether CO2 is the major (>50%) cause of current warming, and you haven’t answered that.
“The question is whether CO2 is the major (>50%) cause of current warming, and you haven’t answered that.”
The only right answer is: “nobody knows”.
Based on pure radiation effect, about 55%.
Based on only positive feedbacks: between 55% and 110% (all current climate models).
Based on mainly negative feedbacks: between 0% and 55%.
My best guess, which is as “scientific” as from any climate model: 55%, thus pure the extra radiation heat and nothing more or less…
Wow, I am just within the IPCC “consensus”, with less than 2 K warming up to 2100, thus no real problems to fear.
But how do we stop the “catastrophic” warming propaganda of zealots like VN boss Gutteres who declares that the earth is boiling?
Christos,
“it is the continuous millennials long orbital forced warming trend.”
You keep saying that, ignoring the data and the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations, and give no evidence for your claim. It is a waste of time to argue with willful ignorance of factors that are counter to someone’s chosen model, but I try anyway.
“If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
Cause(s) of the 1900 – 1950 warming:
“Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing, offset to some extent by aerosols. Natural variability also made a large contribution, particularly to regional anomalies like the Arctic warming in the 1920s and 1930s. The ETCW period also encompassed exceptional events, several of which are touched upon: Indian monsoon failures during the turn of the century, the “Dust Bowl” droughts and extreme heat waves in North America in the 1930s, the World War II period drought in Australia between 1937 and 1945; and the European droughts and heat waves of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Understanding the mechanisms involved in these events, and their links to large scale forcing is an important test for our understanding of modern climate change and for predicting impacts of future change.”
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.522
It is better to attempt to understand complex interactions, rather than simplify them and make a false “either/or” assignment.
Thank you, ganon.
“Christos,
“it is the continuous millennials long orbital forced warming trend.”
You keep saying that, ignoring the data and the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations, and give no evidence for your claim. It is a waste of time to argue with willful ignorance of factors that are counter to someone’s chosen model, but I try anyway.”
–
Yes, I keep saying that.
–
“ignoring the data and the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations, and give no evidence for your claim. ”
ganon, I have explained everything in my website, LINK:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You say I am ignoring the data and the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations, but I am searching the theme since november 2015, it is for eight years now.
So, no, I am not ignoring the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations.
Everyone knows about the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations.
What you don’t know yet, is that the MIlankovitch orbital cycle calculations should be read reversed.
And everything falls in its place then.
–
Do you know ganon, that there is not any +33C Greenhouse Warming Effect on the Earth’s surface?
–
Christos,
I believe the preponderance of the evidence; the calculations of the Milankovitch cycles agree with forcings of the climate observed in paleoclimatology throughout the Pleistocene, Holocene, and before. There is a well understood reason why the calculations are usually performed for 65 deg. North. And even if you turned it upside down, it would not explain the current rate of change observed in an interglacial period.
I find it too much of a coincidence that your hypothesis requires you to discard both the well established physics of forcings by orbital cycles and increasing CO2 concentration. Good luck in your search for fame. Let us know when you have a peer reviewed publication on the subject.
Thank you ganon.
–
Now, please tell, what the our’s Moon’s the average (mean) surface temperature is?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ferdinand,
The only right answer is: “nobody knows”.
You may speak for yourself, not everybody else. And then you proclaim to know, and even giving percentage break downs (LOL), for different cases, except that you leave out the most important case, that which considers direct forcing as well as both positive and negative feedbacks; for which average of literature is slightly above 100%. See references (with links) given in:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
If you have peer reviewed references that refute these, I’d be glad to look at them.
Christos,
“Now, please tell, what the our’s Moon’s the average (mean) surface temperature is?”
Offhand, I don’t know, and don’t find the deflection particularly relevant to Earth’s climate.
Now you: Why does your hypothesis also require you insist that Earth’s atmosphere is “thin” (without specifying what that means) so that you can ignore it. Particularly when it is as materially “thick” as 2.5 meters of water, and optically “thick” (opaque) for much of the infrared and deeper ultraviolet?
Thank you, ganon.
“Christos,
“Now you: Why does your hypothesis also require you insist that Earth’s atmosphere is “thin” (without specifying what that means) so that you can ignore it. Particularly when it is as materially “thick” as 2.5 meters of water, and optically “thick” (opaque) for much of the infrared and deeper ultraviolet? ”
–
Earth’s atmosphere is not materially “thick” as 2.5 meters of water.
“* Thorium reactors produce uranium-232, which decays to an extremely potent high-energy gamma emitter [Tl-208, 2.4 MeV] that can penetrate through one meter of concrete, making the handling of this spent nuclear fuel extraordinarily dangerous.”
–
One meter of concrete cannot be replaced by ten meters of water.
–
One meter of concrete cannot be replaced by four Earth’s tropospheres.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“Now, please tell, what the our’s Moon’s the average (mean) surface temperature is?”
Offhand, I don’t know, and don’t find the deflection particularly relevant to Earth’s climate.”
–
Yet it is very much relevant.
Earth is a planet, so Earth is subjected to the same universal laws as every planet and moon in solar system.
The method in my research is the “Planets and moons surface temperatures comparison”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Sorry I should not have used a mass thickness analogy which allowed you deflect from the real question: the optical thickness of the atmosphere. Nonetheless, a vacuum cannot replace a gas with a column weight of 1.o6 Kg.cm^2.
Yes moons and planets are subject to the same physical laws. One of them is gravity, which says the earth can support an atmosphere, and thus a changing climate, while the moon cannot. It is not about their similarities, which are obvioius – it is about all the differences, which you ignore.
Thank you, ganon.
““* Thorium reactors produce uranium-232, which decays to an extremely potent high-energy gamma emitter [Tl-208, 2.4 MeV] that can penetrate through one meter of concrete, making the handling of this spent nuclear fuel extraordinarily dangerous.”
–
One meter of concrete is not opaque to an extremely potent high-energy gamma emitter [Tl-208, 2.4 MeV] .
–
The ~400 ppm CO2 content in Earth’s thin atmosphere
is not opaque to the Earth’s outgoing LW radiation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I believe what I said is:
“the Earth’s atmosphere … is optically “thick” (opaque) for much of the infrared and deeper ultraviolet.”
That is correct.
If you wish it parse it down Earth’s outgoing LWIR, then you can leave out deeper ultraviolet as irrelevant, and it is still correct.
If you wish to parse it further to only CO2 and outgoing LWIR. I’ll respond to that:
CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere makes it optically “thick” (opaque) to a significant spectral region (around 14.9 micron wavelength) of Earth’s outgoing LWIR, and particularly that part that is “thin” to absorption by water vapor (the “water window”).
Thank you, but your semantics and deflections do not change the molecular photophysics.
I’m not sure this is going to post on the right “tier” of the hierarchical comments, but…
a certain percentage of those polled does not equal a given percentage agreement among the general population. This is basic stuff. How do we know the sample was representative of the total body of climate scientists? Was there selection bias? “Four out of five dentists” may “recommend Colgate” when Colgate polls their own dentists for advertising purposes; that doesn’t necessarily make it a realistic representation of the world at large. Does the “No True Scotsman” fallacy come into play before or after conducting the survey? (That is, have they already determined that those who disagree “aren’t real climate scientists” and thus excluded them from the equation?)
This entire thread is representative of the same kind of bias and willful blindness the article itself describes that undermines real science.
Titus2Homemaker,
Yes, there is always selection bias. In this case it is often intentional, and specified, e.g., “well published” climate scientists. There is also psychological bias in who answers, e.g., “That’s a stupid question that’s already been answered” vs “my viewpoint doesn’t get enough attention, so I’ll speak up”. Nonetheless, the polls are what they are, and the good one specify methodology and background statistics.
>> If the question is, do scientists believe..
It does not matter much what one believes and history teaches us quite clearly that decisions based on believes are often not very good ones.
It does however matter if there is a track record for example by publishing climate scientists of claiming to know when they should have said they believe.
In this context I find two images quite illustrating:
a) From Pat Franks article
https://climate-science.press/2023/05/18/what-i-learned-about-what-exxon-knew/#
https://i0.wp.com/climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/0image-82.webp?resize=768%2C338&ssl=1
What happens to the systematic uncertainty when you figure in that models before CMIP6 did not code the clouds correctly!
(And I find it very absurd to still point out that older model trends match the real world after it was clearly shown the models do not!)
b) From Steve McIntyres blog
https://climateaudit.org/2008/03/10/mannian-pca-revisited-1/
an image showing a slice of Mann´s Hockey stick reconstruction:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/pcsht44.gif
McShane and Wyner wrote a rejoinder in after a longer, but very interesting discussion (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23024822) make the following statement (among other excellent and condemning points):
“””
[..]Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.[..]
“””
This problem is completely omitted by Mann as he uses the data series as presented to calculate a temperature with an uncertainty, but fails to discuss how well this number actually represents the world´s temperature back then in a meaningful way. Far worse, even since McShane and Wyner published their findings in 2011 hundreds of articles with proxy reconstructions take data series and calculate a global temperature for a time period without ever addressing this point.
To me it seems a very necessary analysis, I look at this picture and wonder if these few uncertain data points can really capture the global temperature at that time in any meaningful way.
Taking away bold statements from articles with false modeling and incomplete proxy methodology it seems to me that a lot of these expressed believes are just hot air!
“Inevitably, Einstein’s fame and the great success of his theories created a backlash. The rising Nazi movement found a convenient target in relativity, branding it “Jewish physics” and sponsoring conferences and book burnings to denounce Einstein and his theories. The Nazis enlisted other physicists, including Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, to denounce Einstein. One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
— https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein/Nazi-backlash-and-coming-to-America
This is, essentially, what Dr. Curry is pointing out.
Do you STILL Pay for electricity and gasoline?
Not us, our solar system has powered our household and electric cars for eight years, having paid back in three.
Our $12,400 solar system has powered out household and electric cars for eight years now. It paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Do you still pay for electricity and gasoline?
Christos Vournas…. The 1908-1945 warming was very similar in duration and magnitude to the 1985-2022 warming. The early 20th century warming was very likely non-anthropogenic. Cooling was dominant 1945-1976 although this has been erased through adjustments. Nonetheless, the anthropogenic warming pre-1976 is likely near zero given a robust assessment. The warming since 1976 is approx 0.65 deg. To me, that is the most likely anthropogenic total but that assumes 100% of post 1976 warming is man-made. Dubious assumption.
Claiming 110% of warming since 1850 is anthropogenic is simply scientific malpractice.
The real answer is that we don’t really know how much warming humans have triggered but it’s certainly minuscule compared to the 60 deg C annual range or 12 deg daily range that most of us endure.
Noise level anthropogenic warming filled with data noise and physical uncertainty.
Thank you, Wei.
“The real answer is that we don’t really know how much warming humans have triggered but it’s certainly minuscule…”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Climatologists have …
(a) Ignored the fact explained by Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s that it is gravity that establishes what is a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient in Earth’s troposphere. Such a gradient is now known to exist in all other planetary tropospheres in our Solar System. Furthermore, it can be shown to be a direct result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production, as proven in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and my book.
(b) As is easily deduced from energy diagrams published by NASA and climatologists, the method by which they quantify surface temperatures (and increases in such) assumes that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives correct resulting temperatures for the arithmetic sum of the radiative fluxes from two or more surfaces. It doesn’t. It is derived from the integral of the Planck function for a single source. No published experiment anywhere confirms that climatologists are correct in using that law the way they do in all their computer modelling, which is thus wrong.
Gravity forms the temperature gradient, repairing it in calm conditions at night. The next morning when solar energy is absorbed mostly in the tops of clouds and in the middle and upper troposphere the new energy is spread out by gravity in such a way that the whole graph of temperature v. altitude rises to a higher but parallel position. This means that some of the new energy in the middle and upper atmosphere makes its way by molecular collisions (not back radiation) towards and into the surface. This heat from cooler to warmer regions can only happen in a force field. In fact it also happens radially in every functioning vortex cooling tube due to centrifugal force.
Hence, with all the overwhelming evidence and with the use of correct physics, I rest my case.
In the case of the Climate Emergency religion, the demise will come from economics, not enlightenment. Simply put, the movement is running out of other peoples money and folks are getting increasingly irritated as they become poorer. However, the elite (and that includes many companies and politicians) have managed to make huge sums of money on the scam.
I would dissent strongly from your statement „ The modernist paradigm of mastery, planning, and optimization is not appropriate for the wicked problems of the twenty-first century.“.
But mastery, planning etc must be applied locally, not globally.
Trying to find a scheme to optimize the whole world will result in failure. And of course one has to keep an open mind and be honest to concede failure where appropiate.
Mastery, planning etc. is appropriate for tame problems at the local level. Wicked problems are associated with complexity, deep uncertainty and ambiguity of values. Read my book for greater context and insights on this issue.
Gotta say, I loved the section heading entitled “Speaking Consensus To Power”. Could be the epitaph for 21st century science …
Thanks as always for your marvelous site and your most interesting analyses,
w.
BRAVO, Dr. Curry.
“ A manufactured consensus arises from oversimplification of the problem, which leads to restricting the policy solution space and mistaken ideas that the problem can be controlled.”
For me that is the essence of the problem. It doesn’t take much research to conclude the issue of global warming is enormously complex. Instead of acknowledging that complexity and being more circumspect in communicating the challenges of understanding the problem and developing the requisite solutions, the dialogue has been dumbed down. Many skeptics would have more confidence in the scientific debate if more climate scientists would simply speak out about the need to be more measured in how much we know versus how much we think we know and call out those who perpetuate the myth of absolute knowledge. Many studies acknowledge non CO2 influences on our climate. But that never seems to get much traction.
A sisyphean task, to be sure, and exigent. We are heading toward a point where almost all government spending will be framed by ESG and DEI.
Thanks, Judith. I enjoyed your book, as well.
Dr. Curry, I have no probIem going out on the proverbial limb with the following exclamation.
My intent is not meant to be dramatic, but I’ve settled on the following thought: this essay you present is a comtemporary manifesto underscoring why the enlightenment era began in the first place–one that fundamentally embraced individual liberty, freedom of thought, and rejection of central authority as an arbiter of ideas. Elite authority, the contemporary monarchy, is irrelevant to critical thinkers.
JT … Agreed.
One change I would make. Substitute or add to the term ‘irrelevant’. At the least: incompatible or inharmonious. At worst: adversarial or dangerous.
I appreciate it, Bill. Hindsight I agree “incompatible” would have been better usage. Sometimes I’m too quick with stream of conscious, I’m terribly impatient about proofing myself, which I’m certain is self evident.
JT … you’ve hit the bullseye. The problem is examining and presenting the mechanisms of social control are tedious, boring and can have an unsettling affect (as most bristle at being rendered as Pavlov’s dog or a swarm of sardines, as melitamegalithic hysterically comments below). So, you’re ‘dramatic’ assertion is not over-the-top. I hope it will be accurate, but it won’t be easy.
What astounds me is that the IPCC pronouncements are hidden in plain view. AR5’s ‘consensus statement’ that human activities were the ‘dominant’ cause of warming since 1950, does not actually appear in the text. It was manufactured at the plenary by bureaucrats and politicians. The AR5 section on the surface temperature record clearly misrepresents some of the papers showing a high impact of non GHG activities: UHI and LULC (i.e Fall et al 2010; Zhang et al 2010). They buried John Christy’s work showing no tropospheric hotspot for decades in the supplementary information released months later. It’s a sad inditement of the scientific community. A recent tropical cyclone here in New Zealand was described as having 30% more rain by Frederike Otto’s World Weather Attribution team. But of the 24 weather stations, all but six failed and, of those, none have records back past 1990 so we couldn’t actually compare the rainfall with the last big cyclone to hit the region in 1988. The climate industry complex has shades of Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme. Keep it up Judith.
It is not only the IPCC, there are over 200 scientific associations that that hold the position that [Current] Climate Change has been caused by human action.
https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
Another listing of major U.S. scientific bodies, and their statements at:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific_consensus/
I wonder, where is the list of scientific associations that believe humans are not the major cause of current climate change, and that it is not a significant problem?
Well Ganon, its the same money behind all this BS that you link to. These so called scientist’s and organisations swim around in billions of USD, while ordinary scientists have to spend half their time looking for funds for their research.
I don’t doubt that funding is based on what is of interest to the funding agencies. If you think the results are BS, that is a biased personal opinion (to which you are entitled) and an ad hominem logical fallacy (calling something BS is not a refutation of the results and conclusions).
“I don’t doubt that funding is based on what is of interest to the funding agencies. If you think the results are BS, that is a biased personal opinion (to which you are entitled) and an ad hominem logical fallacy.”
An interesting exchange.
According to Ganon, unwittingly, the appropriation of funds for research is based on bias: “I don’t doubt that funding is based on what is of interest to the funding agencies”, meaning agencies know all facts beforehand worthy of funding (they fund the obvious). Logically there’s no doubt that funding is biased, it’s “based on interest” of the agencies. But if one questions biased results from biased funding, this is called “BS”, a personal opinion (and an ad hom). Even while questioned funding was based on the confirmation biases of the funding agencies to begin with; opinions.
It’s a sick game.
Jungletrunks,
“According to Ganon, unwittingly, the appropriation of funds for research is based on bias: “I don’t doubt that funding is based on what is of interest to the funding agencies, meaning agencies know all facts beforehand worthy of funding (they fund the obvious).”
No, the funding agencies have specific missions, which are generally determined by governmental funding laws. It means they want to learn the facts about the subject(s) of interest assigned to the funding agency. It most definitely does not mean they know the facts beforehand. The only sickening game is the uninformed cynicism, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks on people that are actually doing things in the public interest.
Ganon, you just doubled down using more confirmation bias. And you believe the nonsense.
“…funding agencies have specific missions [no kidding], which are generally determined by governmental funding laws. It means they want to learn the facts about the subject(s) of interest assigned to the funding agency [meaning buttress consensus].
I’m sure you’re quite satisfied that scientists of the caliber of Demetris Koutsoyiannis have been starved from funding.
I’m just an old scientist. Always was, always will be. Not even a climate scientist. The core qualities scientists should have in my opinion are curiosity, intellect and skepticism. They are innate. They cannot be learnt. They drive their enquiries, which constitute the process of scientific research. Lack of any of those qualities will put their findings in doubt.
Boring and trite? Maybe. But perhaps it can explain the unusual lack of consensus in the field of climate science.
For me, after 20 or so years of scrutinising climate scientists’ output I have decided I fully accept the basics of carbon dioxide emissions affecting the Earth’s heat balances etc. (ancient science, entirely credible) but remain skeptical about all climate predictions, especially of the catastrophic kind. Skepticism in science is both healthy and essential. This time, uniquely, its need is off the scale. For the first time. Well, almost. I can recall two occasions where getting the science right was crucial for mankind. Polywater and cold fusion.
Polywater might have started out as a mere scientific curiosity in 1966 when we in the West first heard of it. But quite soon panic broke out. What if laboratory polywater seeded outbreaks of polymerisation and all the world’s water began polymerising? A growing giant glug forming that infected all our water supplies! So immediately researchers had to start taking precautions to prevent the polywater they were trying to synthesise from escaping their lab. In the end it was all a mistake; skeptical chemists found it was just an impurity (dissolved silica concentrated by multiple distillations).
Cold fusion was a threat because of the excitement it caused, not the potential damage. Luckily it too went away. An error had been made (even though its discoverer was an eminent electrochemist, whom I knew).
This time it’s different. And it’s a first. On the basis of science that is still debated (but even that’s denied by some) plans are afoot to spend trillions of dollars on its mitigation. TRILLIONS! And even then the prospects of eliminating use of fossil fuels are, in some opinions (including mine), slim. So we really must get the science right or we are heading for very tough times, at the very least.
Curiosity, intellect and skepticism. Those will be the weapons. I fear that skepticism is the one in short supply.
Nice piece Tom,
I too, am an old scientist, not always have been, but have been for more than 50 years.
Just two points.
(1) You can look to Paleoclimatology for the source of predictions of “catastrophes”, if you choose not to believe the modeling. Simply look up mass extinctions and see how many of them are related to rapid climate changes of 5-6 C (either direction). That would include the 1st Holocene extinctions, 13,000 – 9000 years ago – ask mastodons and saber tooth tigers.
(2) If nothing else, the use of fossil fuels will eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
“13000 – 9000 yrs ago”, yet we and the planet ecosystems are still here…..
“If nothing else, the use of fossil fuels will eliminate the use of fossil fuels.” – Maybe it will create more…..
I think “fossil” fuel is a misnomer anyway. Decaying vegetation sheds its oils into the ground and waterways.
John,
“https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific_consensus/”
Yet many species are gone due to rapid climate change. Do we wish to be responsible for more, oh wait, we already are.
“Maybe it will create more … ”
Please elaborate.
“I think “fossil” fuel is a misnomer anyway. Decaying vegetation sheds its oils into the ground and waterways.”
I’m pretty sure petrochemicals and coal are fossil fuels. Oil that comes from recently growing surface plants (and burned for energy) are called biofuels.
1) Plus ca change. Rapid climate change — warming or cooling — causes extinctions of maladapted species. That’s not news. The question is, how did mastodons survive the Eemian? And what extinctions occurred during the Holocene Optimum?
Humans adapt. If extinction is in our near future, it won’t be the result of a slightly warmer climate. It will be caused by a catastrophic failure of politics.
2) “Fossil fuel” is catastrophist propaganda, piggybacking on a 100-year-old scarcity meme ginned up by oil producers. Catastrophists use the term to suggest that oil is anachronistic (as in “gannon, you old fossil”), compared to modern, up-to-date energy (i.e., electricity, generated by ….oh, wait).
“Fossil fuel” is a polemicist’s tool and should not be used by rigorous scientists: hydrocarbons are a biofuel, as Thomas Gold posited 30 years ago. (Gold’s theory explains why oil is most abundant in areas where fracture zones create a supportive environment for methane-producing microorganisms).
Bart,
“If extinction is in our near future, it won’t be the result of a slightly warmer climate. It will be caused by a catastrophic failure of politics.”
“Will” and “won’t” are inappropriate verbs when talking about the future – it just indicates personal opinion with an overblown sense of self-importance.
Yes coal and petrochemicals are biofuels, coming from living organisms that have been chemically reformed by heat and pressure deep under rock (petro) within the earth’s crust over millions of years. On the timescale of humanity, and their current usage, they are not sustainable. Your deflection is apparent and not convincing.
ganon1950 | November 17, 2023 at 6:19 pm |
John,
“https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific_consensus/”
Yet many species are gone due to rapid climate change. Do we wish to be responsible for more, oh wait, we already are.
Ganon – yes many species are gone – blaming the loss on climate change is poor lazy. The climate hasnt changed nearly enough in the last 200 years to kill off as many species as have been blamed on climate change.
Joe, rapid climate change has been responsible for many species extinctions in the past, some of them mass extinctions. Right now, human caused species extinction is largely due to:
Hunting and overharvesting
Introducing invasive species to the wild
Polluting
Changing wetlands and forests to croplands and urban areas
Rapid growth of the human population, which is causing extinction by ruining natural habitats
My question is do we want to be responsible for MORE species extinctions as anthropogenic climate change continues at a rapid pace?
Ganon comment – “My question is do we want to be responsible for MORE species extinctions as anthropogenic climate change continues at a rapid pace?”
Ganon – At least you admit that the loss of species over the last 200 or so years is due to land use and invasive species, etc. Occurrence which are unrelated to “climate Change”.
The loss of species over the last 200 years due to climate change is probably zero. Blaming climate change for loss of species is quite bluntly – lazy science. Same as migration on global warming, blaming future wars on global warming, blaming changes in demographics on global warming – its pure lazy science.
Joe,
I blame past mass extinctions on climate change. We can (future subjunctive statement of possibility) make it happen again. Sorry if you don’t understand or are projecting willful denial of the possibility.
Joe, perhaps a fairly impartial review (with references) of the problem is in order:
https://blog.earthly.org/how-many-species-are-extinct-due-to-climate-change/
ganon1950 | November 21, 2023 at 11:58 am |
Joe,
I blame past mass extinctions on climate change. We can (future subjunctive statement of possibility) make it happen again. Sorry if you don’t understand or are projecting willful denial of the possibility.
Ganon – The implication in all your comments is that recent specie loss is due to recent “climate change” (the last 200 or so years). It is only after you have been corrected, that you correct your representation.
Joe, the only place I made an implication about the present is:
“Do we wish to be responsible for more, oh wait, we already are.”
It is true, and attempts to deny it are false. I have not changed my position, I only explained it more detail for those with a reading comprehension problem.
““Will” and “won’t” are inappropriate verbs when talking about the future – it just indicates personal opinion with an overblown sense of self-importance. Gannon
Ganon uses verbs to describe a future where sea level WILL rise by much more than the current trend with ANY explanation of when the change in trend will occur. Ganon also wrote the POSSIBILITY that CO2 could top out @ 450 ppm. The trend line and number of new emitters indicate that is impossible unless there is a war or pandemic.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-power/#:~:text=Around%20the%20world%2C%201.3%20billion%20people%20lack%20access,significant%20jump%20in%20demand%20in%20the%20coming%20decades.
Rob Starkey,
“Ganon uses verbs to describe a future where sea level WILL rise by much more than the current trend with ANY explanation of when the change in trend will occur.”
Go ahead, give a real quote where I used “will (happen)” to describe the future, unless it was a direct quote from someone else or referring to someone else’s use of the word.
My explanations are often references and/or links to sources more authoritative than myself. If you don’t read them and then claim there isn’t ANY explanation, that is your failure.
Tom Biegler:
Yes, we are heading for some very tough times, and it will be a catastrophe of our own making!
See my article: SO2 aerosol removal: The cause of global warming.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996
Tom. Cold Fusion/Low Energy Nuclear Reaction continued and is being validated. e.g.,
Akito Takahashi, Doctor of Engineering Prof. Emeritus Consultant at Osaka University, Japan has been quantifying the excess heat from nickle nanoparticles saturated with hydrogen
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akito-Takahashi-2
ARPA-E has put $10 million into evaluating/validating Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/exploratory-topics/low-energy-nuclear-reactions
Worse, much of those trillions of dollars are being spent on things that *sound good* based on the political agenda being pushed but which are, in actual fact, *bad for* the cosmos.
Replacing useful plastic straws in paper wrappers with inferior paper straws in plastic wrappers is not a meaningful solution — it’s just bloated bureaucracy and an annoyance to the people. The strip-mining needed to create electric car batteries, burning of diesel fuel to charge them, landfill space needed to dispose of wind turbine blades, etc. — these are not really clean, eco-friendly, viable long-term alternatives to fossil fuels. They’re just costly virtue-signaling.
But we’re too busy being whipped into a frenzied panic by the media and by bureaucracies that want to do away with meat and coal and cars and make us eat bugs and drive vehicles they can shut off on a whim, to focus on making any *real* changes — like getting back to a place where telephones and appliances aren’t built to be disposable.
It would be FAR better environmental stewardship to build refrigerators that work for 30 years rather than 10 or phones you aren’t expected to throw away and replace every year or two, than to try to stop us from raising and eating cows — which mankind has done since time immemorial without obliterating the planet in the process.
We’re trying to ban gas stoves…while throwing millions of masks into the landfills and oceans.
A little bit of common sense would go a long way. But people revved up by fear-porn don’t live by common sense.
60 million bison roamed the North American Plains, then nearly extinct by the 1970’s. That must have caused the looming “ice age” of the 1970s. {SARC}
Additionally, to the difference between a “scientific consensus” and a “consensus of scientists” is holding scientific confabs to chat on how best to save the world from modernity, in luxurious locations like Monaco and Cancun.
Wouldn’t that be a confab of scientists?
In is well known that the 3% who go against the science crowd never get published so when you seed the data to only count those who part of the crowd, the results are not a surprise.
So, you concede there is (at least) 97% consensus. I’m good with that.
Gannon please, Science is not about consensus. and, when you ask the same people that swim around in billions of dollars, you will get this ridiculous concensus that doesn’t exist in real science.
And most of these globalist organisations were started by criminals like Maurice Strong. You can try ro scream down people in comment sections. It doesn’t matter. We don’t believe you or them anymore.
I really wonder how much of the climate science problem is an outcome of what Peter Turchin terms “popular immiseration” and “elite overproduction”. These themes from his “End Times” book are too much to go into detail here, but the summary is that as elite positions in society become ever scarcer in the face of burgeoning supplies of wannabe elites, the resulting precarity in what was once a self confident elite class creates negative dynamics. Benjamin Studebaker observed a similar situation with his description of excess Song Dynasty bureacrat aspirants.
I bring this up because it seems that many of the biggest names in climate science are, frankly, not very impressive individual scientists.
Mann and Dessler in particular are known far more for their pugnacity on social media than they are for spearheading the leading edge of science.
Pingback: Glibertarians | Saturday Morning Sustainable Links
Anyone who has worked in a political policy-making/advising environment will recognize the truth in Judith’s assessment. I first worked as a political adviser (to a body chaired by the UK PM) in 1967, and believe that the situation is much worse in recent decades.
“ A manufactured consensus arises from oversimplification of the problem, which leads to restricting the policy solution space and mistaken ideas that the problem can be controlled.”
Everything about AGW is oversimplified. From the press blaming climate change on every weather event to believing that reducing emissions of CO2 will stop the natural variability that has existed forever.
Retail politics has created a populace that believes a few trillion more dollars will solve every intractable problem, from socio pathologies to eliminating hurricanes and forest fires.
The literature shows plenty of evidence that non CO2 factors play a dominant role in everything from floods to drought to Arctic Sea Ice to the melting Antarctica Ice Sheet to sea level rise. And yet all the other potential causative agents are muted in favor of the dumbed down control knob theory.
The original IPCC efforts didn’t help to convey the complexity of the issue. Their mission, as I see it, was analogous to a Judge giving jury instructions that said “I have found the defendant guilty. I charge you with coming up with reasons why the defendant is guilty.”
Ever since, climate science has been distorted to ignore the traditional role of scientific inquiry in favor of finding evidence that CO2 is the culprit. Who needs imagination.
‘Concensus’, the sardine instinct.
Wiki says “Sardines group together when they are threatened. This instinctual behaviour is a defence mechanism, as lone individuals are more likely to be eaten than when in large groups.”
Except when the group gets it wrong, and none will survive the predators who find such instinct much to their advantage.
LOL!!! Thanks, almost spilled my coffee.
sherroo1,
“The uncertainty should be a number greater than the measurement error.”
Not if you make the measurement more than once. Take a statistics class.
Melita,
Yet, in the modern Wiki manner, all of that is questionable.
At any time, there is a group of predators and a group of prey. The math of their interaction has long been modelled with approval. The math is not influenced by the juvenile play on human emotion about the lone individual or the pack.
In a similar way, the present state of climate affairs is not sustainable. The powers of advertising dominate in the public view. Proper science is restricted to the point of near impotence.
For example, Ganon quotes Ribes with approval, natural forcing of -0.01 deg C with an uncertainty of 0.02 deg C. That acceptance of a ridiculous set of figures disqualifies the claim of Ganon of being a scientist, let alone an impartial commenter on this blog. One cannot quote numbers beyond the ability to measure. This illustrates that Tom Biegler above is near the bullseye with his comment that key properties of a scientist are curiousity, intellect and scepticism. Ganon is showing none of these, simply quoting old dogma. Hand in your scientist badge, Ganon.
Geoff S (sceptical scientist).
sherro01,
You send me back in time, some 55 years, to college days. It was a book on control systems, that used analog computing to model variables. One example -in real life- was the variation in number of cats versus rodents on an island, how the numbers varied as cats hunted rats to near extinction of rats, then cats themselves. That was until cats found a new source at to see them through times of near famine, so that the rats were completely wiped out.
I am not sure models take into account new inputs that arise from extreme conditions. In that there may be a lesson for us. Man has survived for millennia, even after having developed agriculture (a new input factor). The new factor now is energy mainly in the form of grid electricity mechanically generated. As a skeptical mechanical engineer with roots in unmechanised agriculture, I see a possible dead end if we take this quality of life for granted.
“Ganon quotes Ribes with approval, natural forcing of -0.01 deg C with an uncertainty of 0.02 deg C. That acceptance of a ridiculous set of figures disqualifies the claim of Ganon of being a scientist, let alone an impartial commenter on this blog.”
I didn’t approve anything. I gave a link to a paper and a quote from its abstract. If you don’t like it, read the paper and tell WHY it is a “ridiculous set of figures”. I think you don’t understand how small natural (solar, volcanic) forcings are and how well they can be determined. If you don’t want to pay to get past the pay wall (I didn’t and thus only a quote from the abstract), you can examine the subject in detail in IPCC AR6, WG1, chapter 7.3.5.3 & figure 7.7. (Note the AR6 uncertainties are about twice as large as Ribes, because AR6 uses a 95% c.l., while Ribes uses 90%. I expect you don’t understand the relationship between forcing and temperature, and the “ridiculous” comment was pulled from where the sun don’t shine, and you can’t support it.
I also expect from the tone of your comment that you are quite anti-science biased and don’t understand or research it very well. Perhaps you are the one that should be disqualified from being a “scientist” and “hand in your badge(s)” (if you have any). You are clearly not an impartial commenter on this blog, but that’s OK – I don’t expect it here.
Ganon,
The uncertainty should be a number greater than the measurement error. Geoff S
Geoff S: “Proper science is restricted to the point of near impotence…One cannot quote numbers beyond the ability to measure.”
Though, as Ganon has already robustly stated:
“Get used to the tyranny of the majority.”
As part of my reading concerning the possibility of using solar radiation modification (SRM) to quickly reduce the earth’s global mean temperature by injecting millions of tons of SO2 directly into the stratosphere, I asked ChatGPT a series of questions about what might have caused GMT to cool between 1950 and 1975.
I used ChatGPT under an assumption that its answers reflect the consensus thinking of mainstream climate scientists, including the IPCC.
To my surprise, the responses I got dispute the commonly held opinion that GMT had declined between 1950 and 1975. So I asked two unambiguous questions to confirm that the presence of the 1950-1975 cooling trend was being disputed.
Question #1: “Did the earth actually cool between 1950 and 1975?”
ChatGPT’s response:
“The idea of a global cooling trend between 1950 and 1975 is a topic of some historical interest in climate science. While there were concerns and discussions about global cooling during that time, the evidence for a significant and sustained global cooling trend is not strongly supported by the scientific data.
Several studies and analyses of temperature records from that period have been conducted, and they generally show that the global mean temperature did not exhibit a consistent cooling trend during the 1950-1975 timeframe. Some regions experienced cooling, but others were warming. When considering the global average, the temperature trend was relatively flat or showed a slight increase.
The perception of global cooling during this period was influenced by specific regional climate variations, such as cooling in parts of the Northern Hemisphere and some unusually cold winters. Additionally, scientific understanding of climate at that time was not as advanced as it is today, and there were limitations in data coverage and accuracy.
It’s crucial to distinguish between short-term variability and long-term trends. Subsequent research and more extensive data collection have provided a clearer picture of long-term global temperature trends, which overwhelmingly indicate a warming trend over the past several decades, largely attributed to human activities and the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.” (End of 1st Response)
OK …. It appears that mainstream climate scientists do indeed dispute the presence of the 1950-1975 cooling trend. Under the assumption that ChatGPT is programmed to reflect their consensus position, I asked yet another question:
Question #2: “Does the IPCC state that the earth cooled between 1950 and 1975?”
ChatGPT’s response:
“No, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not state that the Earth cooled between 1950 and 1975. In fact, the IPCC’s assessments consistently highlight the long-term warming trend in global temperatures, particularly since the mid-20th century.
The IPCC is a scientific body that assesses the latest research on climate change and provides comprehensive reports to inform policymakers. According to the IPCC’s assessments, the Earth’s climate has been warming, and this warming is largely attributed to human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, leading to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The idea of global cooling in the mid-20th century was a perception that existed in some scientific discussions and the media at the time, but subsequent research and more extensive data analysis have debunked the notion of a significant and sustained global cooling trend during that period. The IPCC’s findings align with the scientific consensus that the Earth has been experiencing a warming trend, and human activities are a primary driver of this warming.” (End of 2nd Response)
Well …. There you have it …. Just as mainstream climate scientists have erased the Medievil Warm Period from the climate historical record, they are now attempting to erase the 1950-1975 cooling trend from the historical record. Will they succeed?
Yes, we know chatGTP is a reliable source of scientific information.
I use ChatGTP for gaining insight into whatever it is that climate scientists are pushing this year as being consensus mainstream science.
And also for a quick summary of what particular arguments are being employed by climate scientists this year for promoting this year’s version of their consensus science.
My own topical interests are more focused on energy policy decision making than they are on fundamental issues in climate science, such that these are. And also on the politics of AGW.
For example, jet airliners produce roughly three percent of the world’s carbon emissions. Boeing’s jet airliners comprise roughly half the world’s airliner fleet.
Why hasn’t Governor Jay Inslee told Boeing they must produce a hydrogen-fueled airliner by 2035 or else lose all the financial and tax incentives they now enjoy for building their airplanes in Washington State?
Beta Blocker,
If you want a LLM to hallucinate (lie) you need to learn how to do prompt engineering. 😁
“A manufactured consensus arises from oversimplification of the problem.” It is actually quite amusing how enthusiasts simplistically reduce climate-variability to the infantile mantra “CO2 is pollution / stop CO2”. At least they are not claiming H2O is pollution (yet) or trying to stipulate the Goldilocks amount for it.
It is quite amusing when presumed scientists characterize and quote “enthusiasts” and “activists”, while ignoring science and scientists.
Think whales when grouping together. Regretfully, there’s no free lunch.
Whether the “consensus” is 97% or a smaller number is unimportant. Consider instead the quality of skeptics’ arguments. Some years ago, I began scrutinizing papers of the “3 %” in lightly reviewed “pay-to-publish” journals, looking for new insights. Instead of credible arguments countering the consensus, I found ignorance of the science they challenge, some honest mistakes, unjustified rhetoric about what they claim to have “proven”, incomplete analyses, and in some cases what I have to conclude are deliberate falsehoods apparently attempting to influence public opinion. (I recognize that the latter is a serious charge, but sometimes, not often, I cannot attribute what I find to mere self-delusion.)
Consider the “chicken-and-egg” paper that was the subject of over 1000 recent comments on this blog.
1. If you plan to make novel arguments about where atmospheric CO2 increases come from, you should understand the consensus argument first. The authors did not.
2. If you are going to make a statistical inference such as “CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature rise”, then you should assign some level of confidence to that statement. The authors did not and declined a request to do so. Their analysis was incomplete. Error analysis can be tedious but is essential for credibility. It is also a requirement to pass a freshman physics lab course.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is a good reason that skeptics’ papers typically do not appear in the truly peer-reviewed literature. It is not bias against their conclusions as they like to claim. It is the poor quality of their work.
Also, if they happen to write short books in the popular press, not only do they not have to undergo peer review, they make money off the gullible.
Ganon … as a non-scientist I enjoyed your early comments on this blog, seeing them as stimulating the discussion. And I sympathized with your first claim of ad hominen attacks. How do you categorize your comment above? I assume it is directed at Judith? Yet, I saw no comment of hers that would justify such a statement.
No, it was not directed at Dr. Curry. It arises from what I see on Amazon books when I search “climate change”. However, your making that assumption raises obvious questions.
And what would they be?
Ganon … my comment that you say is an assumption was,
> I assume it is directed at Judith? Yet, I saw no comment of hers that would justify such a statement.
You can see it was a question, as I wasn’t sure. So, I asked, which gave you the benefit of the doubt. Why did I even ask the question? This particular thread is about Judith and her book. I thought it reasonable to ask the question, which answers your comment (It clearly came to mind for you).
To answer your other comments …
> Do you believe Dr. Curry has given up peer-reviewed scientific publication in favor of profitable popular press?
No. And neither would you if you had been on this blog where she has, several times, explained why she left academia and opened her own firm. By the way, a dear friend of mine is a published author, for decades. You might be surprised to learn that the popular press is not as profitable as you might think.
> Do you believe Dr. Curry uses this blog site to promote her $35 paperback shown at the entry to the site?
Of course, and why wouldn’t she discuss it, as the book is based on her experiences in the climate science field? Again, I assume you weren’t here when she shared and refined many portions of the book through this blog long before publishing. Many of us on here have been rooting for her to do this for quite some time. This blog discusses science, policy and social context. Publishing in the ‘popular press’ is done, and should be done, by all sides in the climate debate. Those of us who are non-scientists, the great unwashed ;-), are the ones who will bear the ‘fruits’ of this debate.
> Do you believe Dr. Curry posts excerpts from her book on this blog, and then often answers questions with (paraphrased) “you can find an answer to that if you read my book.”?
I fail to see the problem. She has written peer reviewed papers where she cites them also. She’s also debated on a public stage and sat for Congress. To my knowledge, she’s never been short of an open book. Why would she not have confidence in her views? She has also been honest that in the past, she had differing views. To me, that speaks of integrity.
Reviewing your comments here, which I thank you for, I have to be honest and ask … again … was your original comment that I referenced directed at Judith, as you seem to have thought about this a lot? If not, I’m curious, who were you directing it at?
Bill,
Again, no, it was not, directed at Dr. Curry. It was directed at a class of writers as I originally described. And Dr. Curry is actually excluded since her book is not short.
Why do you write a declarative sentence with a question mark. I view that as an ungramatical “escape clause” so that you can deny making the declaration (as you did).
https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/declarative_sentence.htm
The question remains; what caused you to assume I was referring to Dr. Curry?
ganon …
> The question remains; what caused you to assume I was referring to Dr. Curry?
I answered that with > This particular thread is about Judith and her book. I thought it reasonable to ask the question, which answers your comment (It clearly came to mind for you).
> Why do you write a declarative sentence with a question mark. I view that as an ungramatical “escape clause” so that you can deny making the declaration (as you did).
I said it was phrased to give you the benefit of the doubt. And, I further clarified that based on your subsequent comments that I am very inclined to believe that you meant it.
As I said, your initial comments on this blog, in my view. added to the discussion. Although after your first accusations of being subject to ad hominen attacks, your comments have gradually made increasing use of that tactic. In fact, you’ve gone out of you way to respond negatively to a large number of comments.
You seem to be quite bitter. Are you? If you are, just be honest and own it.
Bill,
Only after you suggested it, and I wondered why.
To suggest D.Koutsoyiannis does “poor quality work” would be … wow, just an unbelievably arrogant smear. That’s actually beyond amusing
The current, alleged, “extinction” is heavy on hype and very light on evidence. The Climate Doomers don’t have extinction rates for the last 1000 years and don’t even have a good measure of extinction rates now because they don’t even know how many species exist. So what’s a good Climate Doomer to do? Lie, exaggerate, and make up stories to scare people. They can’t help themselves, it’s who they are.
Thank you, ganon.
“If you wish to parse it further to only CO2 and outgoing LWIR. I’ll respond to that:
CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere makes it optically “thick” (opaque) to a significant spectral region (around 14.9 micron wavelength) of Earth’s outgoing LWIR, and particularly that part that is “thin” to absorption by water vapor (the “water window”).
Thank you, but your semantics and deflections do not change the molecular photophysics.”
–
BTW, “for visible light, the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c 1.5 ≈ 200 000 km/s (124 000 mi/s); the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 90 km/s (56 mi/s) slower than c .”
–
The retractive index of water at 20C is 1,33.
What is the retractive index of ~400 ppm CO2? Or to say differently, what is the retractive index of CO2 at 1/2500 Atm. ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
It depends on the wavelength and extinction coefficient there. With strong absorption, the refractive index is (largely) imaginary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_descriptions_of_opacity
Does not change the photophysics of the GHE.
Thank you, ganon.
–
“CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere makes it optically “thick” (opaque) to a significant spectral region (around 14.9 micron wavelength) of Earth’s outgoing LWIR, and particularly that part that is “thin” to absorption by water vapor (the “water window”).”
–
At what CO2 content (ppm) the
“significant spectral region (around 14.9 micron wavelength) of Earth’s outgoing LWIR, and particularly that part that is “thin” to absorption by water vapor (the “water window”)”
lessens its absorbing capacity by the factor of 2 ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, ganon.
–
Sorry, it is bed time now in Athens, Greece 11:14 PM.
–
Shall we continue to-morrow?
I am not sure if I completely understand your question. “lessens it’s absorbing capacity by [a] factor of 2?” With respect to what?
Nonetheless, you may find the paper “Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration” useful.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
Christos,
You can find the answer to your question in figure 1 of the reference I gave in the previous post. Use frame (a) – tropopause all sky, as an example (however, final results will be nearly the same for all frames). Start along the bottom axis and find the half-way point (unmarked) between 256 and 1024 ppmv CO2, corresponding to 512 ppmv, similar to what exists now. Then find the data point directly above it and trace over to the vertical axis. There we find that the forcing is about 34 W/m^2; this corresponds directly to the amount of BBR absorbed. Then find the point corresponding to 17 W/M^2. This is the point where the absorbed BBR has been reduced by a factor of 2 (your question). Trace back out to the data line and then down to the bottom and intersect at the point about 1/2 of the way between 16 and 64 ppmv, and corresponds to ~32 ppmv.
Thus, to reduce the amount of BBR absorbed by 512 ppmv to half its value (your factor of 2) the CO2 must be reduced to 32 ppmv, or that the original concentration of 512 ppmv must be reduced by a factor of 16 to obtain a reduction by factor of 2 of the BBR absorbed.
Note the absolute values of the forcing will change because of the amount of water vapor present and partially overlapping with the CO2 absorption band (less water, more CO2 forcing), but because of the linearity of the log-linear plot the fractional reduction of CO2 ppmv to reduce absorption by a factor of 2, will remain the same. E.g., at current 420 ppmv, the CO2 would have to be reduced to 420/16 = 26.25 ppmv to cut the absorbed energy in half. This is how saturated absorption/being optically “thick” behaves.
I hope that answers your question. And explains why the Earth’s atmosphere is optically “thick”, at least in a relatively broad band around 14.9 micron wavelength.
Thank you, ganon.
I’ll study the “Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration” and your explanation very carefully.
Thank you again,
Christos.
Thank you, ganon,for your detailed explanation.
“Start along the bottom axis and find the half-way point (unmarked) between 256 and 1024 ppmv CO2, corresponding to 512 ppmv, similar to what exists now. Then find the data point directly above it and trace over to the vertical axis. There we find that the forcing is about 34 W/m^2; this corresponds directly to the amount of BBR absorbed. ”
–
Planet Earth’s surface doesn’t emit at (around 14.9 micron wavelength), surface doesn’t emit any 34 W/m^2, it is a too big number, so there is not at (around 14.9 micron wavelength), there is not something significant for atmospheric CO2 to absorb.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have already discussed this.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2010_schmidt_05/
With a vacuum spectral irradiance (band center, 670 cm-1 or 14.9 micron) of 0.43 W/m^2/cm-1 and a bandwidth (FWHM) of ~200 cm-1, This provides ~86 W/m^2 over the CO2 14.9 micron absorption band. With ~50% absorption this is ~40 W/m^2. This is entirely consistent with the range of values in the previous paper, (which you are trying to deny):
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0275.1
It is also consistent with an absorption of ~10% of the total BBR at 288 K of 390 W/m^2 (350 W/m^2 if you allow for an emissivity of 0.9, typical of most materials except polished metals).
You’re welcome.
Christos,
“Planet Earth’s surface doesn’t emit at (around 14.9 micron wavelength), surface doesn’t emit any 34 W/m^2, it is a too big number”
Yes, Earth’s does emit at around 14.9 microns, it is at about 90% of BBR peak at 288 K.
The surface emission is 350 – 390 W/cm^2. As I (and many others) have calculated directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation. In addition to my discussion/derivation in the previous comment, this subject is discussed in detail with reference to figure 2 in the CO2 logarithmic response paper, if you would bother to actually read it carefully. Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between INTEGRATED spectral intensity/absorbance vs. PER UNIT SPECTRAL ENERGY.
Ciao!
Thank you, ganon.
“It is also consistent with an absorption of ~10% of the total BBR at 288 K of 390 W/m^2 (350 W/m^2 if you allow for an emissivity of 0.9, typical of most materials except polished metals).”
–
“of the total BBR at 288 K of 390 W/m^2 “
Do you know what the 288K is and where it comes from?
Also, what the 390 W/m^2 is ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Back to Beta Blocker and his ChatGPT queries on the cool-down period.
First, the cooling time period lasted around thirty-plus years, which has been termed long enough to qualify as a climate event.
Two characteristics of the warming before and after the cooling: the warming was essentially linear, but with slightly different gradient
The onset and stoppage were quite abrupt. This led to the head scratching over what caused this, since nothing in climate records is abrupt. Suggestions pointed to the way ocean temperatures were measured before and after the end of WWII. During the war the British used the bucket method to sample surface waters, vs. afterwards, when the Americans read the temperature at cooling water inlets. This causation attempt was meant to have crept into the records as the origin of the cool-down. It was brought to the attention of the IPCC, but it is unclear if they applied ‘official’ correction to level out the cooling phase.
I was baffled by the whole British-American tale and did a detailed systemic/random error analysis, which was published in WUWT in 2018. Result: a total error of 1.6 deg C with both methods. If one desires meaningful measurement result the error margin needs to be around 0.03 degrees for an accuracy of 0.1 degree. Hence, 1.6 degrees error cannot validate a measurement discrepancy, and a correction cannot be implied.
Here is an interesting tidbit. Find an averaged (5-year smoothing) global ocean-land temperature curve from around 1900 to today. Look for the initial gradient, the cooling between 1945 and 1975 and also the subsequent gradient. Now take a ruler and extend the linearized first gradient upwards to 1975. From that point measure the temperature differential down to the actual curve. This differential is 0.3 degrees, meaning that the subsequent rise in 1975 does not pick up where the gradient was in 1945. So something – some influence permanently arrested the temperature by 0.3 degrees and did not let the curve catch up. There was no significant event that can be attributed causing cool-down, like a major volcanic eruption. Meanwhile the Mauna Loa CO2 gradient kept on rising smoothly during this period. A savior from 0.3 deg C global warming despite ongoing CO2 accumulation. Baffling, isn’t it?
Sorry, some letters were skipped on my name. It’s Dietrich Hoecht
I am NOT a climate scientist — by any stretch of the imagination — so this may be a complete bogus question, but…is there any possibility the deployment of atomic bombs created that kind of disruption?
I think it is generally attributed to post WW2 economic/population boom driven increase in aerosols, largely due to coal-fired power plants with limited emission controls for particulates and SO2. Estimated cooling was <0.2 C in 1945 and continued to about -0.45 C in 2000, where things leveled off. During 1945 – 1970 increasing CO2 (integrated) warming more-or-less compensated the aerosol cooling, but thereafter the rate of increasing cooling slowed while GHG emissions continued to grow (and integrate for CO2 and CFCs) so that warming dominated.
I think it is instructive to look at the time evolution of the various forcings used in climate models; see, e.g.: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
In particular, note in the first figure, the difference/interplay between the upper red line (GHGs) and the lower dark blue line (aerosols). There are still some modest (and unexplained) discrepancies, which could be due to now reasonably well-understood (multi)decadal stochastic internal oscillations of the ocean climate system, and/or possibly inaccuracies/changes in measurement protocols and evaluation.
This was intended to be a response to Dietrich Hoecht’s comment on the 1945 – 1970 cooling. Sorry about that, I’ll figure it out eventually.
Gannon1950:
“Sorry about that, I’ll figure it out eventually”
To save you time, it occurred in tandom with the rise in dimming indsustrial SO2 aerosol emissioins., from about 17 million tons in 1945, to 136 million tons in 1979
Burl,
Actually, I was referring to making responses instead of new comments.
But since you brought it up: Yes, and from 1979 total aerosol negative forcing increased from -0.36 C to -0.46 C in 2017. And thus decrease in aerosols cannot be responsible for the 0.7 C warming that occurred over that period.
Ganon1950:
The warming between 1979 and 2017 was due to a DECREASE in the amount of dimming industrial SO2 aerosols in the troposphere, not an increase as you claim, and, therefore, being the cause of the warming between 1979 and 2017.
You CANNOT decrease atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution without causing temperatures to rise. And the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get!
(I would like to see the data behind your WEIRD statement)
Burl,
I said total aerosols, not sulfates. Sorry that you don’t understand. I gave the reference which shows the total aerosol forcing as a function of time, 1850 – 2017. SO2 is only a small part of that, particularly compared to that from dust storms.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
And world-wide emissions of S02 of 63 million tons in 1950 INCREASED to 97 million tons in 2010 (peak around 151 M-ton in 1980).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes.
So even if SO2 were the only source of aerosols, The INCREASE of 63 to 97 M-ton over 1950 to 2010 can not explain the 0.7 C temperature increase over the same period.
Sorry to be impolite, but your hypothesis and paper are garbage.
Burl,
“So, you deny that decreasing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere will cause any warming”.
Yes, I deny it. It will create less cooling. Sorry if you don’t understand the difference.
“No, you do NOT. For an isolated incident, it is a week or less. For constant emitters, those that are washed out are quickly replaced, so that they are effectively present until the emitting source shuts down, or is modified.”
The molecular lifetime of SO2 in the troposphere (3 days, is faster because of is the same regardless of whether it is an event or a continuous release. Are you saying that all those “hot spots” around the world in the satellite images just happen to occur all at same? Sorry you don’t understand chemical kinetics either.
“Regarding the link that you provided, they say that stratospheric volcanic SO2 aerosols have a lifetime of several weeks.”
That is correct, it is the resulting H2SO4.nH20 aerosols that have a stratospheric lifetime of a couple of years. In the troposphere the sulfate aerosols wash out within the hemispheric mixing time of a couple weeks. Sorry you don’t understand the sulfate creation either.
and decay kinetics either.
Enjoy your fantasy – it is not reality.
Burl,
You should also consider that SO2 from explosive volcanic eruptions, which make injections into the stratosphere where the resulting aerosols have a lifetime of several years, whereas human emissions into the troposphere have a lifetime of less than a week.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
Sorry, the reference for explosive volcanic SO2 should have been:
https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/measures.html
Ganon1950:
You say that human emissions (of SO2 aerosols) into the troposphere have a lifetime of less than a week.
This CANNOT be correct, since the NASA/GMAO Chem map for 1980 shows large amounts of industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
These aerosols are reflective, and cool the Earth’s surface by reflecting away portions of the incoming solar radiation.
Their levels decreased over the years, due to Clean Air mandates, dropping from 136 million tons in 1979, to 72 million tons in 2019.
With less SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, temperatures inevitably have to rise. You and your ilk completely ignore this warming, and attribute it all to greenhouse gasses!
And by the way, the thesis that SO2 aerosols are the control knob for our climate is falsifiable (empirically verifiable), and has been tested and validated every time that there is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption. And predictability is the gold standard for any theory.
Burl,
“This CANNOT be correct”
Yes it can be correct:
https://www.aeronomie.be/en/encyclopedia/sulphur-dioxide-so2-gas-earths-atmosphere
The reason you see hot spots over industrial areas in the satellite imagery is precisely because the lifetime is short compared hemispheric troposphere mixing time of a few weeks.
I know what the human emission times series for SO2 are, thank you. And I have already explained why they cannot account for the increase in GMST observed 1970 – present warming (other aerosols: e.g., (dust and sea salt particle as nucleation sites, volcanic stratospheric injections of SO2, which (time averaged) has more effect on atmospheric albedo than human emissions.).
I admire the persistence; the understanding of the relevant processes – not so much.
Ganon1950:
So, you deny that decreasing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere will cause any warming
Gannon1950:
You say “The reason you see hot spots in the satellite imagery is precisely because the lifetime is short compared (to) hemispheric troposphere mixing time of a few weeks”
Absolute nonsense! I have no idea of what you mean
“I know what the human emission time series for SO2 are, thank you”
No, you do NOT. For an isolated incident, it is a week or less. For constant emitters, those that are washed out are quickly replaced, so that they are effectively present until the emitting source shuts
down, or is modified.
Regarding the link that you provided, they say that stratospheric
volcanic SO2 aerosols have a lifetime of several weeks. For VEI4, eruptions, their actual residence time averages 16 months. Otherwise, it is a good reference, which you should study with reference to the climatic effect of SO2 aerosols.
You have the same failing as Javier, you accept what others have published as being factual, without giving it any scientific scrutiny, and thus can be led far astray.
billfabrizio,
Actually, I think Dr. Curry’s experience and publication record makes her eminently qualified to write her current and prior books. While I may not agree with her disappointment with the science-politics interaction and her assessment of “crisis” (for me, it is more of a “problem”, to be solved), I am sure she knows much more about both than I do.
ganon … no worries. Actually, my comments on what you seemed to be saying about Judith were more about you than her. They seemed odd, which is why I asked if you were bitter. I saw something similar when you responded to Ckid with:
> ganon1950 | November 19, 2023 at 10:58 pm |
Sorry, I thought you were referring to temperature graphs. Maybe the graphs you picked don’t show obvious up-trends is because you have picked them that way. You have already shown a strongly biased propensity for doing that.
First, you said you were sorry. Then you gave a reason, which could be interpreted as why you made a mistake. Then you attacked him. See what I mean by odd?
Before you take this as an attack, review some of the 50, or so, comments you’ve made on this thread alone, which is over 1/3 of all the comments. Have you been attacked? Definitely, and you have the right to defend yourself. But when you carpet bomb a site the collateral damage eventually catches up, and ironically negates anything of substance.
Ok, I’ll stick with science. I will still “carpet bomb” only in response to attacks on myself, or general (ad hominem) attacks on science and scientists.
Pingback: Consensus – a virus deadly to science | Pursue Democracy
Pingback: A Bad Recipe for Science • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: A Dangerous Recipe for Science • Watts Up With That? - Finencial
Pingback: A Bad Recipe for Science • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
There is a disconnect between the perception of trends of climate effects and events versus what is actually happening. Here are just a few showing no upward trend.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ftz-BILWcAIMIrT?format=jpg&name=large
https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ftz-BILWcAIMIrT?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9XN1iVXEAAg-aM?format=png&name=900×900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-fcGzWXwAApkad?format=png&name=small
The reason for these downward trends might be that the science is wrong about the impact of increasing temperatures or that the temperatures have not increased as the celebrated ~1C since preindustrial times. There is a possibility that the uncertainties of pre1900 land and SST data are not reflecting reality.
This NASA graph indicates that SH coverage of land temperatures is about 12% pre 1900. Coverage of the NH is under 50%.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4/coverage.png
Figure 2 in this study shows as little as 10% of the oceans we sampled for some decades pre 1900.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-marine-042120-111807
This paper found major uncertainties about SST reconstruction.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/18/jcliD190972.xml
This paper identifies challenges regarding how the oceanic data was compiled.
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/251457/1/55_ftp.pdf
These studies don’t conclude the ~1C pre 1900 data is wrong. But it should signal that the issue is extremely complex and caution should be used in assuming absolute accuracy about what we know of the temperatures during that period.
“This NASA graph indicates that SH coverage of land temperatures is about 12% pre 1900. Coverage of the NH is under 50%.”
Fine, you may, or may not, be correct about uncertainty pre-1900. Would you like to comment on the ~90% (NH) and ~80% (SH) coverage since ~1960, and the temperature trends over the last 60 years?
PS, no scientist presumes “absolute measurement accuracy”; however, much of science is devoted to getting “better” accuracy.
Follow the point I was trying to make. The reason there are no uptrends in those graphs is that maybe the total warming since preindustrial times is not 1C but somewhat less. Or maybe the science that says all those events will increase, but haven’t, is because the science is wrong.
“The reason there are no uptrends in those graphs ”
What graphs? All the ones I see have up-trends, just not noise-free linear. And perhaps if the pre-1900 data is suspect or imprecise, maybe the temperature rise since 1850 is actually 2 C, not 1.2 as is the best estimate (and will probably be close to 1.4 by the end of this year). Your myopic bias and misrepresentations are all too obvious.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to temperature graphs. Maybe the graphs you picked don’t show obvious up-trends is because you have picked them that way. You have already shown a strongly biased propensity for doing that.
There are other uncertainties, which add to the complexity of climate change.
“These results highlight a substantial degree of uncertainty in our interpretation of the observed climate change using current generation of climate models.”
“…our results summarise and rigorously document pronounced quantitative discrepancies between models and observations, which should help guide further DCV research.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
Yep, the models are examined rigorously, and thus the models get ever better. That’s the way science works. “The models aren’t perfect (without quantification of how well they do work) so we can’t trust anything they say” – that’s the way anti-science works.
The poster child of the doomsday scenario is the Arctic. These studies show multi decadal variability in play.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/17/20/1520-0442_2004_017_4045_tetwit_2.0.co_2.xml
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1422296112
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1615880114
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL060184
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/5/jcli-d-18-0301.1.xml
Some studies indicate as much as 1/2 natural variability.
Agreed, the stair step (there has only been one so far) indicates that (semi-)stochastic (multi-)decadal, and even centennial/millennial, ocean-based cycles/oscillations play an important role in climate. I do not find this to be sufficient grounds to ignore or deny the “unnatural” contributions, e.g., as much as (or more than) half of what is happening with arctic sea ice extent.
Even more uncertainty and complexity is introduced when papers such as this are published.
“We provide a new and more accurate estimate of the intra-mission bias, which leads to a much reduced GMSL acceleration over the whole record. Hence, the conundrum of an uncertain GMSL acceleration from altimetry is still unsolved, in spite of recent opposite claims, and in contrast to the expected effect of ocean warming and continental freshwater fluxes.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47340-z
I think there is not too much uncertainty for the “natural” portion of the process, if one looks at the paleoclimatic data on the last four interglacials. We should expect an addition 5-9 meters of SLR, although it may take several thousand years. The real uncertainty lies in what additional effects anthropogenic GHGs (and societal responses thereto) will have, particularly if it begins to involve the (partial) collapse of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
ISBN-13 : 978-1119591382 (Climatology: From Snowball Earth to the Anthropocene, Collin Summerhayes, 2020) Chapter 12.8.
‘ We should expect an addition 5-9 meters of SLR, although it may take several thousand years.”
Who cares if it takes several thousand years? Humans will have evolved and adapted.
It’s a ludicrous prognostication that oceans will rise X amount in thousands of years. Within 5k years humans will be able to lay down enough snow at the poles to actually lower ocean levels, if culture wanted such. It’s more likely that warming would be wanted by that time.
Ironically, doomer believers unequivocally see technology as standing still. All rhe hand wringing future prognosis, and virtue signaling, (based on their “expert” science based arguemenrts), by default, neans that technology mus6 always sit still, that it will renain at 2023 levels–even while many scientific disciplines, including engineering, has demonstrably doubled knowledge every single year within certain disciplines. Go figure about those lightweight soothsayers.
Sea level is close to historic lows. Where does one expect it to go but up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-level_curve#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
Hi Rob, well it will depend on what culture wants in 5k years, and not random climatic metrics. If the coasts need to expand, then sea levels will go down. Everything will become relevant.
Glad y’all suddenly agree, sea level is rising and accelerating. Also, glad y’all know what WILL happen a couple of thousand years in the future. Must be a lot smarter than all those scientists that try to figure out what MIGHT happen. Also, glad y’all trust that human science and technology to solve future problems, but don’t trust them to study it right now.
Glad to hear that sea level is near “historic” lows, even though it is already about 430 feet above where it was 24 thousand years ago.
Glad to hear 20-30 feet more, is no big deal. How about another 200 feet beyond that, If EAIS collapses.
OK, I won’t worry about it, it probably won’t happen in my lifetime. Heck, I live at 7400 ft. in the Rockies – not my problem anyway.
Sea level can rise another 20 during the next hurricane. If you live on the coast, you already face that issue.
“Glad y’all suddenly agree, sea level is rising and accelerating.”
That wasn’t said, but I do expect you to twist words, Ganon. It’s the stereotypical coy word play we expect from a coercive ideologues projecting gloom and doom. You’re incapable of sensibly projecting yearly exponential growth of science and technology, because it’s counterproductive to your ideology.
Misery especially loves to create company when it’s ideologically usable—”never let a [projected] crisis go to waste”. Status quo fear is the goal for hard left ideologues.
Humanity has seen at 1st flight, landing on the moon, and going from computers, to AI, within roughly 100 years. Technological advancement moves much quicker than climate—dullards, and ideologues are incapable of seeing the progression.
“Straightforward, as in the usual suspects of the catastrophic corps believe it’s all CO2. That is the theme of all my comments. That is the mentality of the doomsdayers. Everything is caused by AGW, even a mild summer breeze. There is no complexity because that is the whole point. Keep the sheep thinking the way that they are supposed to think.”
Yes, the theme of all your comments is quite obvious – oversimplification and name-calling.
Ganon1950 comment -“Glad to hear that sea level is near “historic” lows, even though it is already about 430 feet above where it was 24 thousand years ago.”
Ganon – 430ft higher sea level than 24k years ago is to be expected –
The most recent ice age peaked between 24,000 and 21,000 years ago, when vast ice sheets covered North America and northern Europe, and mountain ranges like Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro and South America’s Andes were encased in glaciers
Joe,
That is correct. I was referring to Rob Starkey’s comment, “Sea level is close to historic lows.” Wherein he referenced a graph of sea level over the last 542 million year, which does not have enough resolution to show the last million years, much less the LGM. However, the LGM sea level drop/minimum is indicated with a black vertical line in the lower left corner of the graph – I guess Rob must have missed that (no surprise).
Part of this discussion about the uncertainties of SLR has to do with the human experience. We love the Big Con. It’s human nature to gravitate toward the end of the world scenario. Centuries of filled pews are testament to that. The other dynamic is that humans suffer from hubris on steroids. We think we know more than we do know or can know.
Look at the failed predictions of the past. In 1979 some genius thought we could have 25 feet SLR by 2000. It might have been 2 inches. The ice free arctic has been a common whiff. The Maldives were supposed to be underwater by now. In 2004 the Pentagon had a report that said Britain could be like Siberia by now.
There is a reason they all were wrong. Climate science is in its infancy. No one knows all the factors that are necessary to make these predictions. That includes these fanciful scaremongering multiple meters statements. If those who were worried about the future decades ago had benefit of the research subsequent to their statements, they would not have said what they did. If those who are worried about the next 50 years had the benefit of the research known in 2073, they probably wouldn’t say what they are saying now.
The literature is all over the place on the future of SLR. Some involve worrisome acceleration. Some involve benign acceleration. Others almost no acceleration. If CO2 has been having an effect since 1900, as some have said, it’s had a puny impact on the seas.
Everyone is guessing. Nothing more sophisticated than that, in spite of efforts to make it sound all sciencey.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-05101533-down.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DyieCmkU0AAwS2D.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Image1603_shadow.png
https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/30.gif
Even the supposed straightforward impact of AGW on WAIS is affected by the literature showing natural variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3103
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00204-5
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-021-05879-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-27968-8
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC010709
“Even the supposed straightforward impact of AGW on WAIS is affected by the literature showing natural variability.”
It seems that you are the one supposing it is straightforward; Ice sheet collapse is anything but. And no, it is not affected by literature – it is affected by physical changes in the Earth System, including climate, geology, ocean currents, and changes (e.g., temperature, composition, etc,) in the cryosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere (of which we are a part).
Accusing science of being simple/straightforward is not something scientists do; it is a false accusation by pseudo-scientists that attempts to belittle science and its capabilities, and perhaps reflects their own level of understanding.
Straightforward, as in the usual suspects of the catastrophic corps believe it’s all CO2. That is the theme of all my comments. That is the mentality of the doomsdayers. Everything is caused by AGW, even a mild summer breeze. There is no complexity because that is the whole point. Keep the sheep thinking the way that they are supposed to think.
Go Lions!
A quick comment on book publishing/marketing. My book is published by an academic press (Anthem). This means my book underwent extensive peer review, the purchase price is expensive, and the publisher provides little mass marketing support (the focus on marketing to universities). This is very different from using a mass market publisher (e.g. Michael Mann’s new book Our Fragile Moment)
With regards to marketing, I am doing all of the marketing of my book myself, and this is my first experience with this. I check in at amazon US twice per day to assess how recent marketing efforts are working and to better understand what works.
As far as I can tell, posting anything on my blog has very little impact on book sales (sort of surprising that many people who spend alot of time here don’t appear to have purchased my book). Reposting on WUWT gives a bigger spike than posting here. Posting on linkedin has a very high return on sales (relative to the number of people that view my post). Twitter occasionally provides a much greater reach and higher impact. Podcasts seem to be much better than social media. Appearing on FoxNews, NewsMax has sold alot of books. Also I am working to market the book in Europe (it has been translated into German)
The financial returns on book sales are noticeable, but hardly motivational. I’m hoping this book can receive a broad audience in professional and policy making communities (and the few open-minded scientists). The book is also helping my business obtain new clients.
So to anyone thinking that I am crassly using this blog to market my book, unfortunately this blog is an ineffective marketing tool. It is a notebook for me to archive my writings, provides a forum for a broad range of experts and otherwise interesting people to post relevant articles, and a place for discussion.
“Reposting on WUWT gives a bigger spike than posting here.”
That’s the downside of keeping your blog mostly technical. Many thanks. PLEASE don’t turn it into a marketing tool.
I absolutely trust that Dr. Curry isn’t turning her book into a marketing tool for monetary reasons. But she MUST turn it into a marketing tool for truth, no holding back. The reasons trump all other considerations. Her presentation is from a David vs Goliath position– there’s no time, or practicality to consider the nature of how rocks are thrown.
The book excerpts used for this important essay should literally be declared a manifesto against collectivist elitism, representing the point of demarcation rejecting contemporary oligarchs, neofascism, and all other forms of coercive ideologies weighing in to influence global cultures. These ends have used climate consensus propagandistically as a cudgell to advance ideology and to obfuscate truth. Her essay is a manifesto, a rallying cry for cultures to realign behind the principles that were envisioned during the Enlightenment Era. However, the essay can’t be a cultural manifesto in a vacuum, the torch must be carried forward by putting many eyes on it; this can only come by pushing the truth out for all to see.
Collectivists have no problem with mass marketing, but much of theirs is propaganda, promoters for truth better finall6 get into the game, and the game is marketing.
Dr. Curry,
As I have already stated, I did not even think of you when I made my brief comments about short (anti-)climate books in the popular press. I only wondered why someone would think I was targeting you, and unfortunately, I formulated some questions as to someone might think that. I am glad you took the time to refute them. Furthermore, I think you (and Dr. Mann) have the “chops” to write anything you want about climate science as well as the socio-political interactions therewith.
I’m an old engineer who has spent my time trying to develop practical things that actually fill a need and work as intended. All this hair splitting about what the climate is doing is irrelevant in my opinion. The only important thing to me is are the choices we are making and the direction we are heading addressing the engineering realities of our best technologies. The answer to that question, in the view of a very experienced engineer is, duhhh, of course not. I think this fact is the most annoying thing.
Non-engineers, talking like they can save the planet, but oblivious to practical engineering realities, forcing idiotic mandates on the public that won’t do anything to “save the planet “. It’s all a sad testament to the vast lack of any knowledge in the science/technology supporting our modern civilization.
“The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production.” ~Wm Gray
on the sea level back-and-forth: I like hard core data. NOAA has maintained a worldwide recording of 375 representative tidal gage measurements. Here is the spreadsheet.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_global_trendtable5.html
Together with recent acceleration the rise projection for the next century is around eight inches. Remember all the altimetry satellites are calibrated from tidal gage references. NOAA’s tide and currents site shows maps with the local projections.
I like NOAA too, after all, the “O” part of the acronym makes them default experts. I often refer to their 2022 technical report.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
It does not agree with your eight inches in the next century:
“Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 – 12 inches (0.25 – 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 – 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 – 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height.”
“Current and future emissions matter. About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S. coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of emissions to date. Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 – 5 feet (0.5 – 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 – 7 feet (1.1 – 2.1 meters) by the end of this century.”
ganon, surely you can analyze the reference I gave. At the bottom it cites the global average, being around six inches; The given acceleration calculates to another two inches. Your US coastal projection are US only, not global, and you can decipher from the detail numbers where land will rise and lower. An assertion of emission related numbers are simply wild assumptions, as evidenced by your citation of an additional 1.5 to 5 feet, respectively 3.5 to 7 feet, a range that is so wide it shows fiction. Sounds like ‘gorism’ of 20 feet in Manhattan. If you are anxious to sell any Atlantic coastal property I’d like to talk to you.
Same source, different time frames and different analysis.
Yours 2016, no data after 2015. The only place you get average rate is at the bottom with start and end for the average rate of increase between 1942 and 2008 (1.298 +/- 0.716, 95% c.l. mm/yr) and acceleration1941 and 2011 (0.0524 +/- 0.1209, 95% c.l, mm/yr^2) So the rate and acceleration that you get is the average of for those time periods, and do not include data for the last 12-15 years. Further, if you use that acceleration to calculate rise for “the next century” (dz = v*t + 0.5*a*t^2)
rise = 100*1.298 +0.5*0.0524*100^2 = 391.8 mm = 15.4 inches
(error propagation is left as an exercise, since you did not get the right answer for your reference constants and stated time frame)
And, as already noted, it does not include data for the last 12-15 years, nor does it consider acceleration of the acceleration, which is happening.
——-
Mine 2022, data through 2020+. If you would like more details, read section 2 of the report.
Up-to-date data (through 2018): rate 4.0 +/- 0.4 mm/yr; acceleration 0.083 +/- 0.053 mm/yr^2
Taken from (Wang, et al., “Reconciling global mean and regional sea level change in projections and observations”, 2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21265-6
Which uses tidal station data with GPS and GIA (glacial isostatic adjustment) adjustments. Repeating the above calculation for “a century” with up-to-date constants:
rise = 100*4.0 + 0.5*0.083*100^2 = 815 mm = 32 inches
And that does not include acceleration of the acceleration, which is considered in Wang 2021.
“An assertion of emission related numbers are simply wild assumptions, as evidenced by your citation of an additional 1.5 to 5 feet, respectively 3.5 to 7 feet, a range that is so wide it shows fiction.”
No, it is not wild assumptions, it is science that is fully explained in section 2 of the report and references cited therein (try reading it). The uncertainty does not show fiction – it shows honesty, with most of the uncertainty related to different RCP scenarios for societal response to need for emissions mitigation. Try to keep up and self-educate before attacking.
Christos,
“Do you know what the 288K is and where it comes from?
Also, what the 390 W/m^2 is ?”
Yes, I do.
288K comes from NASA:
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/solar-system-temperatures/
It is probably closer to 289K now.
390 W/m^2 comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Because of the temperature nonlinearity (T^4), more accurate results would require space-time (and emissivity) integration over the T variability. However, the hot areas would be expected to add more to the emission than the cool areas lower it. Thus, the total and average emission would be expected to be somewhat higher than the simple S-B calculation. The simple 289K BBR spectrum would be broadened slightly due to the temperature distribution, with a slight shift to higher energy, because of the same T-nonlinearity. I believe (but do not have a reference) that 294K is sometimes used to compensate for the T-distribution and nonlinearity. Also, the interaction with the atmosphere assumes an infinite plane radiator, which should be a reasonable approximation considering the curvature of the earth compared to the height of the atmosphere (75% within the troposphere, more so for water vapor).
Good,
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/solar-system-temperatures/
Solar System Temperatures: Mean Temperatures on Each Planet
Planetary surface temperatures tend to get colder the farther a planet is from the Sun. Venus is the exception, as its proximity to the Sun, and its dense atmosphere make it our solar system’s hottest planet. The mean temperatures of planets in our solar system are:
Mercury: 333°F (167°C)
Venus: 867°F (464°C)
Earth: 59°F (15°C)
Mars: Minus 85°F (-65°C)
Jupiter: Minus 166°F (-110°C)
Saturn: Minus 220°F (-140°C)
Uranus: Minus 320°F (-195°C)
Neptune: Minus 330°F (-200°C)
Dwarf Planet Pluto: Minus 375°F (-225°C)
ganon, those temperatures are spacecrafts’ measured temperatures.
For Mercury 167°C =440K
and
“Black-body temperature (K) 439.6”
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html
ganon, how do you explain Mercury having the same 440K the average surface and the black-body temperatures?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t explain it, but I assume it has something to do with the lack of an atmosphere and the way the planetary average is measured. I expect that it has something to do with the average (day-side) temperature, which ranges from 700K at equatorial zenith down to 180K at the poles, being determined from the peak of the (day-side) integrated BB emission. If so, there is no mystery that the average temperature determined from BBR measurement agrees with itself.
Why do you keep deflecting from the issue of Earth’s green house effect, after being corrected (but not accepting) unsubstantiated personal opinion denials of well know physics.
Thank you, ganon.
I am not deflecting from the issue of Earth’s green house effect. I do the planets’ surface temperatures comparison, because all planets are subjected to same universal laws, and it is an axiom.
–
Now,
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
For our Moon the table provides Mean Temperature -20°C,
-20°C = 253K
And for Moon
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
“Black-body temperature (K) 270.4”
How do you explain those two temperatures being so close
253K and 270,4K?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
For our Moon the table provides Mean Temperature -20°C,
-20°C = 253K
And for Moon
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
“Black-body temperature (K) 270.4”
How do you explain those two temperatures being so close
253K and 270,4K?”
Black bodies have an emission coefficient of one. The Moon has the emissivity of its surface, not a black body.
I don’t explain it with references to how the values were measured. But I expected it has something to do with how the means are calculated when there are large spatial temperature differences when there is no atmosphere or ocean currents to redistribute heat from the equator to poles. Otherwise, I expect BB and thermal temperatures to be similar.
Yes, the same universal laws, but applied to different input parameters, such as gravitation mass and the ability to hold an atmosphere, and the differences in thermal conductivity between vacuum and atmosphere, between water and dry sand/rock. So the same universal physical laws, but not the same behavior for different celestial bodies.
Thank you, ganon,
“Yes, the same universal laws, but applied to different input parameters, such as gravitation mass and the ability to hold an atmosphere, and the differences in thermal conductivity between vacuum and atmosphere, between water and dry sand/rock. So the same universal physical laws, but not the same behavior for different celestial bodies.”
–
“Yes, the same universal laws, but applied to different input parameters,”
What I did was to compare the different planets and moons surface temperatures in accordance with the incident on the planet surface their respective solar flux, with their respective average surface reflectivity (Albedo), and, also, in accordance with their respective rotational spins, and with their respective surface chemical compositions and surface roughness features.
–
In research it is shown, and it is demonstrated that a planet average surface temperature (Tmean K) is determined by those five (5) major parameters:
1. The distance from the sun (solar flux “S” W/m²)
2. The average surface diffuse reflectivity (Albedo “a”)
3. The surface shape and roughness coefficient (solar irradiation accepting factor “Φ”)
4. The rotational spin (“N” rotations/day)
5. The average surface specific heat (“cp” cal/gr*oC)
“So the same universal physical laws, but not the same behavior for different celestial bodies.”
–
Thank you again,
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
And you don’t include the effects of atmosphere and its composition (rather, dismissing it as “thin” when it is not), which has been the whole point of this never-ending discussion. I hope the discussion will help you reformulate your analysis and to justify the unjustified dismissals, but I fear not – it is rather circular to dismiss the effect that you are trying to prove doesn’t exist.
Good morning from Greece, 8:00 AM.
ganon, do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
” do you deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?”
I do not, I have not studied it closely enough to make a judgement one way or another. I simply object to things that I find incorrect or neglected without justification when considering the differences in real celestial bodies, some of which are:
* treating electromagnetic radiation as a viscous fluid
* neglecting an atmosphere and its composition, and the effect on heat retention and redistribution.
* fluid (water) surface which allow convective/mechanical flow (currents) redistribution of heat
* assumption of equilibrium conditions where they do not exist (e.g. surface albedo, surface temperature and vertical heat flow
This may be OK for “dead” celestial bodies, but not for the earth.
* Thermal inertia and “hidden” heat, e.g., heat stored below the thermocline in the deep oceans
* seasonal changes as well as the diurnal cycles (that are considered)
* how do you account for higher temperatures on earth at times when there was less insolation
If your simplified celestial mechanics and EM radiation theory comes up with the right answer when neglecting these known factors, my conclusion is that the theory is incorrect/incomplete, not the that the effects don’t exist.
How do you explain that 500 million years ago the Earth’s temperature was some 20 C hotter than it is now, yet the solar irradiance for a main-sequnce G-type star should have been significantly lower (a few %) than it is now?
Thank you, ganon, for your detailed answer.
–
Let’s start from the
“How do you explain that 500 million years ago the Earth’s temperature was some 20 C hotter than it is now, yet the solar irradiance for a main-sequnce G-type star should have been significantly lower (a few %) than it is now?”
–
I have already calculated with the New Tmean equation
What was the Earth’s mean temperature 3,5 billion years ago (3,5 Bya ) ?
Lets see:
Sun’s irradiating intensity was weaker.
It was only 75 % of the present,
S = 0,75*So
And Earth rotated twice as fast then,
1 rotation in 12 hours.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444739871/445018149
Do you still pay for electricity and gasoline?
Not us, eight years ago we invested in a solar system and electric car. It paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Don’t forget to open your garage door before warming up your toxic polluter.
Same here – 6 years ago. The solar system covers the EV and about 1/2 of other household use. We are grid integrated so that we get credit for excess generation, covers the other 1/2 of household, and don’t need a battery system (we may add battery later, but hard to justify for the very rare outages on the underground grid delivery.
I use candles, and walk wherever I have to go :-)
George,
please, take notice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Surface temp. min mean max
0°N, 0°W [14] −173 °C 67 °C 427 °C
85°N, 0°W[14] −193 °C −73 °C 106.85 °C
And
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Surface temp. min mean max
equator 100 K 220 K
85°N[3] 70 K 130 K 230 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“390 W/m^2 comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.”
–
What do you mean it comes from Stefan-Boltzmann equation?
It doesn’t come from Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think we have been arguing over carburetor efficacy while the car is headed for a cliff.
The car is not headed for a cliff.
–
Earth is not a car.
A car is a vehicle wich is operated by a human.
Earth is a planet wich gets a little warmer because of orbitally caused phenomenon.
We cannot change the natural process development, it is not a car driving by a human.
What we can do is to get better adapted.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I see you do not fear the extremes we are facing very soon. I have been watching this since my MS in Environmental Management in 1982.
It is not just the change in climate it is the acceleration in rate of change which is startling.
All the computer models and the energy diagrams published by NASA and climatologists assume they can add to solar flux about twice as much flux from the atmosphere, then deduct the flux of non-radiative cooling and use the net total in Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculations. That’s wrong. A simple experiment with a single source and then with multiple sources proves my point and thus proves wrong the biggest pseudo-scientific scam in the history of the world. Climate change is primarily caused by natural variations in cosmic ray intensity because such rays assist cloud formation. Variations in sunspot levels affect the size of the heliosphere and thus cosmic ray intensity and so do fields from the planets which can alter the paths of these rays.
All the computer models and the energy diagrams published by NASA and climatologists assume they can add to solar flux about twice as much flux from the atmosphere, then deduct the flux of non-radiative cooling and use the net total in Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculations. That’s wrong. A simple experiment with a single source and then with multiple sources proves my point and thus proves wrong the biggest pseudo-scientific scam in the history of the world. Climate change is primarily caused by natural variations in cosmic ray intensity because such rays assist cloud formation. Variations in sunspot levels affect the size of the heliosphere and thus cosmic ray intensity and so do fields from the planets which can alter the paths of these rays.
The polar vortex in the lower startosphere is broken up, and within a few days, winter will be calling across Europe for an extended period of time.
https://i.ibb.co/qrXTRdw/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Is eastern Australia threatened by drought due to El Niño? No. Is the Great Barrier Reef threatened? No.
http://www.bom.gov.au/radar/IDR00004.jpg?20231121102508
This article doesn’t mention explicitly the push in Germany to “green” energy has caused some businesses to shut down. Yet, Germany is “falling behind” on going green. They are actually just slowing down the rush over a cliff.
Germany’s emergency spending freeze is blocking funds for next-generation auto-industry and steel plants, jeopardizing the push to re-engineer Europe’s economic engine.
Berlin halted new spending authorizations this week after Germany’s top court ruled that some €60 billion ($65.7 billion) can’t be transferred into a green-technology fund. The money was earmarked for a range of projects including decarbonizing steel production and major semiconductor works led by Intel, TSMC and Infineon.
Sweden’s Northvolt AB was also due to receive part of pledged subsides from the climate fund for an EV battery plant in northern Germany, according to two people familiar with the situation.
The bombshell court ruling, catching the government seemingly unprepared, is putting Germany in danger of falling behind in the global race for green technologies, according to Claudia Kemfert, professor of energy economics at the DIW research institute in Berlin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/german-budget-chaos-risks-painful-delays-to-greening-industry
“Green” policies are failing.
Over 2 million electric vehicles have been sold in the United States.
But electric cars still make up just 1% of cars on our roads.
46% of Americans remain unlikely to consider an electric car for their next vehicle.
But the market for electric vehicles still doubled in 2021.
Tesla’s market share for electric vehicles is 66.3%
On average, an electric vehicle costs $10,108 more than a standard vehicle.
But running an EV for 200,000 miles could save you $4,380 compared to a gasoline-powered car.
https://sensiblemotive.com/electric-car-statistics/
Our $12,400 solar system has powered out household and electric cars for eight years now. It paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Do you still pay for electricity and gasoline?
how many miles do you drive your EV a year
we have two. And the need has changed since one was used to take care of grandkids and schools, which have been reduced through graduations. Th VW has about 65,000 miles and the Tesla Model S Performance has 52,000.
Yes, George, I still pay for gasoline. I also use natural gas, very economical. You will be replacing car batteries and solar PVs at some point. My costs will be relatively constant and reasonable. Why? Gasoline = freedom of movement.
No, I won’t. How many Tesla batteries have been replaced so far? I know of none.
That’s a conservative fib like the 32,000 from Trump, by actual count.
About 1.5% of EV batteries have been replaced so far, not including recalls. But it’s expected to increase exponentially.
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12614344/electric-car-batteries-grid-storage
Notice that was in 2016. Now we have large sets of old batteries from discontinued cars used for power support.
“Rapid ice melt in west Antarctica now inevitable, research shows
Sea level will be driven up no matter how much carbon emissions are cut, putting coastal cities in danger”
Parts of Antarctica have increased in ice, but it is a small part.
George J Kamburoff | November 21, 2023 at 2:44 pm |
“Rapid ice melt in west Antarctica now inevitable, research shows”
George – Absolutely – though disregarded in the fact is that the geothermal activity has picked up. Thus the increase in melting is to be expected.
Show me, please.
Jim2,
“About 1.5% of EV batteries have been replaced so far”
Hmmm, That sounds a bit more like “you won’t replace your EV battery” than “you will replace your EV battery”.
RE solar panels, replace after 25 years. How often do you replace the gas in your car? How much does it cost? How much CO2 and other pollutants does it put in the atmosphere? How often do you pay your electric bill? How much does it cost? How much CO2 and pollutants do the generating sources produce? How often do turbines have to be rebuilt/replaced? How much environmental damage is done during acquisition of fossil fuels? How much do they cost? What will you (or yours) do when FFs start running out and prices skyrocket?
I hope you can see the bigger picture.
“About 1.5% of EV batteries have been replaced so far”
My 2013 Tesla battery is now eleven years old. Maybe it does not know it must fail, like you do.
George, some people do not understand terms like “thermal inertia” and “current commitment”.
Did you invent them yourself?
Nope, I take no credit:
Climate commitment: describes the fact that Earth’s climate reacts with a delay to influencing factors (“climate forcings”) such as the growth and the greater presence of greenhouse gases.
The meaning of THERMAL INERTIA is the degree of slowness with which the temperature of a body approaches that of its surroundings and which is dependent upon its absorptivity, its specific heat, its thermal conductivity, its dimensions, and other factors.
Both meaning that, if we do everything we can to stop climate change now, we can still expect it to get worse for a while.
Hopefully this id eeocy will be struck down in courts.
And Ali Zaidi, who serves as Biden’s national climate advisor, said the president was “using his wartime emergency powers under the Defense Production Act to turbocharge U.S. manufacturing of clean technologies and strengthen our energy security.”
Under the actions announced Friday, the DOE will send millions of dollars to companies like Copeland, Honeywell International, Mitsubishi Electric and York International Corporation, all of which are billion-dollar multinational corporations. The projects will advance manufacturing of industrial, commercial and residential heat pump technology.
“This is absolutely shameful corporate welfare. But we’re to believe that, because it’s for the sake of climate change, all is well. I think that’s ridiculous,” Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
“Of all the Biden administration’s claimed climate emergency declarations, this may be the craziest of them all,” Lieberman continued. “There is no shortage of heat pumps — it’s just that not every homeowner wants them. Consumers ought to decide for themselves. The government has no role in tilting the balance in favor of one energy source over another. That’s clearly what’s happening here.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-invokes-wartime-powers-fund-electric-heaters-cracks-down-gas-appliances
What part of climate change do you not understand?
“wartime emergency powers” .. to declare a war on climate change?
Once again: What part of climate change do you not understand?
How much environmental science have you had?
If money is more important than saving our climate, go ahead.
George – the Dr. can prescribe some Valium for you. You appear to need it badly.
How much environmental science have you had?
George – sure CO2 will warm the troposphere. But that’s far short of a disaster. Some warming is helpful to life and extra CO2 is a boon for plants.
Any forecast of disaster is based on flimsy climate models and gut feelings. That just ain’t good enough to spend trillions of dollars on “green” energy, and stop other people from using fossil fuels to boot.
I have no problem with you installing solar panels and driving an EV. Just leave me the h alone to use whatever fuels I prefer.
“Any forecast of disaster is based on flimsy climate models and gut feelings. That ”
No, it is also verified by current conditions and their rate of change.
Current conditions? Really George? Sea level rise was happening well before 1900. Areas with the greatest “sea level rise” are frequently areas with significant subsidence. There is no evidence hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods are worse today than in the past 1000 years. Increasing populations pull more water out of the ground and place more weight upon it.
Jim – I just installed new furnace and ac.
furnace is gas 80% efficient ( which means 80% of the combustion is converted to heat for the house and 20% of heat goes outside via the flue). I could have gotten a 96% efficient furnace but would never have recovered the cost.
AC is a 14 seer. Could have gotten a 18 or 19 seer – but never would have recovered the cost.
Same issue with a heat pump. All three the monthly savings in fuel costs would have been close to a 20 year payback (before correcting for time value of money).
Did you check into smart vents (zoned H/AC)? I slashed my electric bill by over 30%.
https://flair.co/
Also if you have an electric water heater I recommend getting a 240v timer and set it to come on about 15 min. before your normal demand times. Mine turns on for 30 min. @ 5:30AM and again for 15 min. @ 4:00PM.
Continuing with the theme of complexities and uncertainties, here are some recent studies that demonstrate the future of Antarctica’s contribution to SLR and the dynamics involved are far from settled. There are no headshots in climate science.
The papers find that there is recent cooling, increased SMB, reduced estimated SLR at 22mm for 2100, contradictory and reversing trends and mechanisms involved in uncertainties about collapse of WAIS.
“This resulted in new record highs in net annual Antarctic surface mass balance and ice-sheet mass balance in 2022; this was the first time since 1993, the start of satellite-derived ice-sheet mass balance measurements, in which a positive net mass balance was observed in Antarctica, highlighting the extraordinary contribution of surface processes (i.e., snow accumulation) in 2022.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/examining-the-effect-of-ice-dynamic-changes-on-subglacial-hydrology-through-modelling-of-a-synthetic-antarctic-glacier/459B6E2A23ADEAA15D32BC88C9C22171
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/104/6/BAMS-D-22-0153.1.xml
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aao1447
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/104/9/BAMS-D-23-0077.1.xml
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acd8d4
“This resulted in new record highs in net annual Antarctic surface mass balance and ice-sheet mass balance in 2022; this was the first time since 1993, the start of satellite-derived ice-sheet mass balance measurements, in which a positive net mass balance was observed in Antarctica, highlighting the extraordinary contribution of surface processes (i.e., snow accumulation) in 2022.”
Yes, There are interannual variations in climatic markers. A one-year high should not immediately be taken as reversal of a 30-year trend. However, it may be: higher ocean temperatures = higher humidity and changing atmospheric circulation patterns = breakthrough of the polar vortex and circumpolar current. Time will tell if increased snowfall will compensate ice mass loss.
ganon
Here is the point of all these links. We have had meaningful observations of the Amundsen Sea region for 30 years out of the 53 million years that Antarctica has been in its present configuration. We don’t know crap about the million year trends or 500,000 years trend or 1,000 years trends. If we had been monitoring the processes for the last 1,000 years with current technology, we might be in a better position to guess what the next 1,000 years will be. But we haven’t been doing that, so it’s all a guess. As I have pointed out elsewhere, humans have a pathetic record in predicting the future climate.
It’s absurd to think we know all the dynamics that are going on and have been going on for millions of years.
Cerescokid,
(1) “We don’t know crap about the million year trends or 500,000 years trend or 1,000 years trends.”
(2) “As I have pointed out elsewhere, humans have a pathetic record in predicting the future climate.”
It is absurd that you can make such unsupported statements.
(1) It is absurd that you continue to make such claims without acknowledging the KNOWledge that comes from Geology, Geophysics, Biogeochemistry, Oceonagraphy, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Stratigraphy, ice cores, ocean and lacustrine sediments, fossil plants and pollens, tree rings – living and fossils, paleosols, stable and cosmogenic radioisotope ratios, elemental ratios, benthic chemical ratios (e.g. alkenones). But I understand you can’t deny scientific knowledge if you acknowledge scientific knowledge.
(2) Climate models have done very well, starting with Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Of course, there have been occasional outliers – they have been helpful in improving newer models – that is the way science works. Anti-science works by denying old science that has already been corrected and making declarative statements without evidence – the denialism is pathetic.
* How well have CMIP3, CMIP5 and CMIP6 future climate projections portrayed the recently observed warming”. D. Carvalho et. al., Nature scientific reports (2022).
* Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections, Hausfather et al, Geophysical Research Letters (2019)
* Climate models reliably project future conditions, National Academy of Science, (2021)
* New physical science behind climate change: What does IPCC AR6 tell us?, Zhou, Innovation, (2021), and references therein
* Climate Models, MIT Climate portal, 2021
* Historical Climate Models Accurately Projected Global Warming, Drake, MIT-EAPS 2021
* How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize, Mulvaney, National Geographic, 2021
* Climate Modeling, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
* GISS-E2.1: Configurations and Climatology, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Kelley, 2020
* What Are Climate Models and How Accurate Are They? Columbia Climate School
* Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming, Harvey, Scientific American (2019): “Even models in 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise”
ganon
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the list of failed predictions is endless. Humans are experts at fooling themselves. Degrees don’t convey common sense, unfortunately. It’s just common sense to say no one has the ability to predict with any accuracy what the climate will be. It’s been shown over and over. It will be shown again in the next 100 years.
I get that blind faith in a cause hampers the cognitive functions, but at some point those who have lost their way have to return to reality.
Apparently, having linked to dozens of studies demonstrating the complexity and uncertainty of the Antarctic dynamics hasn’t helped to bring focus to the issue.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”
Stephen Hawking
I have no problem understanding the complexities of climate and coupled nonlinear feedbacks resulting in stochastic oscillations on multiple “characteristic” (but not well-defined or repeatable) time scales.
What I have a problem with is people that say things like (paraphrase) “you people think it is so simple and CO2 is the only thing that matters”. And then proceed to “prove” their false accusation by claiming to have read thousands of papers that show what many of the falsely accused already know. The psychobabble still holds.
Go ahead and list the “endless” number of climate models that have failed.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”
You are so right! I have been a “real” experienced scientist long enough to recognize pseudoscientists when they pop up and get offended when they are called on it.
Climate modellers earned the Nobel Prize in Physics for their accurate achievements.
ganon
Read the ubiquitous coverage of climate in the news sources across the globe. The linkage of every…..single….common….weather….event is attributed to AGW. What the public is fed for facts is shamelessly only known as climate change. When are the complexities laid out with all the nuances. Hardly ever. That is what I have been referencing. Even climate scientists do it. Occasionally, a climate scientist will demonstrate some caution and try to discuss the uncertainties. Good for them.
Here are some papers covering the need for more knowledge about geothermal activity in WAIS so that the boundary conditions can be ascertained and the future contribution to GMSLR can be understood. Again, it’s only common sense that when basal conditions are less viscous, ceteris paribus, glacial movement should accelerate, with all the attendant changes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X14005780
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11515-3
“ The presence of such a volcanic belt traversing the deepest marine basins beneath the centre of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could prove to be a major influence on the past behaviour and future stability of the ice sheet.”
https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/sp461.7
“ The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500093
More from the unheard of segment of science in Antarctica. None of these 10 studies were included in an IPCC report.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL065782
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075579
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00348-y
“ The ability to precisely model the solid Earth’s viscoelastic response to ice mass fluxes is critical to understanding the impact of ongoing climate change in the West Antarctic. For example, West Antarctic ice streams are the largest sources of ice mass loss in Antarctica (Bennett 2003; Shepherd et al. 2018). To constrain the discharge potential of these ice streams, accurate models of mass loss-induced solid Earth deformation are required to track the position of the grounding line, the point where ice is no longer in contact with the ground and becomes a floating ice shelf .”
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/231/1/118/6561618
“Our results can represent another piece in the puzzle to explain observations that report accelerating loss of ice masses.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GC010501
Cerescokid,
I don’t really care about the media coverage. I care about the science and the (ab)use of the scientific method.
One major problem I observe here is that many (not all) view skepticism as a one way street; that they have a right to be skeptical of climate science, and they do; however, they don’t seem to recognize my right to be skeptical of their skepticism, even though it is (usually) based in science and underlying physical causality arguments. Instead, they view it as an attack on their personal beliefs, and then, instead of responding to the scientific criticism, they respond with personal attacks and conveniently forget to defend their view of the science (I wonder why?). And I, in my human frailty, sometimes (often) respond in kind with personal attacks of my own; particularly when there is no defense of the original skepticism to respond to. I’ll try to do better.
And then there is hyperbolic exaggeration and absolutism, e.g., “The linkage of every…..single….common….weather….event is attributed to AGW.” That is simply not true, and so silly that I won’t bother to respond further.
Thanks for the links on the uncertainty in the effects of geothermal heat flux under the WAIS. I am aware of those uncertainties, but to my understanding it is roughly 1.5 times as much as the global average and has been around for 50 million years. No doubt that further research is need to see if, and how much, it is growing. No doubt that in the past it has contributed to the early collapse of the WAIS, also no doubt that the Antarctic researchers are keenly aware of it. Indeed, there is even plenty of hyperbolic reporting of “volcanos under Antarctica” in the common media.
cerescokid,
“None of these 10 studies were included in an IPCC report.”
For starters, 3 of them were published after the last IPCC report – that’s a pretty good reason for not including them.
Further, I don’t think geothermal activity is generally considered a part of “climate change”, particularly ACC; the understanding of which is IPCC’s primary mission. The WAIS basin geothermal has, until recently, not caused or created concern about collapse of the WAIS; however, it may well exacerbate the effects of ACC on the WAIS which are covered in detail in IPCC AR6 WG1. In my view, they must know about it and are being conservative, not alarmist, in leaving it out because it is not (yet) quantifiable.
I also note that they do not include anything about the possible climatic effects of an eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano, new LIPs, or nuclear war. Would you like to complain about that also?
ganon
Every weather event blamed on AGW. Whether the news coverage is 90% or 99% or 99.1% blaming climate change is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of news articles engage in gross oversimplification, which is the central message.
From ABC tonight “ Thanksgiving could soon become another victim of climate change as rising temperatures threaten the abundance and quality of the ingredients used to make some traditional dishes.”
The absurdity of the debate calls for more humorous hyperbole. How can any clear thinking individual take this propaganda seriously.
cerescokid,
Reread my comment that starts “I don’t really care about the media coverage.” It seems that you are the one that takes it seriously, therefore, I conclude that you are not clear minded. I am interested in science, not popular press hyperbole, from either side.
I would suggest studying the science to understand it, not with the goal of trying to discredit it by searching for a list of uncertainties that you can overinflate. You may succeed at the former – with an open mindset, but very unlikely to succeed at the latter.
ganon
There is a reason I used the word “an” before IPCC. It was because none of those studies had been included in either IPCC5 or IPCC6. Or didn’t you consider that?
It’s notable that you haven’t discredited any of the dozens of real science studies I’ve provided in the last few posts. But when all you are capable of doing is nitpicking about grammar and sentence structure, it’s understandable.
The denizens are a generous lot. They recognize some rookie mistakes on your part and realize with only 6 months experience you need some help. Some aren’t sure if it’s unfamiliarity with actual science or just an addiction to the retail, quasi science stuff that’s being peddled to terrify the children. If it’s the latter, then going cold turkey by full immersion in the hard reality of using the scientific method is a wonderful cure. If it’s the former then a little compassionate, hand holding might do the trick.
I believe everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, even after they’ve strayed from the righteous path. That’s why I’ve linked to dozens of studies for you to read.
Here are some more that introduce to you the concepts of complexity, uncertainty and the wonderment of the unknown.
An interesting discussion about iceberg calving with all the uncertainties and unknowns that go on outside the world of the lab and equations and theories.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-032320-110916
This paper discusses the potential errors in estimating firn density in the EAIS, but has applicability to WAIS and Greenland.
https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/379892.pdf
These 2 companion papers, by the same authors, have reached different conclusions about the future of Antarctica using different assumptions. That is called covering your bases. A little like hedging the market.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/3761/2023/
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/3739/2023/#bib1.bibx51
This paper confirmed my suspicions about papers on SLR.
“A review is given of 30 trend models applied in the field of sea level research
Varying trend patterns can be found for the same data depending on the method chosen”
What’s not to like.
Happy hunting. I hope this helps.
Maybe I don’t disprove the papers you present because I often agree with them. I disagree with an illogical conclusion: There are lots of uncertainties that nobody pays attention to; here, let me show you 10 papers to which nobody pays attention. Science and scientists pay attention to, and are honest about, the uncertainties. I don’t really care about what other people (including you) try to falsely interpret from the acknowledged uncertainties. The acknowledged uncertainties are, however, a good thing. If they are important, they drive emphasis in continuing research.
The actual scientists accept the unknown and uncertainty, but there is a chasm between what is in the bowels of the IPCC reports versus the Summary and the media coverage of the Summary.
IPCC6 3.3.1.6
“There is medium agreement, but limited evidence of anthropogenic forcing of AIS mass balance through both SMB and glacier dynamics, (low confidence). Partitioning between natural and human drivers of atmospheric and ocean circulation changes remains very uncertain.”
Somehow, the “very uncertain” part gets glossed over in the public discourse. Except, of course, by skeptics.
cerescokid,
I think I already answered you with my last comment. I do not give a … about public discourse (I am not a media hall monitor) and I don’t read IPCC summaries or synthesis reports. I read the full technical reports, mostly WG1, and I find it to be a quite good and comprehensive literature review (that is what they are), although a couple of years out of date by the time they get published, and despite your complaints.
Here’s the latest “win” for Germany’s “green” energy policy. It’s done nothing but push up the cost of electricity. I’m happy for Germany to be the “green” crash test dummy.
US tyre major Goodyear plans to close two tyre plants in Germany, affecting 1,750 jobs, it said in a regulatory filing.
The closures are part of a strategy to improve Goodyear’s competitive position and reduce its production cost per tyre in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, it said.
The closures of the plants at Fulda, northeast of Frankfurt, and Furstenwalde, near Berlin, are expected to be completed by 2025 and by the end of 2027, respectively.
The company had previously planned to reduce production at the Fulda tyre plant by 50%, but is now moving to permanently close the plant.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2023/11/17/10945443/goodyear-to-close-two-tyre-plants-in-germany-affecting-1-750-jobs/
Christos,
”
“390 W/m^2 comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.”
–
What do you mean it comes from Stefan-Boltzmann equation?
It doesn’t come from Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
”
Yes, it does:
E = σT^4; σ =5.67×10^−8 W/(m^2*K^4)
= 5.67E-8*288^4 = 390.08 W/m^2
The calculation is correct.
The 288K is the sattelite measured Earth’s average surface temperature.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law does not apply to average temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“desert sand near the equator routinely gets above 50 C and emit more than 600 W/m^2.”
–
Of course, but that 600 W/m^2 doesn’t come out of the sand. It is a result of solar radiative energy interaction with the upper layer.
Sand is not at 50 C. Only a small amount of the solar energy gets absorbed in.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Incoming TOA irradiance is ~1362 W/m^2. In the absence of an atmosphere, albedo = 30%, equilibrium temperature, and geometrical factor pi*r^2 (area of illuminated disk) vs 4*pi^2 (surface of emitting sphere):
1362*.7/4 = 238.5 W/m^2
that must be emitted, on average, to maintain equilibrium
This is where the 255 K comes from. Admittedly an approximation.
Now suppose 50% of the surface is actually 50%@300 K and 50% @ 210 K (still Tmean = 255)
Then whole surface at 255K => 239.7 W/m^2
50% @210K => 110.9 W/m^2
50% @300K => 459.2 W/m^2
average of the split surface => 285.1 W/m^2
Thus distributed T vs uniform T, (but same Tmean) the distributed T produces more outgoing LWIR and things will cool until a new equilibrium Tmean is approached.
if Tmean =245:
(split 200, 290) => LWIR (mean, out) =245.9 W/m^2
Explain why you think Tmean = 255K is too low for no atmosphere. I think it is too high, with latitudinal temperature distribution. And I expect it would even be lower if diurnality is considered and increases temperature differentials further.
RE the desert sand. It is still emitting at ~ 600 W/m^2 and if it is in temperature quasi-equilibrium with some fraction of the energy conducted to sub layers, then it must be absorbing more than 600 W/cm2. As usual you have not quatified even your amounts, rather a “small amount”.
I think the satellites measure the EM radiation over small areas “pixels” 30×30 km where S-B should be approximately correct, convert that to temperature and then average the temperature. If you have evidence that they do it differently, I’d be glad to hear about it.
Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t apply to terestrial temperatures.
–
390.08 W/m^2 is a very hot emitter.
Also the 255K or -18C doesn’t emit 240 W/m^2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I guess you didn’t read the rest of my comment, so here it is again:
“Because of the temperature nonlinearity (T^4), more accurate results would require space-time (and emissivity) integration over the T variability. However, the hot areas would be expected to add more to the emission than the cool areas lower it. Thus, the total and average emission would be expected to be somewhat higher than the simple S-B calculation. The simple 289K BBR spectrum would be broadened slightly due to the temperature distribution, with a slight shift to higher energy, because of the same T-nonlinearity. I believe (but do not have a reference) that 294K is sometimes used to compensate for the T-distribution and nonlinearity.”
Y
390.08 W/m^2 is a very hot emitter.
I have an electric radiative heater of 1200 W.
When in winter it is 15C in my study, I use the 1/3 scale, so it is 400 W at two meters distance is enough to feel warm.
There are not any other 400 W/m^2 emitters on the walls, floor or ceiling.
It would be 6x10m^2×400 W/m^2 = 24 kW !!!
It doesn’t happen in my study. That is why the 390 W/m^2 is not emitted by the Earth’s surface. It doesn’t happen that way.
Solar flux interacts with surface, solar flux does not input so much energy in the surface, and therefore surface does not emit what is not absorbed.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not really, desert sand near the equator routinely gets above 50 C and emit more than 600 W/m^2. And no that is not a very hot emitter. A resistively heated graphite rod at 3000 C => 6.5 million W/m^2, that would be a “very hot emitter”.
You need to quantify and reference your denials. Otherwise, they are meaningless.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I agree with Lau Fedez posting on electroverse.info today
“Antarctica continues to cool without experts taking action on what this means” (ie. informing policy makers).
Latest data of record cold etc in Antarctica means the ice is not melting and coastlines are not at risk, but that is a trivial signal versus the fact it may be signaling that tremendous cold is coming.
Without informing the public that we should be growing and storing our excess we are inadvertently setting up for mass starvation. This applies obviously to food but also means that we ought have a plan to drill as many wells as possible over the short term to maximize our access to oil and gas while we can. SPR should be full and other storage similarly.
CO2 may be contributing a minor anthropogenic portion to AGW but the natural variability dominates and there’s no telling which way it will go. There are all kinds of red flags in the form of geomagnetic weakness, alignment of planets, distance from the sun, GSM and associated CME or worse risk, higher seismicity, volcanism, plate tectonics… I think there are others but have run dry. You get the picture…
PS I am not a regular here, but gotta say, Ganon’s contribution is tiresome beyond belief.
So don’t read ’em. I also find all the comments directed at me tiresome beyond belief, but I try to answer them the best I can. If you don’t like ’em don’t read ’em and don’t provoke ’em.
The polar vortex is starting to rage. It lets the low from over the Atlantic all the way to the Greenland Sea.
Air from the north is now free to flow into Europe.
Jungletrunks,
“Ganon, you just doubled down using more confirmation bias. And you believe the nonsense.”
You are entitled to your opinion – it still may be the nonsense.
RE: Demetris, there are other explainations.
ganon,
“I think the satellites measure the EM radiation over small areas “pixels” 30×30 km where S-B should be approximately correct, convert that to temperature and then average the temperature. If you have evidence that they do it differently, I’d be glad to hear about it.”
–
I think sensors are calibrated, and I am sure they are doing a good job.
“RE the desert sand. It is still emitting at ~ 600 W/m^2 and if it is in temperature quasi-equilibrium with some fraction of the energy conducted to sub layers, then it must be absorbing more than 600 W/cm2. ”
–
Yes, the layer interacting with solar flux is at 50C, and It is still emitting at ~ 600 W/m^2 and if it is in temperature quasi-equilibrium with some fraction of the energy conducted to sub layers…
But most of the energy is going out “emitting at ~ 600 W/m^2” and only a small portion gets in the sand’s inner layers.
–
ganon,
“Now suppose 50% of the surface is actually 50%@300 K and 50% @ 210 K (still Tmean = 255)”
–
ganon, it doesn’t “work” that way.
Now suppose 50% of the surface is actually 50%@300 K and 50% we cannot assume @210K, we do not know that!!!
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is called a gedanken experiment. and it does work that way. Do you deny that areas that are above Tmean produce more LWIR than areas lower than Tmean that (less) reduce the LWIR? I.e., that if there is any kind of T differential, it will emit more LWIR than calculated from Tmean? It is the reason the T^4 nonlinearity matters.
Yes, the real question is how much of that 600 W/m^2 get back out through the atmosphere, how much is reradiated back to the surface and how much of it goes to heating the atmosphere via excited molecule collisions with other molecule and converting to excess kinetic (translational, vibrational and rotational) energy.
Thank you, ganon.
“Christos,
And you don’t include the effects of atmosphere and its composition (rather, dismissing it as “thin” when it is not), which has been the whole point of this never-ending discussion. I hope the discussion will help you reformulate your analysis and to justify the unjustified dismissals, but I fear not – it is rather circular to dismiss the effect that you are trying to prove doesn’t exist.”
–
“you don’t include the effects of atmosphere and its composition (rather, dismissing it as “thin” when it is not)”
“it is rather circular to dismiss the effect that you are trying to prove doesn’t exist.”
–
ganon, I do not dismiss the Earth’s Global Greenhouse Effect.
What I say is I don’t see it happening.
–
When eight years ago I started having my very serious reservations about the role of CO2 trace greeehouse gas content of ~400 ppm in Earth’s atmosphere I learned about an equation (the planet effective temperature equation) which theoretically estimated planet average surface temperature for every planet and moon without-atmosphere in solar system.
When the planet without-atmosphere New Tmean equation was formulated, I tried it on every planet and moon without-atmosphere in solar system, and, when realising the equation was very much precise, then I also checked the New Tmean equation in the case of Earth… to estimate what the on the Earth’s surface the whole atmosphere greenhouse effect would be.
And, an equation for planets and moons without-atmosphere, which equation didn’t include the effects of atmosphere and its composition (why it had to, it was for planets and moons without-atmosphere, the exact way the effective temperature equation is), that New Tmean equation is able to theoretically calculate the Earth’s average surface temperature very precisely close to the measured by satellites.
It is then I added to the planets and moons without-atmosphere expression the sentence : “(or with a thin atmosphere, Earth included)”.
Because I understood, that for EM (electro-magnetic) radiative energy an Earth’s kind of atmosphere should be considered thin, or transparent, to the solar energy interaction processes with planetary surface, as it is happen to be transparent for planets and moons without or with a thin planetary atmospheres.
If the New Tmean equation had theoretically calculated for Earth, par example, Tmean =275K, then the Earth’s entire atmosphere greenhouse effect would have been as:
288K – 275K =13C
But,
And the result was, that the equation calculated Earth’s without-atmosphere average surface temperature being as Tmean =287,4K
wich result is very much close to the measured by satellites the T = 288K.
The equation does not include the effects of atmosphere and its composition…
And it is concluded then, that the equation does not have to include the effects of atmosphere and its composition, because their effect is very insignificant when the Earth’s mean surface temperature is being by the New Tmean equation theoretically calculated.
–
So, we should conclude, and we conclude with great confidence, there is no room left for the trace greenhouse gas CO2 to influence in any possible way the Earth’s average surface temperature.
–
Sorry, it is 2:30 AM in Greece now.
Till tomorrow then!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
An example of a “bad recipe for science” has appeared before us in the form of prolific comments from ganon1950.
On Nov 21 at 10.06 am ganon1950 wrote here “I have not studied it closely enough to make a judgement one way or another. I simply object to things that I find incorrect or neglected without justification when considering …”
My interpretation of these words could be quite wrong. However, I will continue.
Ganon1950 appears to hold himself/herself in high regard, inferring learning and experience to make judgements on a variety of topics as well as the one quoted, objecting to them as “incorrect” or “neglected without justification”. I question the value of the frequent comments of ganon1950 because Climate Etc is a blog about science, including the Scientific Method. Ganon1950 is contributing not science, but journalism. There is nothing scientific about the selection of quotes from publications with “correct” or “neglected” added. That is advocacy.
Science does not advance by personal beliefs. It matters not if ganon1950 is replete with beliefs and judgements. What matters is “delivering the goods” in the sense of spreading new original research that might assist in the advance of science. Sadly, ganon1950 is but one of many trying to sell beliefs using methods refined by the advertising industry. The topic of “climate change” in its present form might be minor and obscure if advertising and cherry picking of cherished references was excluded.
So, ganon1950, would you accept a suggestion that you should reduce the frequency of your thread bombing here, mainly limiting your comments to your own research, what it is, and how it might allow you greater insight into scientific discussion than others who do not thread bomb with existing knowledge?
p.s. Are you using AI methods to assist in composing some of your past comments here?
Geoff S
What I am trying to sell is the science as best I understand it. And no, I do not use AI to help with any of my writing. Both understanding of science, and the ability to white about it coherently come from a BS and MS in chemistry, a PhD in physics, and 35 years as a national laboratory research scientist with 120+ publications. If you want to see my research (ResearchGate B. A. Bushaw). It is not terribly relevant to climate, so I don’t talk about it here, however, my general scientific background, aptitude, and dealing with “system” are relevant.
Since you sometime go by “skeptical `scientist`,” why don’t you tell us about your background and research, instead of launching personal attacks on people that disagree with you and can support that disagreement based on physical principles.
B.A. Bushaw is a spectroscopist — he knows his stuff.
“Ganon1950 is contributing not science, but journalism. There is nothing scientific about the selection of quotes from publications with “correct” or “neglected” added. That is advocacy.”
Well said, Geoff.
Ganon’s thread bombing fundamentally centers on a common source of insecurity, ideological protectionism. He’s an acolyte among a very large consensus, I don’t mean climate consensus (a byproduct), but rather global collectivist governance, rarely spoken about outright about by its evangelists. The movement isn’t quite at critical mass yet, but as such, the end will justify any means—the IPCC and COVID are merely programs to exploit.
I’m sure Ganon’s an excellent scientist relative to his specialty, and a good observer of science that doesn’t need ideological street cred; but he’s a Judas to science when he needs to be. One might as well try to win a religious argument with the Pope.
Ganon has stated: “Get used to the tyranny of the majority.”
Take Ganon seriously.
Jungletrunks,
I don’t think responding to comments about, or directed to. me qualifies as “thread bombing”.
Other than that, your comment is no more than personal attacks, insults, and conspiracy theories. It deserves no more comment than pointing out what it is.
Canon: I don’t think responding to comments about, or directed to. me qualifies as “thread bombing”.
Except it’s more than that, Ganon, and you know it.
You surf literature looking for the quick motivated reasoning drive-by hit, using science you simply accept at face value as canon, and you redirect it to those not targeting you with “notations”(such as those Geoff describe). You arrogantly, quickly, levy the charge of denier.
Most CE denizens accept there’s at least some amount of AGW causation, some believe more than others; it’s the holes in the science that’s often discussed. You will have none of such sacrilege. You’ve virtually ignored all the arguments that Dr. Curry has outlined in her essay, there’s no overture that even a little of it is true in your mind. Who are you?
For you, AGW and CAGW conflate to mean the same, you don’t present them distinguishably; the media also presents climate change with this approach. On CE, you’re part of the media, not a scientist; a journalist for the new world order.
Most on CE see the false narrative driving the CAGW narrative, the motivated reasoning, the politics, the conflation, the myriad contrivances turning a blind eye to actual science; including those opportunist motives who find faith useful as motivation for broader goals. Historically, collectivists have been quite successful leveraging cultures.
You’re a self-annointed science monk for the collectivist order who sees “the tyranny of the majority” as an opportunity for political goals. The science behind cultural religiosity suits the purpose to collectively gather the flock; so if a “scientist” winks towards CAGW, or ignores that CAGW narrative altogether, who will argue medias conflation of AGW/CAGW—the big scare? Well, politics will of course.
Are we going to need a Neo-Enlightenment Era to defeat the titular monarchy of the new world order?
Jungletrunks,
“Most on CE see the false narrative driving the CAGW narrative, the motivated reasoning, the politics, the conflation, the myriad contrivances turning a blind eye to actual science;”
Yes, I see a lot of turning a blind eye to actual science. I’d be glad to discuss science with you. I’m not interested in the other crap and personal attacks that some people think are a viable refutation of the established science and people that believe it.
Paul krugman, the academic nobel prize winner is very smart.
Paul Krugman, the NYT columnist/pundit is a delusional _____ that has zero concept of economics
Ganon – why do you want to be like paul krugman, the nyt columnist/pundit.
joethenonclimatescientist,
I don’t want to be like Paul Krugman.
Why do you ask stupid, irrelevant, presumptive questons?
ganon1950 | December 4, 2023 at 9:35 am |
joethenonclimatescientist,
I don’t want to be like Paul Krugman.
Why do you ask stupid, irrelevant, presumptive questons?
Ganon – if you dont want to be the paul krugman of climate science, then quite being the paul krugman of climate science.
Most on CE see the false narrative driving the CAGW narrative, the motivated reasoning, the politics, the conflation, the myriad contrivances turning a blind eye to actual science
I did not write the above comment. For the moment, I’ll assume it is a system glitch and not a malignant impersonation.
ganon,
“Do you deny that areas that are above Tmean…”
–
No, I do not deny it.
But I have to go now…
ganon,
“Incoming TOA irradiance is ~1362 W/m^2. In the absence of an atmosphere, albedo = 30%, equilibrium temperature, and geometrical factor pi*r^2 (area of illuminated disk) vs 4*pi^2 (surface of emitting sphere):
1362*.7/4 = 238.5 W/m^2
that must be emitted, on average, to maintain equilibrium
This is where the 255 K comes from. Admittedly an approximation.”
–
Instead of
1362*.7/4 = 238.5 W/m^2
I have proposed (the Φ =0,47 because Earth is a smooth surface planet, and thus, Earth has SW very strong specular reflection}
Φ(1 -0,306)So = 0,47*0,694*1362 = 444 W/m^2
It is the 444 W/m^2 SW incident on surface which interacts with matter
and it is the 444 W/m^2 wich must be IR emitted in TOTAL, to maintain equilibrium
and there is a very important reason I do not average the
444 W/m^2
as
444/4 =111 W/m^2
I do not average the 444 W/m^2 over the entire planet surface dividing it by factor 4
geometrical factor pi*r^2 (area of illuminated disk) vs 4*pi^2 (surface of emitting sphere),
I do not average because some (significant?) amount of the
444 W/m^2 is IR emitted out at the instance of the SW 444 W/m^2 incidence and interaction with surface.
The SW 444 W/m^2 is not averageble
A question which beggs an answer is:
What part of the 444 W/m^2 is instantly emitted, and what part is absorbed in inner layers then?
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which determines the instant emission/absorption rate.
–
The higher is the planet surface the (N*cp) product, the more solar energy is absorbed at the point of incidence and IR emitted later on, for the entire planet to maintain equilibrium
and
The higher is the planet surface the (N*cp) product, the higher is the planet average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What part of the 444 W/m^2 is instantly emitted, and what part is absorbed in inner layers then?”
Most of it, absorbed after optical penetration into the ocean.
“(the Φ =0,47 because Earth is a smooth surface planet, and thus, Earth has SW very strong specular reflection}”
The earth is not smooth with respect SW or LWIR reflection. It does not have a “very strong specular reflection”. (You need still need to quantify your assumptions). Also, I still find the derivation of Φ from analogy to viscous fluid flow dynamics to be inappropriate. Also, even if the oceans were entirely calm, on the macro-scale of the earth the reflection distribution would be that of a smooth sphere – not specular, and I believe it is included in the ocean’s albedo (~0.06). My opinion is that you should eliminate Φ from the equation as it is already implicit in the (1 – a) absorption. Thus your 444 W/m^2 becomes 945 W/m^2 and then divided by the (appropriate) sphere surface/occluded disk geometrical factor, the result is 236 W/m^2 – roughly in alignment with the simple equilibrium BBR calculation for Tmean = 255 K.
Next, just as the oceans, which are considered as part of the earth, are a fluid held by earth’s gravity, so is the atmosphere part of the earth and its interaction with both SW and LWIR must be considered, as we have already discussed in some detail. This, of course, includes the greenhouse effect. As for you not denying the GHE, I will quote you several times:
“Poverty is a very bad thing.
And, CO2 does not cause Global Warming.”
“CO2 does not cause Global Warming.”
“Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesn’t have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earth’s average surface temperature.”
Have a good evening,
Bruce
Thank you, ganon.
“Also, I still find the derivation of Φ from analogy to viscous fluid flow dynamics to be inappropriate. ”
–
It was only the first step to approach the smooth surface spherical objects the solar flux’s specular reflection.
Do you have, ganon, any reference to the theme of the smooth surface spherical objects the solar flux’s specular reflection a quantitative research?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“My opinion is that you should eliminate Φ from the equation as it is already implicit in the (1 – a) absorption.”
–
No, it is not already implicit in the (1 – a) absorption.
The method is the Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison.
–
Can you explain why the planet Mars’ average surface temperature Tmean = 210K is the same as Mars’ theoretically calculated effective temperature Te = 210K ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Definitively, no I can’t. However, as before, I expect, that it is measured radiometrically, converted to area temperatures, which are then averages. It does not surprise me that the radiometrically measured temperature agrees with the black (gray) body temperature calculated for that temperature.
“No, it is not already implicit in the (1 – a) absorption.
The method is the Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison.”
Do you have a reference for (other than your web page) for this “method”? You cannot use a hypothesis to prove itself. You must justify your value and separation of Φ from the albedo by sensible physical causality.
Also, good science with include an estimation of uncertainties and the propagation. E.g.
If you include Φ, what is the uncertainty in the value of 0,47?
What is the uncertainty in , certainly it is not exactly 1.0?
What is the uncertainty in having distributions of c_p and albedo instead of using an average? (remember it is a non-linear process)
How much uncertainty is there in the average albedo? (I have seen values from 28 – 35%)
etc. etc.
How do you justify not using the (physically sensible) divide by 4 geometrical factor? Is it because the results would be way off if you did?
Just some thoughts for you to ponder.
Mars’ Corrected Effective Temperature calculation Te.correct.mars = 174 K
Mars’ Corrected Effective Temperature is Te.correct.mars=174 Κ
To calculate Mars’ Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values
Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)
So = 1.361 W/m², solar costant
R – is the distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)
(1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Mars’ average surface albedo:
amars = 0,25
Mars is a smooth surface planet, Mars’ surface irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Mars’ Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.mars is:
Te.correct.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.361 W/m²*(1/2,32) /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
=( 911.771.916,62)¹∕ ⁴ = 173,77 K
Te.correct.mars = 173,77 K
or, after rounding
Te.correct.mars = 174 K
3. Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature calculation Tmean.mars = 210 K
Tmean.mars
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin………..130.K…210.K…308.K
(1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Mars’ albedo: amars = 0,25
Mars performs 1 rotation every 1,028 day
N = 1 /1,028 = 0,9728 Rotations /day
Mars is a rocky planet, Mars’ surface irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
cp.mars = 0,18cal/gr oC, on Mars’ surface is prevalent the iron oxide
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature Equation is:
Tmean.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.361 W/m²*(1/2,32)*(150*0,9728*0,18)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
=( 2.066.635.457,46 )¹∕ ⁴ = 213,21 K
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K
The calculated Mars’ mean surface temperature Tmean.mars = 213,21 K is only by 1,53% higher than that measured by satellites
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon, in the New Tmean equation in the case of Mars the
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
and Φ
eliminate each other, because in the case of Mars, by a pure coincidence
Φ = ~ 1 /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Now we can explain why the planet Mars’ average surface temperature Tsat.mean = 210K is the same as Mars’ theoretically calculated effective temperature Te = 210K
–
In the New Tmean equation in the case of Mars the
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
and
Φ
eliminate each other, because in the case of Mars, by a pure coincidence
Φ = ~ 1 /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
or
0,47 = ~ 1 /(150*0,9728*0,18)¹∕ ⁴ = 0,441138
( 0,47 /0,44 )¹∕ ⁴ = (1,0682)¹∕ ⁴ = 1,0166
so there is only a
1,66 % difference in the final result of Te =210K
and Tsat.mean =210K
–
Thus we have here a clear confirmation of the rightness of
Φ =0,47 for the smooth surface planets and moons.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In the New Tmean equation in the case of Mars the
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
and
Φ
eliminate each other, because in the case of Mars, by a pure coincidence
Φ = ~ 1 /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
********************
It is not a circular resoning. It is an observation, which proves right the initial insight, which assumes the similarity of the
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons without-atmosphere, (or with a thin atmosphere, Earth included), assumes the similarity with the
Drag Coefficient =0,47 for smooth spheres in the parallel flow fluids.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You keep repeating yourself. That does not make it correct, nor answer the questions I have posed.
No, I do not have a reference for quantitative separation of earth’s diffuse and specular reflection and any differing effects. I do know that both are included in albedo measurements. I also know that land, clouds, and snow (and snow covered ice) result in diffuse reflection, but that the amount and distribution may have some incidence dependence. I also know, as already mentioned that ocean wave(let)s make difuse reflections on a macro scale (look at pictures of the Earth taken from the moon, and see if you can see any specular reflection of the sun). Here is a good primer on the subjects of concern:
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/reflection-absorption-sunlight/
“I do know that both are included in albedo measurements. ”
–
They are not. The planet specular reflection is neglected, because it was considered insignificant, but it is not.
–
“I also know that land, clouds, and snow (and snow covered ice) result in diffuse reflection, but that the amount and distribution may have some incidence dependence. ”
–
The planet surface diffuse reflection is directional, it is not isotropic, because solar flux is directional.
Thus there is always is a specular reflection which escapes the observer.
–
” I also know, as already mentioned that ocean wave(let)s make difuse reflections on a macro scale (look at pictures of the Earth taken from the moon, and see if you can see any specular reflection of the sun). ”
–
You cannot see any specular reflection of the sun, at the pictures of Earth taken from Moon, because the sun’s specular reflection from Earth goes the other from Moon direction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“They are not. The planet specular reflection is neglected, because it was considered insignificant, but it is not.”
Quantify or reference that. How does a measurement “neglect” something?
NASA Technical Memorandum
The Albedo Model
42788037.pdf (core.ac.uk)
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42788037.pdf
I only see the statement:
“Only diffuse reflected is included, specular reflectance is neglected.”
Here is a paper that might answer your question:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL021180
I have not read it detail, but if you look at figure 1, you can see the specular component, as the peak near, but not on, cos(sza) (sza = solar zenith angle), with a distribution determined by wave concavity and Fresnel reflection at wavelet-sza.
I expect that once a hemispherical integration is done, the specular reflection will be quite small, near the Fresnel reflection for normal incidence. ~2%.
More important than wavlet angle distribution for this problem will be integration over the Earth’s occulsion disk area (annular rings), and the coresponding spherical incidence angle, plugged in the angular formulation of the Fresnel equation for both polarizations. A further refinement, so as to not overestimate, would be the increasing atmospheric absorption with pathlength as the incidence angle increases.
I leave such calculations up to you. Perhaps you can get an intuitive feel by looking at the picture (I see no evidence of a specular reflection spot):
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/0/885/modis_wonderglobe_lrg.jpg
good luck.
Thank you, ganon.
“More important than wavlet angle distribution for this problem will be integration over the Earth’s occulsion disk area (annular rings), and the coresponding spherical incidence angle, plugged in the angular formulation of the Fresnel equation for both polarizations. A further refinement, so as to not overestimate, would be the increasing atmospheric absorption with pathlength as the incidence angle increases.”
–
I have already calculated that.
Please visit
Φ =0,47 and FRESNEL
LINK: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819/448587170
“I do know that both are included in albedo measurements. ”
–
They are not. The planet specular reflection is neglected, because it was considered insignificant, but it is not.
They were neglected in model calculations. That does not they are “neglected” in the measurements.
Thank you, ganon.
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
1994
It is already 30 years ago the Albedo was estimated as 0,3 and it is still is 0,3
Please see page 2
“This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedoconstant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of
the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3.“
This video I think is what we are thinking of. It is so rare to see the sun’s specular reflection from the space, but here we have the chance on this video.
See how spectacular it is!
SEE ITALY FROM SPACE AND REFLECTION OF SUN ON PLANET EARTH HD – Bing video
planet specular reflection earth – Bing video
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=planet+specular+reflection+earth&docid=608047991221518368&mid=AFBB0B4CCE446093A724AFBB0B4CCE446093A724&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
planet specular reflection earth – Bing video
It is only a 6 sec long video. Immediately after starts another video with different topic. So watch out, not to miss these 6 sec video at the very beginning.
Unfortunately, I get:
“Sorry, this video is no longer available.”
I would like to see it.
I see… unfortunately this video is no longer available.
Christos, I think your calculations are correct; however:
(1) only 71% of earth is water covered
(2) at any given time, 67% of the earth is covered in clouds (diffuse lighting = diffuse reflection)
thus your specular reflection should be reduced by .71*.67 = 0.48
(ignoring that the ocean has more clouds that land, which would only make it worse)
(3) You calculate for a smooth ocean, but it has wave structure that gives it some diffuse character, even though it is formally
a two medium interface specular reflection, the outgoing reflection has a larger angular distribution than the incoming (see the most recent paper I referenced.
That your calculations come so close to the measured for earth, with so many assumptions, approximations, and neglections – I think is more luck than anything else.
Thank you, ganon.
burlhenry,
My understanding, it is a stochastic seesaw oscillation of surface temperatures driven by equatorial trade winds in the Pacific Ocean.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/el-ni%C3%B1o-and-la-ni%C3%B1a-frequently-asked-questions
Ganon1950:
Your reply is a perfect case in point. You have no real understanding of our climate, you just regurgitate what someone else has written, and accept it as fact.
With respect to El Ninos, here are the FACTS:
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Now, with respect to the 2023 El Nino, the NASA/GISS temp anomaly for Sept was 1.49 deg. C., and for Oct it had dropped to 1.31 deg. C.
Since I have NEVER seen any temperature change not caused by a change in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, I immediately suspected that a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption had occurred in late Sept.
However, in checking the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program’s listing of recent eruptions, there were no large eruptions in Sept. or Oct.
I then examined the global NASA/GMAO Chem Map image of SO2 for Sept, and there was a VEI4 or 5 eruption in Canada’s remote Northwest Territory o/a Sept. 24, with the usual “red dot” and an extended SO2 aerosol plume, which caused the Oct temp decrease.
(this eruption has been reported to the Smithsonian)
This is further scientific proof that SO2 aerosols are THE control knob of Earth’s climate, and a perfect example of Occam’s Razor.
ganon, you said somewhere previously, that you would be glad to read a pear reviewed edition of my research.
What I look forward to is that for some scientists, like you, with your experience in sciences, as you have many times demonstrated in this blog, and with your knowledge of things, I would like to convince in the rightness of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, and in the rightness of the New Tmean equation’s the theoretical average planet surface temperatures calculations.
I will consider it, but will not to commit until I take a first look at a draft manuscript. When do you expect to have one ready? I think there are still a number of concerns that I have expressed that you have not yet addressed.
Ganon1950:
Our current El Nino ended the unusually long La Nina of July 2020-Feb 2023, when temperatures began to rise in late Feb, and rapidly rose until an El Nino was declared on June 8.
It is a very strong El Nino, with temperatures that have already exceeded the maximum GISS monthly anomalous global temp. of 1.35 Deg. C. in Feb 2016, by 0.14 deg. C. in Sept, so we can expect many climate-related disasters, as before.
I wonder what is your understanding of the cause of an El Nino, and why would it suddenly switch from an on-going La Nina to an El Nino.
Good morning from Greece.
Thank you, ganon.
I do not have any experience in publishing.
I am trying to tell scientists that there is something very important they haven’t known yet.
–
I need for going to publish a co-author with a great experience in science, maybe you.
Best regards
Christos
Christos,
At this time, in seems unlikely that I would be willing to coauthor, as you have not yet convinced me that your equation is applicable to planets with fluid surfaces and optically thick atmospheres. I’m not interested in being party to a paper that I don’t really believe in, and attempts to deny the GHE effect on Earth, which, as an optical physicist with training in atomic and molecular spectroscopy, I do believe. I think it better if you consider me a skeptic – of the good kind – one that can (and does) give physical causality reasoning for the skepticism. I am willing to continue that role; you could start with the statement “when I first learned of this equation … ” and tell me where (a reference preferred) you learned about the equation. And then perform a full dimensionality and units check on the equation.
Thank you, ganon.
“…the GHE effect on Earth, which, as an optical physicist with training in atomic and molecular spectroscopy, I do believe.”
–
ganon, I also believe in the GHE on Earth.
ganon,
“you could start with the statement “when I first learned of this equation … ” and tell me where (a reference preferred) you learned about the equation. And then perform a full dimensionality and units check on the equation.”
–
ganon, but I have written the equation myself.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Good to see you have changed your position on the GHE.
language issues: I guess your “when I first learned of ” was supposed to mean “when I first developed”.
ganon, I also believe in the GHE on Earth.
What I do not accept is the +33C global greenhouse effect.
Of course there is some GHE on Earth’s surface. We do not know how much it is, but it is definitely not +33C.
We still don’t know the basic: how much is the by thermometers measured the Earth’s average surface temperature.
****
“language issues: I guess your “when I first learned of ” was supposed to mean “when I first developed”.”
–
Yes, language issues.
I also post here in search for scientific help, from scientists who are really concerned, and who knows how everything “works” in a scientific research.
Christos,
“We still don’t know the basic: how much is the by thermometers measured the Earth’s average surface temperature.”
Satellite measurements are compared to ground station data (GISSTEMP) . I am good with that, and I believe that NASA, NOAA, ESA, etc. know how to make the measurements and interpret the results.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029522
If you do not believe the 33 C (getting closer to 34 C) GHE, How much do you think it is, and why? (You may not use your model – that becomes a circular argument).
Thank you, ganon.
In the reference you provided I did not find any Earth’s mean surface temperature estimation. Maybe I didn’t look well?
–
“If you do not believe the 33 C (getting closer to 34 C) GHE, How much do you think it is, and why? If you do not believe the 33 C (getting closer to 34 C) GHE, How much do you think it is, and why? (You may not use your model – that becomes a circular argument).
–
I think it is ~ +0,4 C.
–
“(You may not use your model – that becomes a circular argument).”
Why, it is the same model the settled science uses – the comparison of the planet without-atmosphere theoretical (effective) surface temperature with the actual satellite measured average surface temperatures, for every planet and moon, Earth included.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The title of the paper was “A parameterization of ocean surface albedo”. I don’t believe it was about global average temperature.
If you don’t understand why you can’t use your theory to prove your theory, I don’t think I can help further. I also grow weary of the never ending deflection from, and ignoring, serious questions that I have. You simply make too many assumptions that are not true or have no physical basis, for application to Earth’s surface temperature.
I wish you success getting published.
Thank you, ganon.
“The title of the paper was “A parameterization of ocean surface albedo”.
–
Φ – is the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (or the planet surface spherical shape and roughness coefficient}.
Φ =0,47 is for the smooth surface planets and moons.
Φ =1 is for the heavy cratered surface planets and moons.
Φ is not Albedo, or Albedo parameterization.
Φ(1 – a) is a coupled term !!!
for spherical celestial objects, like planets and moons, the single diffuse reflection called Albedo- term does not correctly evaluate the planets’ or moons’ the incident solar flux’ reflection.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, ganon.
“I also grow weary of the never ending deflection from, and ignoring, serious questions that I have. You simply make too many assumptions that are not true or have no physical basis, for application to Earth’s surface temperature.”
–
But I am doing my best to answer you questions.
Please, ganon, can you list for me again the questions I have not answered?
Also, what are those “too many assumptions that are not true or have no physical basis, for application to Earth’s surface temperature.”?
–
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Burl,
You asked, I answered with a reference. I will believe NASA climate scientists over an engineer who thinks publishing something in JARR makes it Fact. The simple answer is correlation does not mean causation. It is not surprising that (some) explosive eruptions that inject into the stratosphere can be found to have ENSO cycles 2 – 5 years afterward, when the frequency of ENSO cycles is 2 – 7 years. Learn to do statistical analysis.
Ganon150:
“The simple answer is that correlation is not causation”
I examined all 24 El Ninos since 1950, and there was 100% correlation. For an explanation to be CORRECT, there HAS to be correlation.
If you have the ability to understand what I have published, you would see that NASA is WRONG.
But putting that aside, my comments on the current El Nino temperature decrease prove that SO2 aerosols are the control knob of Earth’s temperatures.
I doubt that anyone else on earth would have suspected that the Oct temperature decrease was due to an unknown volcanic eruption, and then proven it by finding the volcano.
Burlhenry,
I understand your paper all too well. You don’t know what correlation is (what two variables did you correlate, and what was the correlation coefficient?). You also don’t know the difference between proof and inductive inference.
Volcanoes may have some effect on ENSO cycles (yet to be demonstrated), even sometimes be triggers, if other conditions are right; but they are not the underlying mechanism.
Ganon1950:
You obviously did NOT understand my paper, since you asked what two variables did I correlate with.
I correlated temperature increases with the formation of an El Nino, and identified the 4 major causes of the temperature increases:
1. American Industrial recessions, where there were fewer SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere because of idled foundries, factories, etc.
2. Volcanic-induced El Ninos, where descending stratospheric SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) eventually settle out of the stratosphere and coalesce with others in the troposphere, as they descend, flushing enough out to cause temperatures to rise because of the less polluted air.
3. Periods of volcanic droughts, where there have been no volcanic eruptions for 3 years, or more, and ALL volcanic SO2 aerosols have settled out, thoroughly cleansing the air (3 such instances identified on the graph).
4. Decreased SO2 aerosol emissions due to “Clean Air” efforts, as is 1997-98 and 2014-16.
As I pointed out earlier, your NASA reference is TOTALLY incorrect.
Since correlation was 100%, there was no need for any statistical analysis.
The graph was for the period 1950-2020, but the first 3 causes are true back to at least 1880.
And I never said that volcanoes are the underlying mechanism, it is the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, or their absence.
Dr. Curry’s “A bad recipe for science” post could be called “An Ode to Skepticism.” We all respect well-grounded skepticism, but it is worth noting cases where skepticism has gone wrong. Skeptics of Covid-19 vaccines paid a price by not getting vaccinated. In the last two years they have died from Covid at a rate several times higher than those who embraced the consensus and got vaccinated (for US data see https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination). Mostly their skepticism harmed only themselves, except when they congested hospitals. I wish no harm on vaccine skeptics, but natural selection continues to work against them and the anti-science ideology they represent.
Skeptics of the climate consensus do not significantly harm themselves when they make no effort to limit their CO2 emissions, and that is the reason climate change is such a wicked problem. Individuals can and do choose to be “free-riders” knowing that their personal carbon footprint matters little. They can assert “freedom” to make choices which consensus science says will harm us all when significant numbers make the same choices. Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, individuals working in their own self-interest do not produce an optimum result.
Replacing peer-reviewed science done by hard working professionals (not “IPCC bureaucrats”) with easily debunked nonsense that is ignorant of that science is skepticism run amok and hardly a better recipe.
Trust but verify Climate and Covid. Vaccination protection?
Dr Campbell has posted some troubling results of the covid mandating messaging.
Skepticism is not “anti-science ideology”. On the contrary it is like a heretical view of some matter that is based on verified science.
The “anti-science ideology” skeptic, and its opposite ‘fanatical belief in science power’ believer, usually are people who lack basic science knowledge and is a normal reaction that depends on the person’s mental hard-wiring.
Re Covid, and apart from the question of vaccines versus the various forms of ‘snake-oils’, that epidemic has shown the unpreparedness of everyone to major social disturbance. Climate change may be one such disturbance, but not in any way it is being considered, which in my view is more of a hindrance; a lemming approach.
David
dont be so enamored with the Covid vaccine saving as many lives as claimed. That claim rests on a lot of bad data.
First point that everyone agrees on is that approx 80-85% of the covid deaths occurred in the 65+ age group and that approximately 85-90% of that age group was vaxed and double vaxed. The second point is that the omicron variant was generally considered the less severe variant. The third point is that covid deaths came through the USA in three major waves ; March-April 2020, Nov 2020-Jan 2021 and Nov 2021-Jan 2022. Bearing that in mind , the following data should call into question the reliability of the vax saving lives claim
A) The weekly death rate of the over 65 age group was approx 50 per 100k in the Nov2020-Jan 2021 wave which was when virtually no one was vaxed. The reported weekly death rate for the “unvaxed and over 65 age group in the Nov 2021-Jan 2022 wave ranged between 180-240 per 100k.
A 3x-5x increase in the death rate of the unvaxed is simply implausible. numerous math errors accounted for the difference, In many states, the error was due to an undercount of the unvaxed population resulting an a low numerator.
B) The historical death rate in the 3rd wave of pandemics has ranged between 50% -70% of the 2nd wave. The covid death rate in the 3rd wave as a percentage of 2nd wave was approx 60% which is well within the historical norm. If the vax was saving lives, then the total covid deaths should have been in the 20%-30% range , not 60%
C) As noted above, 80+% of the covid deaths were in the 65+ age group. As noted in point B above, the death rate in the 3rd wave was in the normal historical range. There simply wasnt enough unvaxed individuals in the 65+ age group to have that high of death rate in the 3rd wave.
Look at data in the reference I gave. There are many other sources. Denying data, whether in vaccine or climate analyses, is a hallmark of psuedo-science.
David all the cites you gave use the same source for the underlying data.
It’s the underlying data that has the errors.
The points I made show the problems with the quality of the underlying data
David – As a follow up comment – Its important to recognize when you have bad data. Every study is going to give erroneous results if the underlying data is bad.
Javier,
I do understand generally the role of oceans in providing thermal inertia to cushion changes in radiative imbalance. I agree with the statement in your Rosenthal reference that “OHC more reliably represents the response of Earth’s energy budget to radiative perturbations than do surface temperatures”. That is precisely why I earlier moved the discussion from your surface temperature data to ocean heat content.
Perhaps you saw the paper earlier this month in Science https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1646 which, like Rosenthal, uses isotope ratios in North Atlantic sediments as a proxy for temperature and thereby detects both the Little Ice Age and recent warming in relatively deep water. Dare I say that the recent warming they show looks more like a hockey stick than like natural processes as usual? You assert it has nothing to do with CO2. That is part of your belief system, though I agree that these data only document the warming without explicitly identifying the cause.
You did not address my main complaint about that Figure 15 in the MDPI paper you referenced. It argued that the second time derivative of OHC was negative, is the period ~2004 – 2010 and thereafter. The rate of warming is slowing down, they say. But please look at OHC data since 2010 (from the NOAA post I referenced or elsewhere) and tell me if you still agree with their conclusion. If by nature you are a skeptic, apply your skepticism to the 3% as well as the 97%.
An Arctic front in the Midwest will bring winter to the US. Winter in the US and Europe will begin on Nov. 25.
https://i.ibb.co/ctw6K1W/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-11-23-085127.png
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
An agenda based on bad science is amoral.
It’s called the IPCC
Ganon1950,
It is implicit in many of your comments that you are willing to accept some major articles of faith from the Establishment science sector, without the prudent step of going back to the raw data to see if the inferences from it are sustainable. Since this climate change matter commenced with global warming as a major foundation, I invite you to comment on an aspect of temperature rise.
The topic is heatwaves. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers with key summary statements like this:
“Heat waves have happened in the past, but climate change is making heat waves longer, more extreme, and more frequent.”
https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/global-warming-makes-heat-waves-hotter-longer-and-more-common
My main study concerns my home nation of Australia. Several of the seminal papers igniting this chant originated in Australia, mainly from a couple of academics named Sophie Lewis and Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick. Just one of these, this from 2013, is
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50673
In short, I have analysed public, raw temperature data in full, some going back to the 1860s, for many Australian cities and towns, for heatwaves of durations 1, 3, 5 and 10 days. To examine if heatwaves are getting hotter, I have chosen the hottest heatwave each year for every available year of data. A 5-day heatwave for example is defined for each year as the hottest average Tmax taken over all 5 consecutive days.
In short, these data do not support the popular chant that heatwaves are becoming hotter, longer and more frequent. Another chant is arising, that because baseline temperatures are increasing year on year, so should heatwave temperature severity. It is easy to be logical and to assume this to be so, but again the hard data do not support the easy idea.
Here is a summary of my work for the 8 Australia’s State capital cities plus Darwin and Alice Springs for more map coverage. It is a big file, so please allow for download time.
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/eightheatwave2022.xlsx
That’s nice. Here’s a paper you might want to reference when you publish your paper on global heatwave trends. (It might help to read it also.) Granted, the increases in Australia are modest compared to much of the rest of the world.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16970-7
Background literature searches, and familiarity therewith, are an essential part of real scientific research. Keep up the good work.
“There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers with key summary statements like this:
“Heat waves have happened in the past, but climate change is making heat waves longer, more extreme, and more frequent.””
I suppose there might be a reason for that.
So, you’re not a scientist. Just like to lie and pretend.
I am.
Geoff S
Ganon1950,
When I suggest confirmation from raw data, you reply with Berkely Earth, which is adjusted rather than raw. I provided raw Australian data for the early BEST project.
When I note it is desirable to use of all available data over time, you respond with a heatwave paper starting study in 1950. Why? The pre-1950 data exclude, for example, the 1930s dustbowl in the USA and the severe Australian heatwaves of the 1890s. The seminal academic papers I referenced also start (mainly) after 1950.
There is no value in your recommendations when they use cherry picking of dates and subjectively adjusted data.
I invited our Bureau of Meteorology to write a joint paper on this topic. Their response was a short stream of personal abuse. I asked them to comment on my findings. Their response was that they declined to consider writing that was not in a peer- reviewed publication. Who typically provides reviewers for manuscripts on Australian climate? Our BOM.
The real world view is more nasty than the armchair view.
Geoff S
Reanalyzed data is considered more accurate than raw data. If you don’t understand that or why, that’s your problem. I expect they start in 1950 because that is roughly when appreciable AGW started after WW2 perturbations and the ERA5 dataset was available. Here are a couple further references that might help your understanding of heatwaves.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01869-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35621-7
PS ~ After what you presumed and wrote about me, without knowing anything about me, you don’t really expect me to give you a free pass, do you? After that, do you really expect me to have interest in your “research”, which, quite frankly, sounds like a high-school science fair project? Instead, I’ll just say that I must have missed the education & professional experience, and publication record, that supports your self- anoited title of (skeptical) “scientist”.
ganon1950 | November 24, 2023 at 11:18 pm | Reply
” I expect they start in 1950 because that is roughly when appreciable AGW started after WW2 perturbations and the ERA5 dataset was available. Here are a couple further references that might help your understanding of heatwaves.”
Ganon – As a scientist – you should be embarrassed with that explanation. Geoff has pointed out the intentional deceptive cherrypicking.
Your first link from the EPA start year is 1950 – as Geoff points out, that is a problem.
Second link from nature is behind a paywall
third link from nature delves heavily into the urban heat intensity which is an issue caused from urban sprawl, much less than from “climate change”.
joethenonclimatescientist,
Nope, I’m not embarrassed. I think it is entirely reasonable to look at global heatwaves over the period of time when there has been appreciable global warming, and there is daily data with global coverage available.
If you don’t like the additional information (references), perhaps you should look at the first one I posted, “Increasing trends in regional heatwaves”:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16970-7
No paywall, and global coverage. You should be embarrassed by your cherry-picking of the articles I have presented.
Also, I do not consider unpublished hand-gathered data for a few cities in Australia to be a refutation of recent (last 73 years) global trends in heatwaves. The data is not cherry-picked, it is what is available (globally) for the specified time range, and it is not a problem for the reasons already stated.
Thanks for your thoughts.
A few decades of data isn’t a meaningful measure of climate changes. You need to compare those decades to those of the previous thousand years. It’s funny how someone so “scientific” could fall for this.
ganon1950 | November 28, 2023 at 12:22 pm |
joethenonclimatescientist,
Nope, I’m not embarrassed. I think it is entirely reasonable to look at global heatwaves over the period of time when there has been appreciable global warming, and there is daily data with global coverage available.
Ganon – As a scientist you should be embarrassed for obvious reasons, However, as a “climate scientist, your lack of embarrassment doesnt surprise me.
Hint – Cherrypick the start date and you can make a trend line go in any direction you want.
Ganon’s well lubricated proof comes in the form of yet another citation based on re-analyzed data. I guess, like brandy, more processing imbues better influential taste quality (we’re talking nodes here)–though such a reality provides no better stupor than lesser processed moonshine, also a creation by motivated hacks.
Jim2,
Actually, according the International Metrological Organization, 30 years is the default standard for evaluating climate (changes). It also should be viewed in context, in this case the context is the period of increasing CO2 and temperature over the last 70 (where there is sufficient data) – 200 years.
It’s funny how a pseudo-scientist (B.S. Chemistry, right) could fall for thinking that millennia are required for evaluating climate change. I think that is grasping at straws to justify ignoring reality.
Jungletrunks,
“Ganon’s well lubricated proof comes in the form of yet another citation based on re-analyzed data.”
So you don’t understand reanalysis – that’s OK – it provides improved spatial coverage through statistical analysis of a finite number of unequally distributed ground measurement sites. It is well-known that it actually slightly underestimates both cold and hot extreme events. Thus, if full coverage actual measurement were available, there would be more, and more intense, heat waves.
Another logical fallacy, combined with ad hominin attacks (comparing data processing with drinking brandy, and “a creation by motivated hacks”)
Must be tough, not being able make a sensible argument.
Ganon: “30 years is the default standard for evaluating climate (changes). It also should be viewed in context, in this case the context is the period of increasing CO2 and temperature over the last 70”
Right, 30 years represents a climate data point. You manage quite a narrative using 2 datapoints in 70 years. See the recent essay by Demetris.
Jungletrunks,
“Right, 30 years represents a climate data point. You manage quite a narrative using 2 datapoints in 70 years.”
The datapoints are the global number of heatwaves in yearly and decadal time series. And yes two separated 30 year periods are sufficient to make a climate comparison; however, the paper provides much more information than that:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16970-7
Perhaps you should read it, instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself with personal attacks instead of substance.
Right ganon. That “30 years” emanated from which orifice? There’s certainly no scientific basis for it, like so many popular things in climate “science.”
Jim2,
Just can’t give it up, can you? Got anything of substance to pull out of your orifice?
https://public-old.wmo.int/en/media/news/updated-30-year-reference-period-reflects-changing-climate
They have a default value to facilitate comparisons and establish baselines. If you think there is no scientific reason for it, say why.
30 years is arbitrary and you know it. 1,000 years is a better reference period. Weather is all over the map in 30 years or 100 years. They had to give some rationale. It’s bogus.
Jim2,
Don’t tell me what I know – you don’t have a clue. Read the IMO reference I gave you, instead of insisting on data that doesn’t exist (a very old trick) when the data that does exist is crystal clear – read it!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16970-7
So, ganon, you seem to believe that data or lack of it should determine a base period. Like you said, you can’t fix stupid.
Jim2,
Yep, lack of data automatically limits the beginning (or end) of a base period. Can’t fix stupid, can’t stop stupid from trying to show how stupid they are – Dunning-Kruger.
ganon – either the base period is appropriate to the problem or it isn’t. The lack of data means one thing: YOU DON’T KNOW what you need to know to judge the quality or quantity of “climate change.” Let me repeat: YOU DON’T KNOW. Neither do the other Climate Doomers.
Jim2,
You don’t know what I do and don’t know, and using all caps doesn’t make it true. I do know that the paper in question presents solid research and analysis, and I also know is that heatwaves around the world have increased in frequency and intensity over the last 73 years – that is what was analyzed. If you want an analysis over the last 1000 years, go ahead and gather the data and perform your rebuttal analysis. It is miraculous that the heatwaves have the same time signature and underlying physical causality as the increases in CO2 concentration and global average surface over the same time period. Read the paper. Weak denials of the evidence will not change the facts.
Heatwaves and CO2 certainly don’t have the same “signature.” CO2 rises more or less at a constant rate. Heat waves are, well, WAVES, David.
And the real question is do more frequent heat waves matter much. They don’t.
Jim2,
“Heatwaves and CO2 certainly don’t have the same “signature.” CO2 rises more or less at a constant rate. Heat waves are, well, WAVES, David.”
My apologies, I should have said “frequency of heatwaves”. Sorry, you choose to intentionally misunderstand the obvious.
“And the real question is do more frequent heat waves matter much. They don’t.”
You are entitled to your opinion; however, heatwaves kill people, other animals, and plants (e.g., food crops). And, more heat waves that are more intense kill more people animals and plants, but apparently you don’t care or don’t think it matters.
“You don’t know what I do and don’t know”
Oh tout au contraire, Ganon; we know you excel using your BS degree, this skill is quite evident as you serve CO2 cocktails. We know you’re a poser at climate science. We know you don’t understand all the chaotic systems in play that influence climate well enough, actually nobody does adequately enough to declare the science settled. We know you channel surf the literature, AI too, yet have gotten nowhere other than cherry picking your special mix of ingredients for cocktails. I’ll add a cherry; rising temperatures lead CO2.
Keep nipping on the 110% proof rot gut, there’s no skill needed for that; we know you’re qualified at pouring it on too.
Ganon1950,
When I note that you are offering climate papers that have cherry picked start dates like 1950 for heatwaves, you responded next with an EPA paper that ignores data before 1961, yet claims that heatwaves are getting hotter. The Australian 1896 heatwave had many reports of birds dropping from flight, killed by heat. Do any of your “hotter” heatwaves papers observe similarly?
Many Establishment papers read like Lake Wobegon stories from Garrison Keillor, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” Not my idea, here is a blog reference about climate claims.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/faster-than-everyplace-else/
The you write that reanalysis numbers in climate work are claimed to be more accurate than raw data. Reference, please?
Soime background. I spent a few decades in exploration geochemistry to find new mines. My colleagues and I found more than a dozen. Most exploration geoscientists never find one, so something worked. The sales realised to date on product from these mines is approaching $Aust 100 billion in today’s dollars and prices, so some were/are big mines.
We did not use modern imaginative aids like reanalysis. If staff had tried, they would have been driving a cab for a living soon after. Personally, I believe that a calculation of errors from reanalysis data is mathematically inavlid, at least until an author can acceptably define how to place uncertainty boundaries on a guess.
Also, we did not use the modern IPCC etc method of defining targets by “ambition”. None of us believed that by setting our ambitions high, we could find a deposit. We worked in reality space that measured success or failure. (Did you find a new mine. Or did you not find a new mine). We did not work to enhance government subsidies, because there not any. We did not claim success in any other way than by the discovery of new resources by the application of hard science (with the value of the discovery being greater than the expenses of finding it).
We did not claim that success was measured by satisfaction of targets set by governmeants, like filling the ambitions of a mandated Chairman Mao 5-year plan, bucause they are irrelevant to progress. In the real world, our biggest impediment was government regulations and laws. We lost uncompensated billions from such action and had the fringe extras of legal costs to take ministers to our High Court.
Please try to be in the real, hard world and not in climate research la-la land if you wish to respond. I had already read almost all of the papers you favoured and am soon to go to press on a large work about UHI.
It gives me no pleasure to demonstrate poor science.
Geoff S
burlhenry,
One thing for sure. I’m the only one stupid enough to pay attention to you.
Ganon1950:
I hope that you are learning something!
I have 17 climate-related articles on Research Gate (12 of them on Google Scholar) that basically debunk just about everything that others think they know about our climate. You should read them with an open mind.
And here is a prediction:
Average anomalous global temperatures for November will be much lower than they were for October.
Yes, I’ve learned that it is possible to get almost anything published it you try hard enough and find the right vanity press. 17 publications and – wow – 6 whole citations. I bet most of those citations were burl citing burl.
Thanks, but I think I’ll stop paying attention.
Ganon1950:
No, at this time I do not know who made the citations, except that they are recent.
According to Research Gate, I have over 1,300 reads, but unless a reader is writing a paper, there will be no citations.
How many of the papers have you read?
Or do you plan to keep your head where the sun doesn’t shine?
“No, at this time I do not know who made the citations, except that they are recent.”
I have read two, and see no reason to read anymore.
How convenient that you don’t know – I do – just check the references on your papers. All 6 of them are burl – references burl.
I”ll keep my head where it is, I don’t want it where yours is.
Ganon1950:
Thank you for the information.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to avoid self-references between articles when others are publishing only incorrect information.
My major concern is that the warming resulting from the millions of tons of decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions since 1980 have been hypothesized to be due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, while the very real warming resulting from cleaner, less polluted is totally ignored.
And further, history tells us that the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get!
burl,
“Unfortunately, it is impossible to avoid self-references between articles when others are publishing only incorrect information.”
There is a much simpler answer. I would suggest investigating “illusory superiority” and “Dunning Kruger effect”.
I must say though, it has been entertaining. You are the first “science” writer I have seen that thinks “Google [search term]” is a valid literature reference.
PS ~ there is nothing intrinsically wrong with self-referencing. But it might be indicative of a problem if ALL of your citations are nothing but self-references.
Thank you, ganon.
“That your calculations come so close to the measured for earth, with so many assumptions, approximations, and neglections – I think is more luck than anything else.”
–
Let’s see, what it is you mean…
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
One at a time
what is the reference for earth average albedo = 0.306? What is the uncertainty?
Christos,
I asked two simple questions. You didn’t answer them, instead tried to lecture an optical physicist on the difference between diffuse and specular reflection.
I have lost interest.
Good luck with your work.
“albedo
Definition
Albedo is ratio of the light received by a body to the light reflected by that body. Albedo values range from 0 (pitch black) to 1 (perfect reflector).
Technical Definition
Geometric albedo is the ratio of a body’s brightness at zero phase angle to the brightness of a perfectly diffusing disk with the same position and apparent size as the body.
Examples
Our Moon has a very low albedo (0.07), while Venus has a high albedo (0.60). The albedo combined with the absolute magnitude can help determine the size of an asteroid.”
the ratio of a body’s brightness at zero phase angle to the brightness of a perfectly diffusing disk
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/glossary/albedo.html
“Albedo (/ælˈbiːdoʊ/; from Latin albedo ‘whiteness’) is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body. It is measured on a scale from 0 (corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation) to 1 (corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation).”
–
“is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Thank you, ganon.
–
Smooth spherical shape objects have not only the solar light diffuse reflection, but also they have the solar light a strong mirroring reflection constituence, where there is the phenomenon of specular reflection involved.
–
Specular reflection is very well demonstrated when we “catch” solar light with a mirror.
–
The reflection of solar light by the mirror is blinding. It is so much strong, it is almost like looking at the sun with a naked eye.
–
When out in the street, turn your back to the sun. The illuminated asphalt is seen as a solar light diffuse reflection.
–
But when we turn towards the sun, when looking at asphalt, we need to narrow our eyes, because the reflection is much more intense.
–
It is happening so, because of the solar illuminated asphalt reflecting the combination of diffuse and specular reflected solar light.
–
When looking at the sea, we watch the open water areas the solar specular reflection.
–
Also, when we look from some elevation to the plain areas, we observe there solar specular reflection too.
–
But when we are looking at the Moon, we see the solar illuminated Moon in diffuse reflection only.
–
It happens so, because of the Moon’s spherical shape, and the specular reflected from Moon’s surface solar light, which is a directional light, cannot be seen from Earth’s distance.
–
The specular reflected light from Moon does not go towards Earth’s direction.
–
The same with spacecrafts, orbiting planets and moons.
–
The spacecrafts sensors do not “see” the specular reflection, because it goes the different directions, and doesn’t fall on the spacecrafts.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Since the comments have not been about Dr. Curry’s article for a long time here is my latest research, also off topic.
Offshore Wind cannot be justified
By David Wojick, Ph.D.
https://www.cfact.org/2023/11/22/offshore-wind-cannot-be-justified/
Paul Driessen and I just finished a study on the impact of offshore wind developments on CO2 emissions, since emission reduction is their primary justification. Turns out global emissions from mining, processing, manufacturing and transportation offset any reductions from power production. We use New Jersey as an example.
How Offshore Wind Drives Up Global Carbon Emissions
By David Wojick, PhD, Paul Driessen, JD
The full report is here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Wojick-Driessen-How-Offshore-Wind-Drives-Up-Global-Carbon-Emissions-FINAL.pdf
This article is our Executive Summary. Please share it.
David
You should have someone competently knowledgeable proofread:
“Current CO2 levels of 400 parts per million (ppm) equate to a mere 0.004% of Earth’s atmosphere (417 ppm), compared to 0.280% prior to the Industrial Revolution, but the increase
has spurred plant growth across the planet.”
400 ppm = 0.04% (not 0.004%)
Preindustrial = 0.028% (not 0.280%)
Such obvious mistakes from people who (should) know better, put me off from reading further.
Anyone know why gravimetric data for antarctica hasn’t updated since the beginning of june?
https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1697301645112008826?s=46
Processing time? The last data point shown in your August X post screen shot was from April 17. Since then, it looks like two more points have been posted. May 14 and June 16. Patience
What’s equally as dangerous is political parties claiming they ‘know what the science is’ and as a result thousands of their sheep spouting their ‘concensus mantras’ as gospel truth, to the extent that they start telling people who actually educate themselves that they, the sheep, know what they are talking about.
It’s very difficult to retain respect for family members who have no science qualifications, clearly have done zero personal investigation of scientific issues but see their ‘careers’ enhanced by being Uniparty BS spouters whilst developing an affect that implies they know what they are talking about.
Once you have determined that they have never heard of a Milankovitch cycle, they don’t even know what a Hadley cell is and the concept of Solar Flares is beyond their basic comprehension, it’s a fair bet that they wouldn’t be a very good judge of scientific salesfolk were they a senior politician.
Unfortunately for us all, most of the senior politicians are just like that. I just don’t spend weekends away with senior politicians because I am not an A-licker, I’m not a rich celebrity and I simply refuse to venerate Israelis and denounce Putins just because some chancer with a title tells me to.
Rjt1211,
It always amazes me when someone like you makes a virulently political post, and then accuses the other guys of getting the science wrong because of their politics. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
To me, the real question is: Why do we think climate change is a problem that needs solving, instead of the natural order of things?
It seems to me that creating problems where none exist is one of humans’ main occupations.
> ganon1950 | November 27, 2023 at 7:50 am | Reply
I think the first thing you have to do to answer your question is not pretend that “natural” climate change and human-caused climate change are one and the same.
I don’t see anyone pretending. I do see contention over the amount of human vs natural CO2. I do see contention over CO2 and natural processes for temperature.
And what I don’t see are examples of natural catastrophe. However, I do see economic and social danger from over investment in climate change.
Javier certainly grouped them together as the “natural order of things”. That is what I responded to, sorry you don’t see it.
“And what I don’t see are examples of natural catastrophe.”
This may be of interest. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10816-018-9386-y.pdf
There are others.
Except that archaeology had a habit of interpreting the result of catastrophe as feasting, and then burying completely their own habitation and disappearing. But now archaeology is changing its mind and blaming climate change, but it does not say how or why that occurs.
Thanks, mm. Interesting info on tsunamis.
> Once a tsunami has been generated, it moves away from the source area as a series of fast-moving waves. In the deep ocean, tsunami waves can travel up to 900 km h−1, with a wave height of only about 0.5 m, a wavelength greater than 150 km and wave periods up to 120–150 min (as opposed to max. storm wave characteristics around 50+km h−1 speed, 100 s of m wavelength and 15–20 s wave period). Approaching the
coast, the sea gets shallower, frictional drag increases, the wavelength decreases and waves increase in height. Unlike storms, the long wavelengths and wave period ensure
that tsunamis can expend their immense energy across a considerable distance inland.
I lived on the Atlantic and experienced several hurricanes. Sandy was the worst, although it had barely 75 MPH winds. The storm surge including the tide was +15 feet over normal, where I lived. Reading the tsunami info reminds me of Sandy.
What I meant by natural catastrophe were those related to climate change AND pose an existential threat to humanity. Hurricanes and tsunamis have not increased in an existentially threatening manner. They’ve always been with us and we’ve always adapted. Which is why sources of power which can assist us through such threats is extremely important to maintain. Archeology certainly supports that.
Javier,
“The rate of warming on the early 20th century warming was 0.18ºC/decade, and now it is 0.20. The first was natural only and the second has a human contribution.”
I beg to differ. Both the early 20th century warming and “recent” are both predominantly attributable to increasing CO2 concentration. Real numbers with real source references:
Temperature (C) anomalies from HadCRUT 5.0.1.0
global annual averages
“Early 20th century”
decadal
decade average increase
——————————
189x -0.4228
190x -0.4378 -0.0151
191x -0.4181 0.0198
192x -0.2675 0.1505
193x -0.1370 0.1305
——————————
***Average decadal increase 1900-1939: 0.0714 C
Total rise 190x – 193x: 0.2858 C
“Recent”
decadal
decade average increase
——————————
197x -0.0635
198x 0.1602 0.2237
199x 0.3201 0.1599
200x 0.5209 0.2008
201x 0.7349 0.2140
——————————
***Average decadal increase 1980-2019: 0.1996 C
Total rise 198x – 201x: 0.7984 C
***CO2 attribution***
Data from: https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/icecore_merged_products.html
average decadal CO2, ppmv
190x 296.48
193x 308.90
198x 344.31
201x 398.41
Expected temperature rise = ECS*ln(C2/C1)/ln(2)
where ECS = equilibrium climate sensitivity = 3.0(-0.5,+1.0, 66% c.l.) from IPCC AR6 WG1 Fig. 7.18
CO2 attributed temperature rise and percentage of measured rise
190x – 193x: 0.178 (0.148 – 0.237)C
63.4(52.9 – 84.6)% of measured rise
198x – 201x: 0.632 (0.526 – 0.842)C
79.1(65.9 – 105.5)% of measured rise
“I beg to differ.”
Sure. You can differ, but not with those crappy numbers, because I have calculated the moving average 15-yr rate of temperature change for HadCRUT5 after deseasonalizing the record, and the result is very clear. The warming rate is not significantly different, and it should if it is due to the increase in CO2. That is why models are completely unable to reproduce the warming rates correctly.
https://i.imgur.com/VR4m70u.png
Javier,
It looks like your crappy numbers come up with about the same result as my crappy numbers, over the time period I specified. Only you did some unspecified cherry-picking without saying what “early 20th century” and “now” actually mean. And then you say “about the same” without any numerical analysis.
I think the results from the stated ECS (with given uncertainty), as determined mostly from experimental data (see IPCC AR6 WG1, table 7.11), not models, gives a quite reasonable estimate of the proportion of temperature rises caused by anthropogenic CO2 increases: 1905-1935, 63.4% and 1985 – 2015, 79.1%.
“The first was natural only and the second has a human contribution.”
“Human contribution might be much smaller than most think, and the size of the “problem” has not increased significantly.”
Those two statements are as quantitative and scientific as the person that wrote them – useless, biased personal opinions.
“I have calculated the moving average 15-yr rate of temperature change for HadCRUT5 after deseasonalizing the record, and the result is very clear.”
And, you did not give the decadal averages that you quoted earlier. Again you use the non-quantitative “the result is very clear” – it is not, for the “early 20th century” it wiggles all over the place, sometimes negative, sometimes positive, with a (visual) average that is consistent with my calculated (!) value of 0.071 C/decade, not your “eyeball” selected value of 0.18 C/decade. At least we agree on the late 20th – early 21th (I give a specific range, you do not). “the result is very clear” again a biased non-quantitative subjective evaluation of unspecified cherry-picked data.
BTW, how did you deseasonalize yearly global averages??
Sorry to be harsh, but a pseudo-scientist who calls a real scientist’s analysis “crappy” while not revealing his own analysis, gets me P.O.’d.
PS ~ you fail to put a legend on your graph so who knows what the dashed red line means?
“over the time period I specified.”
That’s the problem, isn’t it? Cherry picking a period. A monthly record is deseasonalized by a moving 12 or 13-month average. The 15-year calculation shows that the warming rate between about 1910-1945 is not statistically different to the warming rate since about 1975, something that was publicly acknowledged by Phil Jones, who was in charge of HadCRUT between 1998 and 2016. So your disagreement is noted and rejected.
Your personal attacks don’t hit the target. People resort to that when their science arguments are lacking. You are just sinking yourself.
The failure of models to reproduce early 20th century warming and to produce too much warming since 1998 has been recognized by model evaluators:
Papalexiou, S.M., et al., 2020. Robustness of CMIP6 historical global mean temperature simulations: Trends, long‐term persistence, autocorrelation, and distributional shape. Earth’s Future, 8(10), p.e2020EF001667.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2020EF001667
” The post‐1998 warming is overestimated in 90% of the
simulations… the early twentieth century warming (Time Slice 2) tends to be underestimated by most models.”
But as you are a climate apologist and not a truth seeker you probably won’t recognize that.
“you fail to put a legend on your graph so who knows what the dashed red line means?”
For that you will have to buy my book. I’m not going to paste the entire book in every comment. If you do you will learn a great deal about the climate and how it changes.
Bill Fabrizio
Re my link to the paper on ‘Tsunamis’, I found the paper important for its information on the dates of the occurrences. However I disagree with the paper’s opinion of the reason/source of the tsunamis.
My particular interest goes beyond that. To cut it short, it is explained in this link https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/searching-evidence-4-prehistoric-mass-burials/
From a wider perspective it can be noticed that various factors converge. The dates are specific and occur at apparently regular intervals. The results of a primary event are multi-fold. Tectonic events that cause cataclysmic floods. Also climatic changes. The first impact on humanity is evident in the burials, but there is also a secondary effect in changed climatic conditions that result in regular failed harvest and civilisation irruptions and collapse. The cycles are long time-wise, but the turning points are short and abrupt.
Javier,
“That’s the problem, isn’t it? Cherry picking a period. A monthly record is deseasonalized by a moving 12 or 13-month average. The 15-year calculation shows that the warming rate between about 1910-1945 is not statistically different to the warming rate since about 1975,”
Yes, cherry-picking is the problem. That is what you just did. Whereas, I simply took equal length time spans (4 decades) based on your statement of “early 20th century” and “now” starting at the beginning of the 20th century and ending with the most recent 4 full decades. I did not look at the data before I picked these ranges – I did NO cherry-picking. You also massaged the data: a “12 or 13-month moving average” (which was it?),” while the data source already provides yearly averages, which do remove seasonality. And why do you use a “15-year calculation” when determining decadal rates. You also state your cherry-picked ranges are “not statistically different”, yet do not give values. I will gladly add statistical uncertainties (standard deviations) to my non-cherry-picked values:
1900-1939: 0.0714 ± 0.0578 °C/decade
1980-2019: 0.1996 ± 0.0281 °C/decade
There is a definite statistical difference, although one might say the 1900–1939 warming in only barely statistically significant, while the 1980–2019 warming is very statistically significant.
You have still not explained what the dashed red curve in your plot represents.
ganon1950 | November 29, 2023 at 10:28 am |
Javier,
Javier’s comment – “That’s the problem, isn’t it? Cherry picking a period. A monthly record is deseasonalized by a moving 12 or 13-month average. The 15-year calculation shows that the warming rate between about 1910-1945 is not statistically different to the warming rate since about 1975,”
Ganons comment – “Yes, cherry-picking is the problem. That is what you just did.”
Ganon accuses javier and others of cherry picking but has been oblivious to own cherry picking. Ganon has been using cherry picking starting dates and using “peer reviewed ” studies that use cherry picked starting dates through his comments on this thread.
joethenonclimatescientist,
“Ganon accuses javier and others of cherry picking but has been oblivious to own cherry picking. Ganon has been using cherry picking starting dates and using “peer reviewed ” studies that use cherry picked starting dates through his comments on this thread.”
Garbage. Cherry-picking is truncating a data set after an analysis is done to emphasize a local (already observed) trend. Neither I nor the papers I’ve quoted have done that – Javier and others here have.
Too bad you don’t understand, but then you are a highly biased non-scientist.
Ganon1950;
You may have some expertise, but it is NOT in the field of Climate science.
You are of the belief that because there is a 97 percent consensus that CO2 causes global warming that the issue is settled. SCIENCE does not work by consensus, but by the accumulation of provable facts.
In this instance, 97 percent of the believers are WRONG, since it can be proven that our modern warming (since 1980) has been solely due to the decrease in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, due to global “Clean Air” mandates to reduce SO2 aerosol levels.
From all of the papers that you cite, any one that accepts the premise that carbon emissions cause ANY global warming is pure fantasy, promoting the greatest HOAX in the history of mankind.
The premise that the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere control our climate is falsifiable and has been validated hundreds of times.
Try that with CO2!
ganon1950 | November 29, 2023 at 1:32 pm |
joethenonclimatescientist,
“Ganon accuses javier and others of cherry picking but has been oblivious to own cherry picking. Ganon has been using cherry picking starting dates and using “peer reviewed ” studies that use cherry picked starting dates through his comments on this thread.”
Ganon’s response – “Garbage. Cherry-picking is truncating a data set after an analysis is done to emphasize a local (already observed) trend. Neither I nor the papers I’ve quoted have done that – Javier and others here have.
Ganon’s insult – “Too bad you don’t understand, but then you are a highly biased non-scientist.”
ganon – We noticed you changed the definition of cherry-picking to hide your dishonesty
Its Too Bad that you Do Understand – But then that is to be expected from an extremely dishonest former scientist
Burl,
Sorry, you are NOT the one that gets to decide how much expertise I have or what areas it is in. I’d be glad to compare peer reviewed publications (particularly in major journals) and citations, just to see who has more expertise.
Nor do you have the ability to say what I believe. I study the evidence and theories with a strong background in chemistry and physics, and then decide what I believe. It just so happens that I agree with the 97% of real scientists, and not with the 3% that are mostly denialistic pseudo-scientists.
You also don’t understand how science works; it doesn’t “prove facts”. It provides evidence to test and support (or not; disproof by negation) a hypothesis, and when there is a large body of evidence and testing from independent sources that confirm/support the hypothesis, it becomes an accepted theory; which then can be used to make predictions and evaluate uncertainties in those predictions. No one pays attention if you simply claim your hypothesis is correct and that everyone else is wrong. Sorry about that, but that’s the way real science works. Did you bother to look up “illusory superiority”?
I’ve already responded to your bogus hypothesis about lack of SO2 causing all global warming, and patiently explained why it can’t be correct. I don’t need to repeat those, and will simply say that I don’t believe you and apparently no other scientists do either (no citations other than self citations).
Ganon1950:
“I’ve already responded to your bogus hypothesis about lack of SO2 causing all global warming”
I have NEVER seen any warming that was not caused by a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and provided that information to you.
Your response, on Nov 20,11:54 am was “The reason you see hot spots over industrial areas is precisely because the lifetime is short compared hemispheric tropospheric mixing time of a few weeks”
At no time have you refuted what I have said, just called it “bogus”. And this from one who has no background in climate science!!
“Why do we think climate change is a problem that needs solving, instead of the natural order of things?”
– because rates of change now are high and clearly anthropogenic, and change is disruptive. If you worked for an insurance company you might not be worrying about human extinction, but you sure would be worrying about premiums for waterfront property. If you were a farmer you would also be worried, but of course farmers are always worried.
“because rates of change now are high and clearly anthropogenic”
This is not correct. The rate of warming on the early 20th century warming was 0.18ºC/decade, and now it is 0.20. The first was natural only and the second has a human contribution. Sea level increase is about the same, according to tide gauges. Human contribution might be much smaller than most think, and the size of the “problem” has not increased significantly.
“change is disruptive”
As it should. Life is change. It creates new opportunities.
Javier,
Energy from the radiative imbalance caused by GHG is mostly going into the oceans, both melting ice and increasing temperature. That, in addition to mean global temperature, is where to look for anthropogenic effects. Look at plots of oceans’ “anamalous energy” in https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content . You can easily see a positive second derivative during the last fifty years. If you want to call that “natural”, the burden is on you to tell us how nature has changed.
The oceans are warming. You (and others) assume it is due to the increase in GHGs without evidence for it. It is not what I want to call it, science is about demonstrating not proposing, but atenative possibilities exist to create an imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and I have recently proposed a new one in my two books. Look for them on Amazon. The explanation is quite complex and based on the greenhouse effect being very weak at the poles in winter. It is consistent with the changes in the Earth`s energy imbalance and ocean heat content that have taken place recently, as reported by: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663 (look at their figure 15).
The National Flood Insurance program needs to be modified to, instead of reimburse losses, buy the properties when coastal flooding occurs. Turn the property into public property or sell it to some entity that can self insure or bear losses due to floods. Preferably turn some into public beaches and sell others to private entities.
Javier,
I am glad that you now agree that changes in ocean heat content over the last 50 years do not look at all like “business as usual” with natural processes.
Figure 15 in the 2018 paper you asked me to look at, published in a predatory journal, does not track the derivative of ocean heat content past 2010. Looking at the ocean heat content plotted in the NOAA post I referenced, one can understand why. The derivative after 2010 is much higher than in the 2004-2010 period they highlighted. Those authors conveniently left that out of their plot. Such deception is certainly A Bad Recipe for Science. More garbage from the 3%. No doubt they complained of bias when their paper was rejected by a reputable journal.
“More garbage from the 3%.”
What a huge bias you show. You are unable to show their science wrong, so you attack the journal and the authors. I don’t think it is worth discussing science with you as you don’t discuss the science.
What the authors show in the CERES data about the changes in the Earth’s energy imbalance is confirmed by the ocean heat content data which is independent, and supported by models failure to reproduce warming trends since 1998, as shown in my figure:
https://i.imgur.com/VR4m70u.png
which is included in my latest book:
Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
“I am glad that you now agree that changes in ocean heat content over the last 50 years do not look at all like “business as usual” with natural processes.”
What makes you think I agree on that? You really lack perspective about the relationship between ocean heat content and climate change. That’s probably because you haven’t read Rosenthal et al. 2013 article “Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years.”
You misunderstand the role of the ocean, which is to provide thermal inertia. During warming the ocean absorbs heat, reducing the temperature change, and during cooling it releases heat, reducing the temperature change. This role is independent of the cause of the warming or cooling. It has nothing to do with the change in CO2.
Climate change is very complicated, and most people talking about it don’t even know the most basic aspects of it, as it happens to you.
Javier,
My reply to your reply ended up elsewhere on this thread. I hope you can track it down.
Javier,
I do understand generally the role of oceans in providing thermal inertia to cushion changes in radiative imbalance. I agree with the statement in your Rosenthal reference that “OHC more reliably represents the response of Earth’s energy budget to radiative perturbations than do surface temperatures”. That is precisely why I earlier moved the discussion from your surface temperature data to ocean heat content.
Perhaps you saw the paper earlier this month in Science https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1646 which like Rosenthal uses isotope ratios in North Atlantic sediments as a proxy for temperature and thereby detects both the Little Ice Age and recent warming in relatively deep water. Dare I say that the recent warming they show looks more like a hockey stick than like natural processes as usual? You assert it has nothing to do with CO2. That is part of your belief system, though I agree that these data only document the warming without explicitly identifying the cause.
You did not address my main complaint about that Figure 15 in the MDPI paper you referenced. It argued that the second time derivative of OHC was negative, is the period ~2004 – 2010 and thereafter. The rate of warming is slowing down, they say. But please look at data since 2010 (from the NOAA post I referenced or elsewhere) and tell me if you still agree with their conclusion. If by nature you are a skeptic, apply your skepticism to the 3% as well as the 97%.
“ Energy from the radiative imbalance caused by GHG is mostly going into the oceans”
This is incorrect. LW radiation favors evaporation. The radiative imbalance warming the ocean is driven mostly by SW radiation absorption which is likely natural. Despite this increase in SW absorption, OHC has be increasing linearly and surface temperatures have been pretty flat the past decade.This suggests a decrease in greenhouse warming.
Javier…
Warming comparison from Hadcrut early 20th century vs recent
https://i.postimg.cc/Y9csbk31/Warming-comparison-Hadcrut4.jpg
Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface as a kind of a heat flux, because the radiative EM energy, when interacting with matter, does not input its respective energy in the surface.
Only a small portion of the not reflected incident solar flux’s energy gets transformed into heat and absorbed in inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Only a small portion of the not reflected incident solar flux’s energy gets transformed into heat and absorbed in inner layers.”
How about the oceans, where only a very small fraction of incoming SW is absorbed in the surface layer?
What about the oceans?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What about the oceans?”
The oceans are a bulk absorber of SW radiation that is transmitted through the surface layer and your original statement is incorrect, and also incorrect for all bulk materials. That’s what about the oceans.
You should study some physics instead of assuming your intuition must be correct.
Repeating something in boldface type does not make it true. Unquantified descriptors (“a small portion”) are useless. Half of the surface absorbed radiation is re-emitted into the solid body and is added to any direct surface transmission (e.g., as in oceans). Further, BBR depends on the body temperature, not the amount of radiation incident upon it.
Thank you, ganon.
“The oceans are a bulk absorber of SW radiation that is transmitted through the surface layer and your original statement is incorrect, and also incorrect for all bulk materials. That’s what about the oceans.”
–
With that you have enforced the (N*cp)^1/16, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
The cp for waters is 5 times higher than it is for solid lands.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, ganon,
–
“Half of the surface absorbed radiation is re-emitted into the solid body and is added to any direct surface transmission (e.g., as in oceans). ”
–
But the direct surface transmission is very slow (it is very slow for EM energy to wait, it is very slow for EM energy to wait to get transmitted…)
–
“Further, BBR depends on the body temperature, not the amount of radiation incident upon it.”
–
The emission depends on the surface temperature, not the body temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“you have enforced the (N*cp)^1/16, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.”
No I haven’t, you have. What are the units of N and cp? Also the assumption of cp = 1 cal/gK is incorrect. The average cp for the earths surface is (0.71*0.95) + (.29*0.2) = 0.73.
(cp = 0.95 cal/gmK for seawater).
“But the direct surface transmission is very slow (it is very slow for EM energy to wait, it is very slow for EM energy to wait to get transmitted…)”
What does “very slow” mean? transmission time t = d*n/c
Let d = 1 mm (.001 m) surface “thickness” , n =1.33 refractive index of water, c = 3e8 m/s. Then t = 4.4e-12 s.
–
“The emission depends on the surface temperature, not the body temperature.”
That is true; however, the body temperature directly below the surface is essentially the same as the surface.
Thank you, ganon.
“The average cp for the earths surface is (0.71*0.95) + (.29*0.2) = 0.73.
(cp = 0.95 cal/gmK for seawater).”
–
The 0,73 is for average sea-land the accumulated heat estimation.
–
When solar flux hits planet surface, there is the EM energy /matter interaction.
It is the surface the EM energy gets in contact with matter.
A forest (leaves) appears as water-surface.
Plantations of any kind appear as water surface.
The snow covered areas.
Glaciers, tundra, jungles…
Land after rain… is wet also.
–
ganon, it is about planets’ rotational spin, and planets’ surface property comparison figures, the interacting with EM energy the surface property, not the bulk property.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, ganon,
“What does “very slow” mean? transmission time t = d*n/c
Let d = 1 mm (.001 m) surface “thickness” , n =1.33 refractive index of water, c = 3e8 m/s. Then t = 4.4e-12 s.”
–
Transmission or heat conduction?
“The emission depends on the surface temperature, not the body temperature.”
That is true; however, the body temperature directly below the surface is essentially the same as the surface.
–
How much directly below?
Again, it is determined by the (N*cp)^1/16, the Planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The heat capacity of leaves is about 0.5 cal/g.K,
Thermophysical Properties of Plant Leaves and Their Influence on the Environment Temperature
0International Journal of Thermophysics 31(11-12):2295-2304
DOI:10.1007/s10765-010-0877-7
The same is true for ice and snow. You should not make such brash rejections without checking them first.
Also:
Please derive β = 150 (days*gr*oC/rotation*cal)
Thank you, ganon.
–
“The same is true for ice and snow.”
–
Yes, it is. Ice and snow have cp =0,5 . But it is not about bulk specific heat in the first place.
It is about the amount of interacting with EM energy atoms streched in the upper layer.
What we do here is the planets’ surface comparison on the EM energy /matter interaction process.
–
Water has the same amounts, per square metre, the same amounts of atoms streched along its surface as ice, snow and everything else, everything which is relatively wet.
–
“Also:
Please derive β = 150 (days*gr*oC/rotation*cal)”.
–
The new universal constant (β) is determined empirically.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“It is about the amount of interacting with EM energy atoms streched in the upper layer.
What we do here is the planets’ surface comparison on the EM energy /matter interaction process.”
No, vibration of the atoms is a function of temperature (and temperature is a function of atomic vibration energy) and that is a function of the absorbed SW EM radiation, the absorption depth and the heat capacity. It is not “about the same everywhere”.
” The new universal constant (β) is determined empirically”.
I thought so, it is not a universal constant. It, like Φ, is a fudge factor, without believable physical basis, that makes Christos’ hypothesis work.
You still haven’t answered by original two questions. What is the reference for the albedo value of 0.306? What is the uncertainty in that number? Please do not give me copy and paste definitions of albedo again.
Also, surface BBR is isotropic and is emitted back into the solid body as well as into the free space around it. That is why things get hot when placed in sunlight, and it is not a “small portion” that gets converted to heat in the inner layers.
Thank you, ganon.
“Also, surface BBR is isotropic and is emitted back into the solid body as well as into the free space around it. That is why things get hot when placed in sunlight,”
and there is only a “small portion” that gets converted to heat in the inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think the first thing you have to do to answer your question is not pretend that “natural” climate change and human-caused climate change are one and the same.
Opps. Above comment RE natural vs. human for Javier.
The first graphic shows the distribution of ozone in the entire column of air in the atmosphere. A large excess over Kamchatka can be seen.
The second graphic shows how this affects the circulation in the stratosphere (the current polar vortex pattern). We can see that the polar vortex bypasses the ozone patch from the north and descends over North America, all the way to the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/2sW9zw5/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/gT4489r/gfs-z50-nh-f00.png
There is still a large ozone hole over Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/dPYb02S/ozone-hole-plot-N20.png
That must be a figment of your imagination, Ireneusz Palmowski. We all know the climate doomers fixed that many years ago.
Green energy is a bad recipe for consumers as well. Germany is putting in place rules to reduce taxes on consumers who charge their EVs or run their heat pumps when electricity from solar PV or wind turbines is abundant. That is, they can’t use electricity when they need to. Also, they agree the grid can reduce their supply of electricity when the grid decides.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-26/sodium-in-ev-and-storage-batteries-may-herald-another-shakeup
It is just like here, supply and demand control prices. And the grid can decide here when and where to reduce supply – rolling brownouts.
The mouth speaks, who could have guessed.
“Just like here”, Lol. You define the “grid” as the arbiter controlling supply and demand, not the consumer; surprise! Your head’s in the Politburo pocket, Ganon.
Brownouts? Why not just shut all power off so the consumer can save copious amounts of hard earned currency; they can also ride bikes (the peddling kind), and burn dung? Don’t worry that job providers will cut payrolls for lack of energy production, exasperating causation on lack of demand later (why would you). First things first, ideology above all else. Ecofascism is still alive.
I’m not sure where you live, but we don’t have rolling brownouts. At any rate, it’s the id eee ots in charge that determine if we have an adequate, reliable, cheap sources of electricity. Not the inanimate grid. So far the id eee ots in some places are acting as expected.
Christo,
“Transmission or heat conduction?”
You said transmission of EMR, I answered EMR.
If you meant heat conduction, then let us work with water:
q = -k.(T2 -T1)/L
or T2-T1 = -q.L/k
where k = .609 W/(m.K) thermal conductivity of water
Assume the surface thickness for BBR is ~15 um, approximately the wavelength (centroid) of the BBR.
Assume all the incoming heat flux (insolation) is absorbed in the surface layer (it isn’t) ~360 W/m2
T2-T1 = 360 W/m2 * 15e-6 m / .609 W/(mK)
= -0.089 K
If you’d like to be more conservative, with a 1 mm emitting surface skin (not true because liquid water has very strong IR absorption)
Then T2 -T1 = 0.6 K
You can multiply these by the fraction of the incoming SW that is actually absorbed in the surface layer. Like I said, the bulk temperature beneath the surface is nearly the same as the surface.
ganon, what I meant is the speed of light vs the speed of heat conduction input.
You should be talking about is energy fluxes, incoming SW EM radiation, outgoing LWIR EM radiation, and ingoing (into) the bulk) LWIR EMR that is absorbed and converted to heat (atomic, molecular, and lattice vibrations).
You should be worrying about energy fluxes, which already has a rate (velocity) included in it. W/m^2 = (J/s)/m^2
ganon,
“You still haven’t answered by original two questions. What is the reference for the albedo value of 0.306? What is the uncertainty in that number? Please do not give me copy and paste definitions of albedo again.”
–
I do not know. What is the correct answer?
I do not know, you are the one using that number with such high precision – Why?
So it is the high precision of Earth’s Albedo 0,306 you ask me about.
Is it important I will look where I have seen it somewhere at NASA.
At the begining of my research, I used the 0,3 for Earth and 0,137 for Moon.
Then, I saw it changed, and I started to use the new numbers.
Thank you, ganon.
“” The new universal constant (β) is determined empirically”.
I thought so, it is not a universal constant. It, like Φ, is a fudge factor, without believable physical basis, that makes Christos’ hypothesis work.”
–
“…that makes Christos’ hypothesis work.”
–
ganon, I have proposed the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Also the planet surface theoretical mean surface temperature equation Tmean.
–
When you substitute for every and each planet and moon without-atmosphere, (or with a thin atmosphere, Earth included) when you substitute the planet S, Φ, Albedo you will have the not reflected portion of the incident on that planet solar flux, which is the EM energy amount interacting with planet surface matter.
–
When you substitute the planet rotational spin N, and planet average surface cp, the (β*N*cp)^1/16, you have the amplification factor.
–
When you take a fourth root of the above equation, it gives you the planet average surface temperature Tmean very much close to the measured by satellites.
–
What else to wish for?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What else to wish for?”
(1) accurate values for (average) albedo, cp, β, Φ, S, and uncertainties for each.
(2) propagation of the uncertainties for the total equation.
(3) Logical explanations of Φ (hydrodynamic drag coefficient of a sphere is not an adequate explanation), why earth [and other celestial bodies] are smooth (they are not with respect to the wavelength of the interacting EMR), and why the Earth’s atmosphere is “thin” (it is not, again with respect to the interacting EMR).
Thank you, ganon.
–
“(3) Logical explanations of Φ (hydrodynamic drag coefficient of a sphere is not an adequate explanation), why earth [and other celestial bodies] are smooth (they are not with respect to the wavelength of the interacting EMR), and why the Earth’s atmosphere is “thin” (it is not, again with respect to the interacting EMR).”
–
When spheres in parallel fluid flow, the spheres’ surface get in interaction with the fluid’s atoms and molecules, which also very small, not small as a photon is, but very small too.
Those spheres in the fluid’s flow, no matter how well polished they are, on the atomic and molecular level they interact with fluid, their surfaces also are not smooth.
–
The surface is smooth or not has to do with the dimensions of the objects.
A planet as a whole can be a smooth surface planet, or it can not be a smooth surface planet.
Some planets and moons are considered smooth surface, and others are considered not.
–
“(1) accurate values for (average) albedo, cp, β, Φ, S, and uncertainties for each.”
–
I did the best I could. Can you help me with that?
–
(2) propagation of the uncertainties for the total equation.
–
I also need a help of the specialist in the field of scientific research.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I think I have already given you lots of help, much of which you have been very unwilling to accept (often, not at all). After reading through the entirety of your webpage, I think your continued journey will have to proceed without further commentary from me. I might suggest that a well-rounded education in basic mechanical, thermal, optical, and astro- physics would be helpful.
Thank you, ganon.
–
You have already helped a lot with your very substancial comments.
Thank you again,
Christos
Pingback: SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP, 2023 NOVEMBER | wryheat
Test … comments have been stuck in moderation.
jim2,
Plants are doing just fine and have been ever since 280 ppm, fossil fuels will run out if current usage trends continue.
“There is no proof CO2 will cause a disaster.”
That is correct, science does not provide “proof”, it provides evidence and predictions (preferably with uncertainty estimates). What there is, is evidence that rapidly increasing CO2 may likely create a disaster.
If you wish evidence for “disaster” with rapidly rapid climate change, including increasing CO2 levels, you only have to go back to the early Holocene extinctions (it was a disaster for mastodons and saber tooth tigers). Or look to the “great dying” 252 million years ago which is attributed to climate change (increased CO2) form the Tibetan LIP.
Then you can look at the population bottlenecks for Homo sapiens 74 thousand years ago and earlier hominids 900 thousand years ago, where total populations were reduced to several
thousand individuals. Both blamed on rapid climate change.
“rapidly increasing CO2 may likely create a disaster.”
…”may likely”
Ganon, is it “may”, or “likely”? Perhaps stay off the 110% proof.
Jungle trunks.
Jungletrunks,
“may likely”
It is both “may” indicates possibility, “likely” indicates degree of possibility. On the scale of “Words of Estimative Probability” it means 50 – 75%.
Maybe you should lay off the idiotic personal attacks and stop making a fool of yourself.
But that is exactly what you are doing!
The Great Walrus,
Only in response to such attacks on me. There is a difference.
The EV debacle continues. Batteries are not the answer and hydrogen is definitely worse.
The Cybertruck hasn’t even hit the market yet, and Elon Musk already is lamenting that Tesla Inc. has dug its own grave.
Its stainless steel body may be able to withstand bullets and arrows, but it’s going to be a bear putting the panels together. It will be Tesla’s first high-voltage vehicle, offering the benefit of faster charging, but also potential pitfalls. And it will be Tesla’s only product dependent on in-house battery cells that are years behind schedule.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-28/tesla-cybertruck-delivery-event-preview-musk-warns-of-production-challenges
And considering future fuel availability and CO2 emissions, ICE’s are even worse.
ICEVs are good for plants and warming in general is better for living things. There is no proof CO2 will cause a disaster.
The long term future cost of oil does not matter today the current cost does. ICE’s are more affordable and better for users TODAY. CO2 concentrations will inevitably continue to rise and there is nothing humans can’t adapt to easily.
Rob,
It matters if you want to prepare for it.
How about the adaptability of other species besides Homo sapiens?
Other species have (and will continue to) died out due to human population growth not human caused climate change. Humans are using more land than ever before.
Are you proposing fossil fuels won’t be available in 30 years? What is the life of a car? Less than 30 years.
Rob,
“Other species have (and will continue to) died out due to human population growth not human caused climate change.”
Sorry, both are causes. Look at the “great dying” 252 million years ago and how many species went extinct – most likely caused by a large (but slower than now) increase in CO2 caused by the Tibetan LIP. No humans needed.
“Are you proposing fossil fuels won’t be available in 30 years?”
Nope, but I’m willing to bet that automotive fuels will be much more expensive than renewable electricity for the same purpose. That is already the case, and I expect it to only get worse as reserves become less accessible. I also expect that every gallon of fossil fuel burned will still be responsible for putting 27 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere (20 pounds from chemical stoichiometry and 7 pounds from extraction, refining, and delivery)
ganon
Do you deny that human encroachment on animal domains have caused the vast majority of animal extinctions over the last 300 years. What happened 250 million years ago is not a comparison. The growth of the species to 8 billions humans is the problem to other animals.
“every gallon of fossil fuel burned will still be responsible for putting 27 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere (20 pounds from chemical stoichiometry and 7 pounds from extraction, refining, and delivery).
A gallon of gas weighs 6 lbs, yet you claim it is responsible for 27 lbs of CO2. I call you alarmist yet you take exception- go figure.
Do you deny that human encroachment on animal domains have caused the vast majority of animal extinctions over the last 300 years.
No I don’t deny it. Is there something about “both are causes” that you don’t understand?
“What happened 250 million years ago is not a comparison.”
Did I say it was a comparison? It is an EXAMPLE of what can happen (future tense statement of possibility) if there is a large, unmitigated increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2.
I understand that of the two causes 1 is consequential and 1 is not.
Rob,
I’m sorry you don’t understand the meaning of stoichiometry, extraction, refining, and delivery.
Basic building block of hydrocarbons in gasoline is CH2 (molecular weight = 14), CO2 molecular weight 44, mid-grade gasoline weighs 6.35 lb/gallon
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-gasoline-weigh-per-gallon
6.35*(44/12) = 23.3 lb CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned.
Sorry, I underestimated. The other 7 lb (actually 3.35 – 6.7 lb, depending on conditions, per Stanford U, take the average of 5 lb). is an estimate for how much fossil fuel is used in drilling, extracting, refining and getting it into your gas tank.
So it is more like 28 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline.
ganon
stoichiometry has nothing to do with how 6 lbs of gas burned can release 28 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is alarmist dribble. Your link has to do with the weight of gas not walking through the math of mass increases.
Rob, the extra weight is due to oxygen combining with the carbon in gasoline. 2 atoms of oxygen from the atmosphere, to one of carbon from gasoline.
Rob,
I thought I explained it pretty clearly. Hardly dribble, just facts. Guess the saying “can’t fix stupid” is correct.
I had ordered a Cybertruck but cancelled the order due to the restriction of being able to sell it in less than a year. Having never driven it, I was skeptical I would like it and didn’t want to keep it if I didn’t. The performance numbers are impressive.
Joethenonclimatescientist,
“Ganon – As a scientist you should be embarrassed for obvious reasons, However, as a “climate scientist, your lack of embarrassment doesnt surprise me.”
The reasons are not obvious to me. I’m not a climate scientist; I am a chemist (BS, MS) and physicist (PhD), who happens to know quite a bit about climate science (it seems more than many on this blog, like you). It doesn’t embarrass me to be knowledgeable.
I am not surprised that a nonclimatescientist, like you, has to uses personal attacks in a futile attempt to refute scientific evidence. I’m not surprised that I have to deal with so many logical fallacies.
ganon1950 | November 28, 2023 at 3:30 pm | Reply
Joethenonclimatescientist,
“Ganon – As a scientist you should be embarrassed for obvious reasons, However, as a “climate scientist, your lack of embarrassment doesnt surprise me.”
The reasons are not obvious to me. I’m not a climate scientist; I am a chemist (BS, MS) and physicist (PhD), who happens to know quite a bit about climate science (it seems more than many on this blog, like you). It doesn’t embarrass me to be knowledgeable.
Ganon – It should embarrass you since you continue to defend your deceptive presentation of the science.
As has been pointed out multiple times by others, you have chosen a start date for the sole purpose of presenting a trend that is highly exaggerated.
You have also repetitively used verbage implying the that the recent species loss has been due to climate change (last 200 years being recent) . That statement is absolutely false.
ganon
You haven’t impressed anyone with your knowledge of climate science. I had to drag you kicking and screaming to get you to admit non CO2 factors were dominant in the contribution to GMSLR from WAIS. You were parroting the company line that it was AGW until I provided the voluminous literature that set you straight.
There have been hundreds of cowboys coming on this blog thinking they were going to enlighten the unwashed. What happened? They were schooled about the actual science and left with their tail between their legs.
“There have been hundreds of cowboys coming on this blog thinking they were going to enlighten the unwashed. What happened? They were schooled about the actual science and left with their tail between their legs.”
And so began the legend of…cerescokid!!
One has to be really, really old to get the irony. Plus, I’m inflicted with a double whammy. I’ve got dementia and dissociative identity disorder. I forget that I forgot who I wasn’t.
joethenonclimatescientist,
You should be embarrassed that you have nothing of substance to say, but can’t give it up.
“Ganon – It should embarrass you since you continue to defend your deceptive presentation of the science.
As has been pointed out multiple times by others, you have chosen a start date for the sole purpose of presenting a trend that is highly exaggerated.”
Since when is giving references to peer-reviewed papers in respected journals a “deceptive presentation of the science”. You should try it sometime. I didn’t choose any start time, the paper did – if you don’t like it, write them a letter. Provide evidence that I chose it “for the sole purpose of presenting a trend that is highly exaggerated”. Or are you just ignorantly biased? My sole purpose was to present evidence that heatwaves have become more frequent and more intense since AGW & ACC have become noticeable. That is what I did. Before you make any more false and stupid comments, read the paper. Here it is again:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16970-7
Regarding extinctions, I have talked about what may happen in the future, and lessons from the past. The is no doubt that other human activities besides climate change – hunting and habitat destruction – have caused excessive species extinction. There is so little doubt about that, that it is not even worth discussing, unless it is used as a deflection from the climatic possibilities.
Ganon1950,
Heatwaves. I showed you 128 simple graphs, based on all of the available data, using very simple methods, that reject the fashionable dogma that they are getting hotter, longer and more frequent in the 8 major Australian cities that have 70% of our population and the best-kept records.
You called this a science fair project. That is not good enough. You cannot dismiss this ideology-free, non cherry picked assembly of the fundamental data by throwing kiddy words about the author.
If the simplest analysis shows a result, a hurdle exists that throws doubt on a more complex analysis that might claim a different result.
In this heatwaves case, the more complex examples use cherry picked dates, they have to use convoluted home-made definitions of ‘heatwave’ and they often use adjusted input data over original.
So, seriously, what is the point of your disagreement? Does it, or does it not, have an element of appeal to authority? My heatwave work shown to you has none. Geoff S
sherr001,
I am not familiar with Australian dogma. I referenced a paper about global (everywhere) increases in heatwave frequency and intensity since 1950. I did not find that your studies on Australian cities refuted that, and even noted that increases in Australia were modest, compared to most regions of the earth. I’ll look forward to the publication of your work. Burl Henry may be able to advise you on a journal that will publish it.
sherro01,
I’m generally not in the habit of reviewing other’s Excel worksheets, but I did look. I would suggest, if you think it is important work, that you include a comment block to explain your methodology (e.g., how do you decide what qualifies as a heatwave?), label axes (y is not at all clear), and define terms that are not obvious, such as what are “CDO”, “ACORN” and “Top 40”. Also, I’d suggest learning to use the LINEST(y_data; x_data; type; stats) function to obtain uncertainties on your linear fit coefficients. Good luck (seriously) turning it into a document of standard scientific form, with text and sections.
Cerescokid,
Hahahaha!
“You haven’t impressed anyone with your knowledge of climate science. I had to drag you kicking and screaming to get you to admit non CO2 factors were dominant in the contribution to GMSLR from WAIS.”
You never convinced me of anything about non-CO2 factors re WAIS; I always admit there are other factors; however, the dominant ones are most likely other AGW/CO2 related factors: warming oceans and changing wind patterns. As far as I recall, I never said anything about WAIS and GMSLR and you never convinced me of anything about it. Regardless, it is relatively minor; total loss of the WAIS is expected to cause 3 to 4 meters of GMSLR, with a possible additional 1 meter from GIA.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf7787
“You were parroting the company line that it was AGW until I provided the voluminous literature that set you straight.”
You sure have a high opinion of yourself. I see you as hopelessly biased and unable to prove your points; or they are trivial, such as “there is a lot of uncertainty in climatology” – duh – however, there is not nearly as much uncertainty as you try to portray.
“There have been hundreds of cowboys coming on this blog thinking they were going to enlighten the unwashed.”
I’m not a cowboy, I am a scientist. I know that I won’t enlighten anybody here, at least not that they will admit. I am here mostly for entertainment, to polish up my writing skills, and stimuli for researching scientific responses to silly “doubter” strategies.
“I’m not a cowboy….” “I am here mostly for entertainment…”
Good that makes 2 of us.
BTW…how is Trigger doing?
“I’m not a cowboy….” “I am here mostly for entertainment…”
Realistically, it’s like a line one would hear in Blazing Saddles, except only entertaining within Ganon’s perfunctory ideological standard. He states the blog is his motivational “stimuli for researching scientific responses”– it’s merely Ganon’s Freudian saddle to project self importance. His projections demonstrably have nothing to do with climate science chops. The latter would require education; a surfing cowboy doesn’t qualify as a serious Ph.D. standard metric. One simply can”t intellectually stay afloat riding waves of motivated reasoning.
Cerescokid,
Must have the wrong horse. Hi-yo Silver, away!
Jungletrunks,
I’m not a serious PhD – I’ve been retired for 13 years. You are one of the most entertaining because you have nothing to say about science, climate or otherwise, and think personal attacks on people way smarter than you is the way to go when you’ve got nothing else.
It’s true that I rarely comment on climate science specifically, but this blog is more than about climate science. Your problem is that you really believe CAGW is fundamentally about science. Your limited competence in climate science sadly qualifies you as the one who actually has Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You feign knowledge about climate by surfing the literature; yet more, you’re channeling, rubber stamping media sensibility.
One always knows they’ve butted heads with an ideologue once they begin peeling off a prized litany of psychobabble labels to buttress their sense of self worth.
There is not any +33C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Kliimaharidusest ja kliimaisemõtlemisest - Vabaduste portaal
“A bad recipe for the economy.” Some banks are seeing the Climate Doomer “net zero” goals aren’t realistic. Some of us here have realized that for many years. Glad to get some new riders.
StanChart said its decision to no longer seek SBTi verification is based on an assessment that the certification body’s latest proposal “lacks sector guidance that adequately considers the transition of our clients and markets,” according to an emailed statement. The UK bank said it’s instead pursuing “alternative third-party assurance. We recognize that SBTi has a role to play in the wider sustainability ecosystem and otherwise remain engaged with them on relevant initiatives.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-29/hsbc-socgen-drop-bids-to-get-co2-goals-approved-by-un-body
For many years, in a near zero interest rate environment, it was easy to throw money at bad ideas like solar PV and wind farms. This is no longer the case, and almost everyone knows it.
No one expected the transition from fossil fuels to be easy. But a year after President Joe Biden’s landmark climate law promised billions of dollars for America’s switch to clean energy, some of the nation’s most ambitious renewable power projects have been shelved, electric car sales are missing targets and investors are fleeing the sector in droves.
The result is a $30 billion collapse in US clean energy stocks in the last six months—a market many investors expected to flourish in the aftermath of the law’s passage.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-29/clean-energy-stocks-30-billion-dive-exposes-biden-s-climate-law-hurdles
“A bad recipe for the poor: Green Energy”
The number of UK households in fuel poverty will continue to worsen, touching 6.5 million from January, because of a planned energy price increase and the scaling back of government support.
Many Britons, struggling with high energy bills on top of a cost-of-living crisis, are already using “shocking coping tactics,” National Energy Action said in a statement published Wednesday, with 2 million people “self-disconnecting” and going without any power and natural gas use.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-29/uk-s-fuel-poverty-to-grip-over-20-of-households-charity-says
A bad recipe for investment.
A US retreat has resulted in an overall decline in the global market for ESG investing.
That’s according to the latest assessment by the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA), which provides updates on the size of the market every two years. The 2022 review, published on Wednesday, shows that investors had $30.3 trillion in sustainable assets, down from $35.3 trillion in 2020.
In the US, where high-profile Republicans have railed against ESG, investments in sustainable assets plunged to $8.4 trillion last year from just over $17 trillion two years earlier. The drop was attributed largely to a change in methodology used to calculate the numbers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-29/global-esg-market-shrinks-after-sizable-drop-in-us
A good recipe for energy.
New large-scale atomic power plants are still in demand in the US as utilities brace for growing calls to provide low-carbon energy generation, according to the head of nuclear-technology giant Westinghouse Electric Co.
New nuclear energy projects have been expanding in China, and are making a comeback in Europe, Canada and other regions as the technology is increasingly seen as an important part of the fight to curb climate change.
“There are some American utilities which are very seriously talking with us about new AP1000s,” Chief Executive Officer Patrick Fragman said in an interview, referring to Westinghouse’s flagship 1.1-gigawatt reactor.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-29/westinghouse-sees-us-demand-for-new-large-nuclear-power-plants
Hydrogen, a bad recipe.
The German plan has raised concern about the country’s ability to buy or make enough green hydrogen at an economical cost. Power plants that want to burn hydrogen could potentially be competing with industries such as refiners or chemical makers, which also seek to reduce their carbon emissions by using the clean-burning fuel.
“There are uses for which hydrogen have a lot of value, and that’s where we want to focus,” Pannier-Runacher said. Hydrogen meets the decarbonization needs of several industries, she said. It could also work for heavy-duty vehicles, but would be unsuitable for lighter forms of transport like taxis, she said. Biogas and nuclear power can also provide low-carbon alternatives to produce heat, she said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-27/france-criticizes-hydrogen-ready-plans-for-gas-power-plants
Coral Reefs … bleaching is not an indication of the death of a reef.
https://x.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1729551042474631370?s=20
Pingback: Five Reasons Why Climate Skepticism And Dissent Are Important – Issues & Insights
Pingback: Five Reasons Why Climate Skepticism And Dissent Are Important | RUTHFULLY YOURS
Winter… heavy snow for a week. No wind, no fossil fuels burning.
No electricity production…
The storage batteries already empty, vehicles motionless… houses freezing… not even a water supply…
Why?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Five Reasons Why Climate Skepticism And Dissent Are Important – altnews.org
Pingback: 5 Causes Why Local weather Skepticism And Dissent Are Essential - The Owl Report
Pingback: Five Reasons Why Climate Skepticism And Dissent Are Important - maywoodtimes.com
A good recipe for oil production. Shale Oil: The Third Generation.
“What we’ll need in the future is what I’ll say is Generation 3,” Hamm, 77, said Tuesday at an energy conference hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and its sister bank from Dallas. “That’s to deal with the tough rock that contains a lot of things that heretofore we weren’t able to produce, and also to get more out of the Generation 1 and 2 rock.”
Hamm’s endeavor is a sign of the optimism oil executives have that new technology can again be harnessed to wring crude from currently marginal sites. It also illustrates the industry’s confidence that fossil-fuel production will be around for a long time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-11-08/shale-billionaire-harold-hamm-wants-to-tap-into-generation-3-rock
That’s good news. We will need all that oil for feed stock for the chemical industry because AI is discovering hundreds of thousands of new man-made molecules. Last year I saw a global research paper that calculated we already make around 250,000 molecules and they were projecting we might hit 500,000 by the year 2050.
A.I. says “Hold my beer…”
https://singularityhub.com/2023/11/30/a-google-deepmind-ai-just-discovered-380000-new-materials-this-robot-is-cooking-them-up/
Next up, synthetic DNA and and lots of new species.
https://singularityhub.com/2023/11/10/biologists-unveil-the-first-living-yeast-cells-with-over-50-synthetic-dna/
AI is also helping maximize shale oil production.
Drill, baby, DRILLLLLLL!!!!!
The number of US rigs drilling for oil rose by 6 to 500, the biggest weekly jump since late February, according to data released by Baker Hughes Co. on Friday. The boost was led by explorers in the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, where four oil rigs were added. That’s the biggest increase in the region since mid-March.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-17/permian-drillers-boost-rigs-in-latest-bid-for-sustaining-growth
Climate Doomers seem DOOMED to bad ideas. And on top of that, no climate fix is needed in the first place.
Add it to the list. A survey of owners of 330,000 vehicles found that EV’s experience 80% more problems than petrol and gas powered cars.
So EV’s cost more to fuel, take longer to arrive on long distance journeys. They sometimes burn down ships, destroy airport carparks, and kidnap drivers. They are a national security risk, and a burden on electrical grids. Because they are heavier they create more potholes, wear out tyres faster, increase road noise and air pollution (from tyre particles). They also increase wear and tear on bridges and multistory carparks.
EV’s are on the verge of becoming uninsurable partly because near new EV’s may have to be written off after a scratch, and all EV’s need large empty spaces to be stored so they don’t destroy the cars around them.
And in the end, they barely reduce national fuel consumption, and no one even knows if EV’s will reduce CO2 emissions.
On average, electric vehicles are less reliable than other cars and trucks, Consumer Reports finds
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/11/evs-report-80-more-problems-than-petrol-diesel-cars/
Analysis of global warming over entire instrumental age, 1850-2023.
Data set: HadCRUT 5.0.1.0; global yearly averages
No data truncation. No cherry-picked segments. No data massaging, other than taking decadal differences year-by-year.
Results:
* Decadal temperature increase (DTI) by year (plot)
* Average DTI (1860-2023)
* Average acceleration of DTI (1860-2023) (linear fit of plot)
* Standard deviations for A-DTI. A-ADTI, and 1850 ADTI intercept.
Results speak for themselves; the “big picture” trend is obvious, although there may be multi-decadal oscillations superimposed.
https://mega.nz/file/96V3HSzS#Shjf2svkfA__1P06ROOk0-7XwBSuVs-l7VLwrKMioYw
Wow, ganon, the temperature is increasing! Who knew!!??
Did you know how fast and how much it is accelerating? I bet you don’t want to know, Mr. drill, baby, drill.
Ganon1950:
The acceleration has ended, at least temporarily.
There was a large volcanic eruption on Sept 22 in the NW corner of Canada’s Saskatchewan Province. You know, more SO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling. And less causes warming.
Burl, does the volcano have a name?
Curious George:
It is in a geologically active area, and probably does, but I haven’t been able to find it. The Smithsonian Volcanism Program has no record of a large eruption in Sept or Oct, but satellite images clearly show a volcanic eruption with the usual hot spot and plume.
Burl, I’m with George. I searched for it by your description but didn’y get any hits.
Ganon1950:
If I knew how to include insert anything on this site, I could could send the satellite image.
Burl,
What a surprise that you don’t know how to post anything here.
You can check out
https://www.volcanoesandearthquakes.com/map/Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan doesn’t have volcanic activity. You know what it does have lots of with hot-spots and plumes: forest fires! Is this another demonstration of your great satellite imagery interpretation skills? LOL
Burl,
Nope. But you are getting closer. Less SO2 does cause it less cooling, but it does not CAUSE warming. If you don’t have an AC is that what causes it to get warmer, or does it just mean you don’t have a way to make it cooler?
Geoff,
It is the Hadcrut 5.0.1.0 dataset, Global annual mean surface temperature (GAMST).
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
It has temperatures back to 1850 (decadal increases back to 1860) that include data from HadCRUT 5.0.0.0, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, ERA5, Berkley Earth, and Cowtan and Way. It also gives year-by-year uncertainties – you can download the dataset (if you can figure out how) and check for yourself. To some extent you are right: data from 1850-1880 has an uncertainty of about ±0.12 C, 1881-1960: ~±0.06 C, after that less than ±0.03 C. If you don’t like the data, write a letter to the Met Office Hadley Centre and tell them why. Why shouldn’t it include ocean temperatures – the data and my analysis refer to GAMST – we’re not talking about heatwaves now.
The only imaginative cartoon is you, claiming to be a scientist when you are clearly a pseudo-science hobbyist hack, who makes up silly objections without checking the facts, and thinks ad hominin attacks are refutations. You bring disrepute to ACC denial, although there is already plenty of that to go around.
As I told Burl, I’ll respond to your illogical attacks, personal and scientific, as long as you keep making them – it’s entertaining.
cerescokid,
Yes, an excellent reply, an excellent display of angry denialism to work with there.
ganon
“ To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.”
Henry Kissinger
cerescokid
I’m not certain about anything, neither is Science. That’s why real scientists do error propagation analysis and provide uncertainties (first link error bars are 1 standard deviation).
Geoff – just for you:
https://mega.nz/file/omdizYYK#14vzHFCUn6qgx2CEor3vcXNlt_RSld7t2QMHqAu1_nA
https://mega.nz/file/R7NGCKTT#qU7mVndzj008Q1j8ZpPFv2uxkbd3LcSgCguLD5c1oKk
ganon1950
Your graph shows global temperature going back to the 1870s.
There were insufficient instruments to measure global temperatures then, to arrive at any useful estimate of global temperature. Some of what you show includes alleged ocean temperatures, where there were no measurements at all over huge areas. People have just made up stuff and included it. In my earlier employment, you could end up behind bars for that. Ever heard of salting assays about a new gold mine discovery?
Yey you claim “No data truncation. No cherry-picked segments. No data massaging.”
That is a scientifically unsupportable graph, no better than an imaginative cartoon.
You should know that.
Hand in your scientist badge today, ganon1950.
You are bringing disrepute to Science.
Geoff S
Geoff
Excellent comment.
A Climate Doomer fever dream …
This study showed that for a range of assumptions, the date for the end of ICE ranged from about 2023 to 2028 based on this single variable. For my study, I chose the red curve in this plot as being most likely. I chose 2026 as the year when essentially all new cars sold are EVs. Tony Seba, who specializes in the study of disruptive technologies, now estimates that, by 2025, essentially all new vehicles will be EVs.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-and-ice-impact-2023-and-beyond
Well, that was written 5 years ago. But for sure, ICE sales are dropping and BEVs are rising. Here’s a more realistic one from this year that gives past data and only projects until 2026.
The number of EVs on the road is insignificant.
Sorry, I forgot to paste the link:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/03/09/the-global-ice-industry-cliff-is-here/
So the status now is the only thing that matters to Jim2. BEVs are rapidly becoming more significant and ICEs less significant.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270603/worldwide-number-of-hybrid-and-electric-vehicles-since-2009/
Hopefully, EV sales crumble. Every time one is sold it costs me, a tax payer, money.
“Hopefully, EV sales crumble. Every time one is sold it costs me, a tax payer, money.”
So true.
It’s a double whammy when considering inflation. The federal gov benefits massively when money is printed, the net effect reduces its own debt through dilution of the value of the dollar, via inflation.
The Federal government plays both the top, and bottom of the largest legal pyramid scheme in history. They spend money to buy things (votes, EV’s, etc, etc, etc). But the gov has the luxury of workarounds for its ever increasing debt. Inflation. Inflation is the debtors best friend if it can be leveraged with increasing cash flow, and with low interest costs on debt; but only government can pull this off.
Who holds the most debt? The ultimate rhetorical question; the federal government in effect is transfering the savings of the middle class into government coffers, via inflation, because gov can do it all; spend, print, collect, benefit from inflation, and control interest rates all at the same time. Robin Hood could never keep up with such a perfected program.
The Federal government essentially, indirectly, is transfering the retirement accounts of the poor and middle class into government coffers. The methodology is convoluted, the poor and middle class mostly don’t know the complexities. But it’s the federal government who’s actually reducing standards of living via the governments methodology to manage their massive debt, while it continues to spend. The circumstances can only be reversed if payrolls capture all cost of living increases, at minimum, but this can’t ever happen while maintaining, i.e., the EV revolution, eliminating fossil fuels; and while the U.S. subsidizes global democrcies defense
All other free democracies can continue to spend on everything, and anything except their own defense (except minimums); because they know the US can subsidize their overarching defense needs forever.
This is just the beginning
“Carmakers are struggling to make electric vehicles affordable for pinched consumers—and rethinking their investments amid sagging demand”
https://fortune.com/2023/11/04/carmakers-rethink-electric-vehicle-investments-demand-inflation-interest-rates/
“ Electric vehicles have almost 80% more problems than gas-powered ones, Consumer Reports says”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-vehicles-consumer-reports-reliability-report/#
“Ford to drastically scale back jobs, investment plans for Marshall EV battery plant”
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2023/11/21/ford-marshall-electric-vehicle-battery-plant-reduce-plans-jobs/71664207007/
Ultimately, consumers will make the choice. If EVs aren’t ready for prime time, then buyers will go to where they are ready for prime time.
Just a matter of time. Tick tock, tick tock.
You doom and gloom for EV folks are so funny.
EVs (all types) are now at 17.9 of sales, hardly insignificant, particularly considering the rate of growth.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61004
“Total EV sales in Q3, according to an estimate from Kelley Blue Book, hit 313,086, a 49.8% increase from the same period one year ago”
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q3-2023-ev-sales/
ganon
EVs sales face several challenges, some short term, while others are perhaps inherently more intractable and long term.
The short term economic problems. EVs are more expensive than ICEs and as a % of disposable household income both are getting more expensive. Just like housing, because of inflation and interest rates, the median income family is getting squeezed. Mortgage payments and car payments have jumped an extraordinary amount for some home and auto buyers. The affordability issue is here for the next several years and EV growth in sales will take a hit.
Related to the inflation and elevated interest rates, the subsidies for EVs could come under increased pressure. Net interest payments could be $1 trillion in a couple of years. Pressure to reduce the deficit will threaten discretionary parts of the budget, including those subsidies, thus making an EV purchase less attractive. Debt and service costs are going to be with us for at least a decade.
But those are fairly short term issues.
Long term and non economic problems related to the technology and transition to it might be even more difficult. How long before batteries can be made that weigh less than the Washington Monument. How long before the infrastructure is built to make charging an inconvenient and aggravating experience? How long before the dropping residual value is not a negative? How long before range can compete with the ICE. I just drove 1,000 miles on 2 fill ups, each of which took 5 minutes.
But, let’s assume those are temporary reasons not to buy an EV. Much longer term, some consumers needs simply will not be met by the EV experience. Gas stations are ubiquitous. They are even found in the boondocks. Some drivers will never want any delays for a charge. Long uninterrupted trips will be a thing of the past. The known and convenient will all of a sudden become much more attractive.
The fast growth of the last few years are about to hit a wall.
burlhenry,
“At no time have you refuted what I have said, just called it “bogus”. And this from one who has no background in climate science!!”
Yes, I have explained it several times. You just don’t have the science background to comprehend the explanations, besides being willfully ignorant. And, I have more background in climate science than you, Mr. IBM Engineer. My degrees in chemistry and physics and career as a research scientist already give me appropriate science (and paper writing) background, that and the ability to read and understand climate science papers and textbooks, which I do prolifically. My offer to compare publications, citations, patents, and publication journals stands – you seem to ignore it. Have you checked out “illusory superiority” yet?
https://www.learning-mind.com/illusory-superiority/
PS ~ I can respond to all your personal ad hominin attacks, as long as you make them.
Ganon1950:
Humor me.
Explain to me again why the reduction in SO2 aerosol levels in the atmosphere will not cause the climate to warm up, in terms that I can understand.
There isn’t enough of it, and it doesn’t last long enough to provide enough cooling to cancel the warming from persistent GHGs. Even at its peak of ~155 million tons/year in 1980, the (generous) tropospheric lifetime of SO2 (and ensuing H2SO4 aerosols) of two weeks, means the average world-wide atmospheric content is less than 10 million tons. This can be compared to 3,300 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, which continues to build because of its lifetime of over several hundred years. The only significant cooling from SO2 comes from explosive volcanic eruptions that inject SO2 (and ash particles) into the stratosphere, where the lifetime is several years. The cooling from anthropogenic S02 is negligible because of the lifetime-limited low concentration, described above. If you would like to better understand the forces that cause warming and cooling of earth’s global surface temperature, please read it:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
While you may think I don’t know anything about climate science, the author, Zeke Hausfather, is a highly respected climatologist. See:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Zeke-Hausfather-2079085572
We believe there’s a better story. Reactors don’t have to use so much water, they can be more efficient, and we can eliminate nuclear waste production. The solution is the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, which we’re developing at Flibe Energy. It’s based on thorium, the world’s greatest source of stored energy, three times more abundant than uranium and present everywhere in the world. Our reactor uses thorium so efficiently that it can power human industrial civilization for millions of years. The salt we use is a liquid mixture of lithium and beryllium fluoride salts called flibe and that’s where our company gets its funny name.
Flibe salt is superior to water as a nuclear coolant in every respect, operating at high temperature yet at low pressure, impervious to radiation damage, and storing more heat in its volume than water. Flibe is perfectly suited to drive advanced gas turbines based on carbon dioxide instead of steam to generate power.
https://energyfromthorium.com/2023/11/02/arc-2023-day-3/
It used to be stimulating to read the various thoughtful comments on Ms. Curry’s site. Increasingly it’s just a miserable bombardment by domineering voices unable to show self-restraint. Sort of like going from a windy-cloudy-sunny-spring day to being stuck in fog with no way out of the miserable certitude. Alas, what could the site-owner do? Limit every commentator except authors to a maximum of – say – 5 posts per article? Oh the lure of censorship when arrogant enthusiasts have net-zero manners. Sigh.
EVs, a bad recipe for getting around …
Sixt SE is phasing out Tesla Inc. electric cars from its fleet after the manufacturer’s heavy price cuts hurt residual values at Europe’s biggest car-rental company.
Higher repair costs for electric cars compared to combustion vehicles are compounding the issues with lower resale values, Sixt said in an email to customers seen by Bloomberg News. The company still plans to electrify as much as 90% of its fleet in Europe by the end of the decade, according to a spokesperson.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-01/sixt-to-drop-teslas-from-rental-car-fleet-on-poor-resale-value
Highly respected?!? By whom, feverish acolytes?
By the scientists that cite his work.
Exactly, but no one else.
As for Carbon Brief (I think they mean CO2 Brief), bwah-hah-hah-hah… it’s worse than News of the World!
Back to the floe now.
“By the scientists that cite his work.”
And those many who don’t ?
Walrus,
Completely argumentum ad hominem. I guess that means you can’t refute what he has written (no surprise there) – but I guess you’d have to read it to do that. Good luck finding ice to flop around on.
Ian1,
“And those many who don’t ?”
No metric for that. How many? You have no way to know, but I bet it’s less than 3%.
The notion that “consensus” has made climate science static and unproductive is incorrect. Dr. Curry’s recent post of an article discussing differences between James Hansen and Michael Mann’s estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 levels illustrates that. Good science is self-correcting, and we can reasonably expect the differences between Hansen and Mann’s analyses to shrink as more data arrives and analyses are refined.
While good science is self-correcting, pseudo-science tends not to be. So-called “hard-headed skeptics” of mainstream climate science are the most gullible to poor science when it confirms their biases. I could give many examples; here are a few:
• Skrable et al. published a paper in Health Physics in 2022 purporting to show from current atmospheric radiocarbon levels that the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the Industrial Age was “natural”, not anthropogenic. “Skeptics” ate it up and to the embarrassment of the publishers (Wolters Kluwer) the article has so far been retweeted 39,410 times, posted on 10 skeptic blogs and 5 “news” outlets. The paper had many errors, and a partial retraction was published in 1923. The retraction has been retweeted a total of 6 times. This is almost a controlled experiment demonstrating cognitive bias in “skeptics”.
• Dr. Curry seems to have forgotten her quite correct emphasis on uncertainty when she recently posted the “chicken and eggs” analysis of Koutsoyiannis et al.. The paper made startling statistical inferences in sharp conflict with the consensus yet contained no discussion of errors and confidence levels. When questioned, the author suggested I work out the confidence level myself. “Skeptics” posting here did not seem to care about the incompleteness of the analysis. They lowered their standards for a paper whose conclusions they wanted to believe.
• On this thread, Javier pointed out a plot in a less than reputable journal that he thought showed that Ocean Heat Content, perhaps the best measure of global warming, has recently been rising more slowly, at least in the 2004-2010 period. He evidently did not notice that trends since 2010 contradict that conclusion. He was too quick to make an argument confirming his beliefs without first asking himself if it was correct.
There is no question that science needs skeptics to advance. But it also needs standards to cull just plain wrong ideas. Climate skeptics will continue to go around in circles if they do not enforce standards upon each other. But critiquing your fellow skeptic seems to be forbidden by the culture. That is certainly a bad recipe for science.
People wouldn’t be here if they weren’t passionate enthusiasts of one sort or another. One solution, fair to all, would be to shut down the site.
Too bad you’re threatened; I get it, stick it where the sun don’t shine.
That was my response to a suggestion of censorship, I’m not threatened. You’re the one acting that way – understandably.
“I’m not threatened. You’re the one acting that way – understandably.”
Not actually; you literally stated shutting down the site would be “fair to all”; free expression is a terrible fear among collectivists, not free minded individuals. Please continue flapping on.
jungletrunks,
Tiny minds don’t understand sarcasm. Good to see you are getting AI help with your writing.
Yea, that’s it, Ganon…polly wanna?
ganon1950 | December 2, 2023 at 11:10 pm | Reply
“People wouldn’t be here if they weren’t passionate enthusiasts of one sort or another. One solution, fair to all, would be to shut down the site.”
Ganon that Sounds like the playbook at Skeptical Science – shut down disinformation –
The same way government agencies tried to shut down the covid disinformation – except most of the covid disinformation turned out to be correct
joethenonclimatescientist,
Like I already said, tiny minds don’t understand sarcasm. They also have as tendency to deflect and ascribe to conspiracy theories.
Ganon’s belief system…Pollyanna.
jungletrunks,
Thanks, I would much rather be an optimist that tries to understand and solve problems than a pessimist that is afraid of the problems and tries to ignore and discount them.
ganon1950 | December 3, 2023 at 10:37 am |
joethenonclimatescientist,
Like I already said, tiny minds don’t understand sarcasm
Ganon – your “sarcasm” matches the prevailing demands of the activists. You have demonstrated through out this thread that you are an activist.
We like to solve problems. But, Ganon, at least you know your polly centric role.
joethenonclimatescientist,
Sure, I’m an activist – and a scientist. You also are an activist, but apparently not a scientist.
jungletrunks,
“We like to solve problems. But, Ganon, at least you know your polly centric role.”
I would be glad to discuss science with you and solve problems. But, from what I’ve seen, you are not able to do that and would much prefer to dream up silly insults and taunts.
Ganon, Pollyanna science activists create problems, they don’t solve them. You’re well meaning, as far as collectivism goes; but so were the most notorious scientific fascists. The problem with collectivists is that they want to share final solutions with everyone.
Jungletrunks,
I’m not a “collectivist” (yet another ad hominem attack that you apparently think is an insult), I am a scientist that studies the science (you should try it). My conclusions just happen to agree with the vast majority of other scientists. Studying the science does create problems, it attempts to understand them. People that deny (without factual basis) the knowledge gained are the ones creating problems.
“The problem with collectivists is that they want to share final solutions with everyone.”
Yes, scientists (not collectivists) publish their results for public scrutiny; however, you are, quite obviously, not required to read or understand the papers.
PS ~ You may continue your ad hominem (contentless) attacks as long as you like, I am happy to respond in kind.
“
ganon
“ Sure, I’m an activist – and a scientist.”
I’m glad you reminded us..…..again. Somehow, the 473rd time you told us you were a scientist resonated better than the previous 472 times.
But, for those of us affiliated with sporadic amnesia it’s always helpful.
Naw, Ganon, you can’t be a collectivist, (you don’t know what it means if you think it’s an ad hom)
“One solution, fair to all”
An example of final solution?
“My conclusions just happen to agree with the vast majority of other scientists.”
Polly wana?
cerescokid,
Ya, seems necessary ’cause y’all call me so many other things that I’m not.
teunks,
At least I’m not a cracker.
Ganon, the one sided intellectual discussion concludes.
I’m not surprised you played the race card, always up your sleeve. Historically other collectivists have held race cards. Final solution discussions are a serious matter.
There is no need to censor ideas. There is a very big need to critique ideas based on the quality of the argument rather than on the conclusions drawn. As noted before, in my experience “skeptics” rarely show that ability.
Dave Andrews writes-
“There is a very big need to critique ideas based on the quality of the argument rather than on the conclusions drawn. As noted before, in my experience “skeptics” rarely show that ability.”
How do you view AGW fearists claims that sea level is going to rise dramatically in the bear future! The claims have been made for 30 years and the rate of rise is pretty solid.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/03/climate/sea-level-rise-cop28-climate/index.html
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Rob Starkey,
Thanks for the UC sea level rise reference. It shows fairly significant acceleration; using their numbers it predicts, relative to their 2004 reference zero, 26.5 inches of sea level rise at the end of the century. And that doesn’t include any (possible) increase in the acceleration.
Rob Starkey,
I am not sure of your point. Is it your opinion that the article overstated the sea level rise problem? I don’t know if it did or not. Yes, I too have read popular articles I thought were too pessimistic. My earlier comments were about supposedly scientific arguments that don’t meet reasonable standards and therefore don’t get published in peer reviewed journals, not because of their conclusions as Dr. Curry argues, but because of specific flaws in their arguments. If you want to talk about popular commentary on climate change, I could call up plenty of uninformed nonsense from politicians and others. But I don’t think arguing about a “Chinese hoax” would be productive.
The notion that “consensus” has made climate science static and unproductive is incorrect. Dr. Curry’s recent post of an article discussing differences between James Hansen and Michael Mann’s estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 levels illustrates that. Good science is self-correcting, and we can reasonably expect the differences between Hansen and Mann’s analyses to shrink as more data arrives and analyses are refined.
While good science is self-correcting, pseudo-science tends not to be. “Hard-headed skeptics” of mainstream climate science are the most gullible to poor science when it confirms their biases. A few examples:
• Skrable published a paper in Health Physics in 2022 purporting to show from atmospheric radiocarbon levels that the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 was “natural”, not anthropogenic. “Skeptics” ate it up. To the embarrassment of the publishers the article has been retweeted 39,410 times, posted on 10 skeptic blogs and 5 “news” outlets. The paper had many errors, and a partial retraction was published in 1923. The retraction has been retweeted a total of 6 times. We have a controlled experiment demonstrating cognitive bias in “skeptics”.
• Dr. Curry seems to have forgotten her quite correct emphasis on uncertainty when she recently posted the “chicken and eggs” analysis of Koutsoyiannis et al.. The paper made startling statistical inferences in sharp conflict with the consensus yet contained no discussion of errors and confidence levels. When questioned, the author suggested I work out the confidence level myself. “Skeptics” posting here did not seem to care about the incompleteness of the analysis. They lowered their standards for a paper whose conclusions they wanted to believe.
• On this thread, Javier pointed out a plot in a less than reputable journal that he thought showed that Ocean Heat Content, perhaps the best measure of global warming, has recently been rising more slowly, at least in the 2004-2010 period. He evidently did not notice that trends since 2010 contradict that conclusion. He was too quick to make an argument confirming his beliefs without first asking himself if it was correct.
There is no question that science needs skeptics to advance. But it also needs standards to cull just plain wrong ideas. Climate skeptics will continue to go around in circles if they do not enforce standards upon each other. But critiquing your fellow skeptic seems to be forbidden by the culture. That is certainly a bad recipe for science.
Fossil Fuels – a good recipe for cheap energy!!
Only three years after U.S. oil production collapsed during the pandemic, energy companies are cranking out a record 13.2 million barrels a day, more than Russia or Saudi Arabia. The flow of oil has grown by roughly 800,000 barrels a day since early 2022 and analysts expect the industry to add another 500,000 barrels a day next year.
The surge in output has helped push down gasoline prices, which have fallen by close to $2 a gallon since the summer of 2022 and are now back to levels that prevailed in 2021. It has also provided the Biden administration with substantial leverage in its dealings with oil-exporting foes like Russia, Venezuela and Iran while reducing its need to cajole more friendly countries like Saudi Arabia to temper prices.
https://dnyuz.com/2023/12/01/surging-u-s-oil-production-brings-down-prices-and-raises-climate-fears/
A new skill needed for helicopter pilots.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GATQnpXXUAA69hT?format=jpg&name=small
New global temperature data is in for October – what’s up with that? Let’s hope it is temporary, due to H2O injection into the stratosphere (where there usually isn’t much) by the Tonga eruption 2 years ago, and not a (permanent) shift(ing) of climate state, or that Tonga is a trigger thereof.
https://mega.nz/file/IqUhBBYY#lT8pOAbvAN6yPhCJDSlp3kvqgK5qDjd3OkJHq36Jt4w
Yes, the next few or so years will be interesting to watch. I am also curious about it.
Ganon1950
The temperature decrease has nothing to do with Hunga Tonga.
There was large injection of cooling SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere on Sept 22, equivalent to at least a VEI5 volcanic eruption, from the NW corner of Canada’s Saskatchewan Province, an area where there is no known volcano, according to the “Volcanoes of the World” volcanic map of that area. The nearest known volcano is about a thousand miles to the west.
At this time it is a mystery. It could be due to an eruption like Paricutin, in a Mexican cornfield, a large meteor strike, a secret atom bomb test (both detectable by a seismometer), a large wild-cat well, or ?
Anyway, according to Climate Re-analyzer, there are large areas of colder air drifting NE from that area.
Your volcano was much more likely a forest fire. You’d have to provide evidence that it is a volcano. Forest fires also produce SO2 ~ 1g/Kg burned:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_urbanski_s001a.pdf
The only cooling is seasonal (dominated by larger land mass in the Northern Hemisphere). The year-over-year monthly temperature increases since June are exceptionally large WARMING.
Aren’t engineers (and climate hobbyists) supposed to be able to read and interpret graphs?
Ganon1950:
“The year-over-year monthly increases since June are exceptionally large WARMING”
YES. As I have shown you, satellite Chem maps show that there has been a decrease in the amount of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere since 2022.
Burl,
Are you aware that all anthropogenic sources of SO2 have concomitant black carbon (soot particles < 2.5 µm) emissions with global effective radiative forcing (ERF) of 0.71 W/m² [1], while anthropogenic SO2 (A-SO2) provides a cooling ERF of only -0.37 W/m² [2]? Thus, increasing anthro-S02 will actually cause warming. You have to look at the big picture, you can't isolate SO2 ⇒ H2SO4 and blame it for everything.
And even if you did isolate A-SO2, the -0.37 W/m² is small compared to the +3.8 W/m² warming coming from well-mixed GHGs and anthropogenic-ozone [3]. Isolated A-SO2, in total, only provides about 10% cooling of the warming caused by the sum of GHGs. Further, the annual decline is only about 2%/year [4], so the reduction in cooling capacity (increase in warming as you like to describe it) per year would be is about 0.2% of the GHG warming capacity, which is growing faster.
[1] Bond et al., 2013, "Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment", J. Geophys. Research, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171
"The best estimate for the industrial-era (1750 to 2005) direct radiative forcing of black carbon in the atmosphere is +0.71 W/m²."
[2] Yu et al., 2016, "Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sulfur and organic emissions reaching the stratosphere", Geophys. Res. Lett.,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070153
See Figure 3b [5]: (lower), far right set (global, full atmosphere): 3rd, smaller bar (increase since pre-industrial 1850), red portion (SO2). Non volcanic SO2 (cooling) forcing "increased" by -0.37 W/m^2 for pre-industrial until "present".
[3] IPCC AR6, WG1 "The physical Science Basis (2021). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
See Figure 7.6, attached [6].
The combined (warming) forcing from well-mixed GHGs and anthropogenic ozone is about 3.79 W/m² (C02 2.16; CH4 0.54; N20 0.21; halocarbons 0.41, O3 0.47).
Note, the IPCC figure gives a value for total aerosol forcing, including both cloud and direct radiative, of -1.16 W/m2 (which, in total, is still less than 1/3 of the GHG warming) but does not give a breakdown into types of anthropogenic aerosols, e.g., agricultural dust, or other aerosols sulfates (anthro-SO2).
[4] https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_EMISSIONS
[5] https://mega.nz/file/4jEBxCza#68Ri2F9ekpQThfZVJhhz7TZddiDg-MdX_QpJPAboHMI
[6] https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
Burl, I thought you claimed:
There was large injection of cooling SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere on Sept 22, equivalent to at least a VEI5 volcanic eruption.
Why didn’t it show up in the October GMST? Make up your mind.
Ganon1950:
There was a decrease in UAH temps from 1.49 deg C in Sept to 1.31 deg. C in Oct, so the temp decrease did show up.
You had suggested that it might have been due to a forest fire, and you may be right, although it flared up for only a day, as a volcano would, and is leaving a trail of cooler weather under the SO2 aerosols.
However, in searching around, I have found earlier identical flare-ups in the same region and their aerosols appear to be associated with the Canadian wildfires of last summer, circulating eastward, with no flare-ups in Eastern Canada, except for a tiny one near Hudson’s Bay.
So, at this point, It appears that, using the satellite SO2 Chem map images, I cannot really distinguish between a volcanic eruption and a forest fire, although the Climate Re-Analysis images show cooling from the Sept 22 eruption, as sown in the Oct decline, and not from the others.
Not something that I have encountered before. Needs more work.
The blockage of the polar vortex over the Bering Sea causes an easterly circulation over northern Canada. A smaller polar vortex is forming over Canada.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t70_nh_f00.png
I debated if I should link this photo of a plane frozen to the ground at the Munich airport heading to a global warming conference.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAV5HDPWoAALFdV?format=jpg&name=medium
Then I debated if I should link this photo of the snow covered 1st and 18th fairways at StAndrews Old Course, the Home of Golf, where I almost duck hooked my tee shot on #1 out of bounds on #18.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAXZDfgXkAEv_LG?format=jpg&name=900×900
So, I included both. For those who love irony. And for those who love golf.
And for those that don’t know the difference between climate and weather.
Like heat waves, in order to know immutably whether it’s weather, or climate, we’ll need another peer reviewed paper that describes the declining decadal trend of planes frozen to the ground. We should get a team on it right away, to flesh out remaining climate jig relationships.
BTW, I’d recommend tying this into a study of yearly average icicle length decline, say since post WWII, no doubt someones been keeping accurate records—chop-chop.
At the risk of being just too, too over the top I didn’t include the Babylon Bee tweet with that picture and this caption
“ Climate Activists’ Private Planes Freeze Themselves To Runway In Powerful Protest.”
I wonder if those writers ever worked for Abbott and Costello.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GAV5HDPWoAALFdV?format=jpg&name=medium
Prior to this recent example of globul warming, wasn’t a frozen jet an icycle?
Burlhenry,
(1) Why do you make declarative statements about it being a volcano of a given magnitude, when you don’t even know what it is and there is no evidence, outside of you, that there was a giant eruption – perhaps you should leave satellite imagery interpretation to the professionals.
(2) Regarding UAH data,
Global composite temperature anomaly:
September 2023 +0.90 C
October 2023 +0.93 C
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/October2023/GTR_202310OCT_v1.pdf
That is an increase, not a decrease. Either you are making stuff up, or you are using absolute temperatures and don’t understand seasonal adjustments. Either way, I get the feeling I’m wasting my time.
Yes, you are wasting your time when it comes to gathering fuel for the long cold and snowy winter in the northern hemisphere.
Like!
And you are wasting your time providing weather reports. But, thanks for showing that global climate has internal and inter-annual variability, and that regional variability increases with increasing average temperature.
burlhenry,
There is (hopefully) a quantitative comment on the anthropogenic S02 issue comming, but it apparently it has to go through review, because of the number of links, before (hopefully) being posted. So here is a short summary.
Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols (ASA, from SO2 emissions in fossil fuel burning) are accompanied by black carbon (BC) particulates (≤ 2.5 µm). These light absorbing aerosols cause nearly twice as much direct warming in the troposphere as ASA causes cooling. Thus, increasing ASA not only has concomitant warming, it increases human health hazards and ocean acidification; whereas continued decrease in ASA should result is mild cooling and less bad health effects and less ocean acidification.
burl,
“So, two other data sets show a decrease in October temps, as opposed to your cherry-picked UAH temps.”
You are the one that picked UAH. I didn’t cherry-pick anything, just checked on your false claim.
And of course, you didn’t include uncertainty for Hadcrut 5.0.2.0, where the Oct – Sept difference is – 0.067 ± .084 ºC A very small and statistically insignificant decline.
Similarly, for GISTEMP: (1) you misquoted September as 1.49ºC, when it was actually 1.47 ºC. So, -0.13 ± 0.12 ºC, where the uncertainty is the average of yearly standard deviations for 2021, 2022, and 2023. Again, small and statistically insignificant.
Ganon1950:”
What a worthless article that will be, if it ever gets published!
“Continued decrease in ASA should result in mild cooling”
They have it exactly backwards. Decreased ASA always causes warming.
Burl,
“Decreased ASA always causes warming.”
Nope, decreased ASA causes less cooling, and not very much. Sorry, if that is beyond your comprehension. It is the same as “Decreased BC causes less warming”.
Gannon1950:
Both ways of describing the effects of SO2 aerosol pollution are correct. I prefer saying that less pollution results in more warming.
You also criticized my saying that the NASA/GISS temperature for Sept was 1.49 Deg. C. This is the actual temp shown on my global temp. image. Where did you get 1.47?
You tend to get hung up on “nits”, this time by not responding to the very real criticism that the authors postulate that more BC and SO2 pollution will result in more warming of the atmosphere, failing to recognize that it will dim the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and cause more cooling of the planet.
burl,
“Both ways of describing the effects of SO2 aerosol pollution are correct. I prefer saying that less pollution results in more warming.”
I know that’s what you prefer, it’s not correct. (1) If you wish to use the generic “pollution”, then that should include GHGs, BC, and aerosols: less “pollution” causes less warming, therefore cooling, because GHGs are the dominant positive effective radiative forcing (ERF). (2) Less sulfates do not cause warming; other things (GHGs, BC) cause the warming, sulfate aerosols (SA) cause cooling, and the net effect is less warming (but that warming is not caused by the SA).
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
“You also criticized my saying that the NASA/GISS temperature for Sept was 1.49 Deg. C. This is the actual temp shown on my global temp. image. Where did you get 1.47?”
I took it from:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Yes, the map gives 1.34 vs 1.49 C (Oct vs Sept); however, that uses a 1200 km smoothing radius (it makes a prettier map). Using the 250 km smoothing gives a better representation of the actual data (and “pixelated” map) and (presumably) a better global average. In that case (Oct – Sept) = (1.31 – 1.32) C = -0.01 C. Any way GISS table, 250 or 1200 km map, all show very slight, not statistically significant declines, Sept to Oct. That is why Iike HadCRUT more: multiple data sets, better statistical analysis, and lower uncertainty. Let’s see what happens for November.
“You tend to get hung up on “nits”, this time by not responding to the very real criticism that the authors postulate that more BC and SO2 pollution will result in more warming of the atmosphere, failing to recognize that it will dim the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and cause more cooling of the planet.”
Not “nits”. The ASA has an ERF of -0.37 W/m² and concomitant BC is +0.71 W/m². When taken together (since they are source linked) there is more warming that cooling and increasing both (together) causes warming. BC causes less scattering (dimming) of what reaches the surface than ASA because BC is hydrophobic and does not tend to form larger “water” droplets the way that hydrophilic H2SO4 does. Also, BC causes additional warming if it settles out on snow or ice (albedo reduction) – that is not included in the +0.71 W/m² ERF, which is for atmospheric warming only. I hope this is an adequate response (this time, the first time) to your “very real criticism”.
Ganon1950:
Unfortunately, I cited the UAH satellite temperatures of the lower atmosphere, which I agree shows no change between Sept and Oct, but they are really not representative of Earth’s temperatures, always being lower than the gridded data of HadCrut and NASA/GISS.
BOTH of them show a decrease in anomalous global temperatures between Sept and Oct.
For HadCrut, they were 1.352 deg. C for Sept, and 1.285 for Oct
For NASA/GISS they were 1.49 deg C for Sept and 1.34 for Oct
So, two other data sets show a decrease in October temps, as opposed to your cherry-picked UAH temps.
Burl, I never said anything about an article. I said a comment – It is all well known material with references. I put it together just for you, because you are apparently not aware of, or do not understand, the contents.
The UN message: “Eat Less Meat Is Message for Rich World in Food’s First Net Zero Plan”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-26/eat-less-meat-is-message-for-rich-world-in-food-s-first-net-zero-plan
As side note: China and Bill Gates together own 6% (and growing) of agricultural land in the U.S.; Gates owns almost 3% himself, at 242,000 acres, per The Land Report. Bill hates meat.
The EU imports socialistic inflation indirectly (though food costs aren’t calculated in CPI reports, nor energy for that matter). The top 10 owners of U.S. agricultural land hold 30,447,000 acres; the EU owns the most—Canada about a third of it. Outside these totals China and Gates rank 18th and 19th, respectfully. U.S. agricultural sales to foreign interests increase every year.
But I suspect we should expect fuel costs, and probably food costs, to incrementally decline going into the U.S. 2024 general election. In the end, the EU’s massive inflation caused by energy policies, MUST be imported to the U.S. The titular global monarchy will make sure the shell game of causation and requisite ramifications for inflation remain circular, except to target capitalism.
I thought this piece by Roger Caiazza, “Ellenbogen: New York State’s Energy Transition” to be a good example of a ‘bad recipe’ for policy.
https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2023/12/01/ellenbogen-new-york-states-energy-transition/
All policy makers in all states should read this. Lessons for all to be learned. Before it is too late.
Dr. Curry,
I purchased and read your new book as soon as it became available, and I thank you for writing this wonderful book and for getting it published, wetting and all. The excerpt above sounds almost as a lament about the state of affairs in the AGW space, but importantly this state of affairs is geographically located in the “West” only. We all know that large countries simply appear to have embarked on policies that view CC as NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM in the future. Surely “deniers: such as Dr. Richard Lindzen and many, many others would get a much more sympathetic hearing in say China or India (approx. 40% of world’s population). West’s self-flagellation on the impacts of CC is now channeled into the “climate justice” demands as data shows legacy GG were added by “rich” countries and new data show that the “rich” have been the principal contributors to the impacts of GG. Thus, CC can and is being used as key demand for political, social and economic change. What a great tool for demagogues here and abroad. Fidel Castro is turning in his grave for having missed this opportunity to bash the West with its nemesis, “El Imperialismo Americano’. Epigones like Maduro or here (unnamed) will do their part and acquire countless followers.
Models: A bad recipe for climate science. Of course the climate models were wrong. The probably still are since we don’t understand climate well enough to model it.
Using realistic ecological modeling, scientists led by Western Sydney University’s Jürgen Knauer found that the globe’s vegetation could actually be taking on about 20% more of the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere and will continue to do so through to the end of the century.
“What we found is that a well-established climate model that is used to feed into global climate assessments by the likes of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predicts stronger and sustained carbon uptake until the end of the 21st century when extended to account for the impact of some critical physiological processes that govern how plants conduct photosynthesis,” said Knauer.
Mathematical models of ecological systems are used to understand complex ecological processes and in turn attempt to predict how the real ecosystems they’re based on will change. The researchers found that the more complex their modeling, the more surprising the results – in the environment’s favor.
https://newatlas.com/biology/plants-absorb-more-co2/
Could be. But it is clearly not enough to keep up with growth in emissions, since the growth in atmospheric CO2 is still accelerating.
jim2
We know quite accurately from the difference between emissions and atmospheric CO2 growth what biomass and oceans are together taking up. It is holding steady at roughly half of emissions. I am not that familiar with how the partition of that total into the two categories (biomass and oceans) is measured or calculated. But an upward adjustment in the biomass fraction would have to come with a downward adjustment in the ocean uptake, and would not change the sum. This is the carbon conservation constraint discussed at great length in an earlier thread.
David,
“We know quite accurately from the difference between emissions and atmospheric CO2 growth what biomass and oceans are together taking up. It is holding steady at roughly half of emissions.”
–
Will the atmospheric CO2 stop grow if we stop burning fossil fuels?
Christos,
“Will the atmospheric CO2 stop grow[ing] if we stop burning fossil fuels?”
Yes, I would expect it to. Some think it would start falling, but that would depend, among other things, on mixing rates between ocean surface waters with higher carbon content and deeper water.
So, you think, CO2 first would stop growing, then it would start falling?
Christos,
I am aware of a paper, under peer review, that argues atmospheric CO2 levels would not only stabilize, they would begin to fall if net emissions went to 0. That is not a “consensus” argument, but it is made by a reputable scientist. I do not know if the mixing between surface water and deep water is handled correctly in that particular analysis. You apparently have an opinion on this. What is it?
I am thinking about the ~150 millions Europeans being covered by heavy snowing now.
No solar panels, no wind turbins. The only hope they have not to freeze to death are fossil fuels burning.
It is the beginning of winter yet. There are few months to go, till the spring time.
Christos,
You have gone from a CO2 concentration discussion to a weather report. I personally don’t think decarbonization will be as easy as some say and think further development and deployment of nuclear would help. Are you saying that you believe there is no up side to at least stabilizing atmospheric CO2?
I am not worried about things that I cannot fix. What I do is trying to adapt. When things go for the worse, I try harder to adapt.
–
What would be at 2100 Year?
I am sure there will be much less people on the Planet.
I am sure of that, because of the continuous lowering of the Global birth rate.
When Global population started shrinking, there would not be a stopping point.
Christos,
I agree that we are approaching peak human population but I think there are two forces at play. One force is the environment and the 250,000+ man-made molecules we are dispersing into the biosphere. This is affecting most all lifeforms but is particularly lethal to apex predators (us). The second force is the Behavioral Sink syndrome that breaks down social unity and destroys family formation. All mammals with central nervous systems are susceptible to this disorder and it relates to the maximum number of social relationships an individual can manage. See the studies related to the Mouse Utopia for correlation to our hyper-connected societies of today and the sharp rise of Antisocial personality disorder.
Thank you, jacksmith4tx.
–
The Global population has already started shrinking.
We do not “see” it, because we do not take in consideration the population’s rapid ageing process!
I’m simply reporting what I found.
A bad recipe for vehicles.
Electric vehicle owners continue to report far more problems with their vehicles than owners of conventional cars or hybrids, according to Consumer Reports’ newly released annual car reliability survey. The survey reveals that, on average, EVs from the past three model years had 79 percent more problems than conventional cars…
“Most electric cars today are being manufactured by either legacy automakers that are new to EV technology, or by companies like Rivian that are new to making cars,” says Jake Fisher, senior director of auto testing at Consumer Reports. “It’s not surprising that they’re having growing pains and need some time to work out the bugs.” Fisher says some of the most common problems EV owners report are issues with electric drive motors, charging, and EV batteries…
This year’s survey data show that hybrids continue to be among the most reliable vehicle type: Hybrids have 26 percent fewer problems than conventional models, even though they have both a conventional powertrain and an electric motor and therefore more potential problem spots than conventional cars. “It might not seem that long ago, but Toyota launched the Prius hybrid about 25 years ago,” Elek says. “Automakers have been making hybrids long enough that they’ve gotten really good at it. Plus, many hybrids are also made by manufacturers that tend to produce reliable vehicles overall, such as Toyota, Hyundai, and Kia.” Hybrids also are not typically loaded with high-tech features like multiple customizable displays that can be problem-prone, which is why Fisher says they are great options for drivers who are more interested in getting ideal fuel mileage than they are in bells and whistles. “These vehicles are not necessarily a tour de force of technology, so there’s just less that can go wrong with them,” he says.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which have both a battery for short-range electric driving and an internal combustion engine for long-range driving, are the least reliable category — 146 percent more problems than conventional cars. “PHEVs are sort of like an EV and a conventional car rolled into one, so by their nature they have more things that can go wrong with them,” Fisher says.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/12/02/2236216/ev-owners-report-far-more-problems-than-conventional-car-owners-says-consumer-reports
You do know Elon Musk is going to make us all use his rob-taxies, right?
My Volt is different than a PHEV because the ICE motor is actually just a generator to charge the high voltage battery. At least 80% of my driving is electric and I use about 18 gal of gas a year. It has been nearly trouble free but I really dread having to take it to the dealer. They charged me $230 to change the battery antifreeze last year. If I wanted to do myself I need a $500 tool and be able to reset the module software.
Use the tool 3 times and you are ahead.
A long time friend of mine bought one of these Chevy Volts a decade ago. He is an engineer and was curious to try out the new EV technology.
His observation is that the entire vehicle is greatly over-engineered. He figures GM lost money on every Volt it sold.
Before he retired, he commuted 30 miles to work and back every day. The company he worked for had onsite charging stations as a benefit for those who drove EVs. He spent nothing for gasoline and the car never needed maintenance.
He still has the car. It has required two minor repairs in the decade he has owned it. A window crank motor failed and the original 12-volt auxiliary battery died after seven years of use.
He had to do these minor repairs himself because the small local Chevy dealer he bought the car from no longer had a technician certified to work on Chevy Volts.
The service manager explained that their small dealership had no Chevy Volt warranty work, and little or no post-warranty repair work, for the cars they had sold that would justify keeping a Volt certified technician on their payroll.
My friend will replace the car once the primary battery is beyond its useful life. But even after a decade of near continuous use, he estimates the main battery still retains 90% of its original performance.
Beta B. – I think it is accurate to say buying an EV today is a craps shoot. You may do OK with it, or it may surprise you with a huge repair bill. Lay down your money and take your chances!
I went thru the responses and only saw 2 replies from you.
There was nothing about how Nature has kept a relatively constant surface temperature for the last 450,000 years.
I will keep looking.
Nuclear, a good recipe for energy.
The global resurgence for nuclear energy starts in the barren, high desert of Idaho.
Almost every nuclear plant in the world today can trace its lineage back to Idaho National Laboratory’s sprawling 890-square-mile (2,300-square-kilometer) complex. Researchers there were the first to generate electricity from splitting the atom back in 1951, and countless scientists have since visited the remote site to test reactor designs.
But while it’s been a crucial stop on the path from drawing board to deploying systems in the field, it’s been 50 years since the last reactor was switched on there. The lengthy gap speaks to the challenges of harnessing a fission reaction. The lab stands poised to shepherd a new wave of nuclear technologies to market, but the recent cancelation of a major project at the site shows INL’s research prowess alone isn’t enough to ensure the industry will play a major role in combatting climate change in the coming decades.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-02/us-nuclear-energy-revival-idaho-readies-for-new-reactor-tests
I like ‘radiation free’ geothermal. It also takes a fraction of the time and money that nuclear does.
https://apnews.com/article/geothermal-energy-heat-renewable-power-climate-5c97f86e62263d3a63d7c92c40f1330d
“Fervo is pioneering horizontal drilling in geothermal reservoirs. In Nevada, Fervo drilled some 8,000 feet down, turned sideways and drilled about 3,250 feet horizontally.
Fervo is currently completing initial drilling in southwest Utah for a 400-megawatt project.”
Even better would be if the gyrotron-powered drilling process being developed by Quaise works. At those depths you could have geothermal power anywhere.
Skeptics have characterized Climate Doomer concepts as a religion for decades. The Pope agrees :)
Pope Francis stated in a video sent to a United Nations event Sunday that climate change is “also a religious problem” calling on other clerical leaders to come together to “set an example,” according to Crux Catholic Media.
Absent from the COP-28 summit, reportedly due to concerns for his health, the pope sent a message for the inauguration of the new Faith Pavilion at the event. Along with the video, remarks were read by the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin, according to Crux Catholic Media
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/03/pope-francis-calls-climate-change-religious-problem-clerical-leaders-responsibility/
Whether “religion” or “science” (which are generally antithetical), I’d have to give “religion” to those “skeptics” that have motivations beyond being skeptical of the science.
Hey! There is a powerful new group ready to stick it to the corporate democrats. 👍
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/12/why-a-new-climate-group-is-heckling-powerful-democrats/
It is silly not to support oil drilling in the USA. It does not release more CO2, it merely keeps the money in the US. That is critical to the US economy.
It is silly to support the expansion of oil drilling anywhere. Rather, there should be a rapid but orderly transition away from it. The transition is already happening, but one might question whether it is fast, or orderly, enough.
ganon—once again you support the unreasonable. There is a DEMAND for fossil fuels today and for decades to come in the future. Where the product is supplied from doesnt impact demand.
Do you support sending the money to Arabs and Russians rather than keep it in the US? That is idiotic.
ganon the radical with no purpose.
The USA is using oil and will continue to do so for decades at least. Using US oil emits less CO2 than using foreign oil and keeps trillion in the USA for our economy.
Ganon is a biden nutter.
The US already produces as much oil as it produces, and imports as much as it exports.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php
Explain that simpleton – it is done for economic benefit.
And, yes the US will be using oil for decades. How much drilling is needed depends on how fast (and far) the transition to non-fossil fuel energy goes.
Rob is an oil addict that doesn’t understand the implications.
EVs: A bad recipe for getting around.
“Sticker shock” has taken on a whole new meaning when new electric vehicle owners get their first repair bill following a simple fender bender. The Wall Street Journal reports that a San Francisco resident got in a minor accident with his electric truck. He thought that repairs would be “a couple-thousand-dollar bill from the repair shop and to be without his truck for a couple of weeks.”
Instead, the first-time EV owner was shocked to get a $22,000 bill for repairs that took 2 1/2 months.
https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2023/12/03/ev-owners-waking-up-to-the-nightmare-of-massive-repair-bills-n4924440
Ganon1950:
I have never seen any DATA which proves that CO2 has any climatic effect. It’s just an unproven hypothesis.
Apart from the “consensus”, what evidence can you offer?
Burl,
Burl, Then you haven’t looked.
(1) Science does not provide proofs (inductive logic), it provides estimates/predictions, preferably with uncertainty estimates. That is what is in the chart I referenced. At this point, it is not a hypothesis; it is a theory (which is a well tested hypothesis) that is taken as “fact” until it is disproven (which is logically possible). Note, that what you propose is an untested hypothesis, while the GHE of GHGs is a well tested theory.
(2) Read chapter 7 of IPCC AR6 WG1, the whole thing, but in particular sections 7.3.2.1, 7.3.2.7 and references quoted therein.
(3) There has been DATA since the 1850s, for a history see:
https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/
Some of the most convincing DATA that supports CO2-GHG-AGW, is the remarkable correlation between temperature and CO2 rise since 1950, without any other viable and tested explanation (yours is neither) for the temperature rise.
Do the CO2 and H2O trace greenhouse gases content in Earth’s thin atmosphere create the +33C consensus’ greenhouse warming effect on the entire planet surface?
Christos,
It is now more like 34 C, and it is not just CO2 and H20. There are other GHGs and other forcings and feedbacks. You might try the book “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change” (free download) for a deeper understanding.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/11175
ganon,
“There are other GHGs and other forcings and feedbacks.”
–
Of course there are. But 34C is too much of a number.
It is not 34C everywhere, right? Some places you should estimate it to be higher, than 34C, and some other places lower than 34C.
–
What do you thing those places are?
Christos,
It is too small a number for GHGs. There are other negative forcings, primarily aerosols (natural and anthropogenic) and their cloud interactions, that cancel some of the GHG warming. There are many things that go on in that atmosphere that you (pretend to) neglect by calling it “thin”.
ganon, please, let’s discuss the
“What do you thing those places are?”
–
Suppose there is a +34C average global atmospheric greenhouse effect on earth’s surface.
–
Which places would be, par example, at +54C atmospheric greenhouse effect,
and which places would be at +14C atmospheric greenhouse effect?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Very few at 54 C, many at 14 C in the temperate zone, which is near the average of 16 C.
ganon,
“Very few at 54 C, many at 14 C in the temperate zone, which is near the average of 16 C.”
–
Can you be more specific, please?
If the Global average surface atmospheric greenhouse effect is +33C, what it approximately is at different latitudes, like:
1). Kenya
2). Egypt
3). Greece
4). Czechia
5). Sweden
6). North Pole
Notice, the higher latitudes represent smaller areas on the Globe.
ganon
“ There has been DATA since the 1850s, for a history see:”
Wrong. There are no data from 1850. There are only guesses. There was no uniform, reliable compilation of temperature data from that period. Only 12% of the SH had land coverage . Only 40% of NH had land coverage. There were millions of square miles of oceans without systematic compilation of SST or OHC, spatially or temporally before 1850.
It’s very easy to account for whatever warming there has been since 1850 without any increase in CO2. There are huge error bars pre 1900 because of guessing. We are coming out of the LIA. Solar activity was the highest for a sustained period in hundreds of years. We are in the warm phase of the AMO. The Urban Heat Island effect is real.
If warming since 1850 has actually been .5C, for instance, instead of 1C, that might explain why tidal gauges don’t show significant acceleration and all the upward trends in a variety of extreme events that have been published as happening, actually haven’t been happening.
Ganon1950:
“Note that what you propose is an untested hypothesis”
On the contrary, my hypothesis, that atmospheric SO2 aerosols are the control knob for Earth’s climate is falsifiable (capable of being empirically tested), and has been tested and validated hundreds of times, every time there is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption, for example. When their SO2 aerosols are added to the atmosphere, temperatures decrease. And when they settle out, temperatures increase.
As the scientific philosopher Karl Popper wrote “for a theory to be acceptable it must be falsifiable, and that predictability was the gold standard for its acceptance.
I have NEVER seen a change in average anomalous global temperatures that was not associated with a change in the amount SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
And I would also point out that there can only ONE tested and validated explanation for a given problem, in this instance, Climate Change.
cerescokid,
“Wrong. There are no [!] data from 1850. There are only guesses. There was no uniform, reliable compilation of temperature data from that period. Only 12% of the SH had land coverage . Only 40% of NH had land coverage.”
Talk about self-negation. Laughed so hard, I could hardly read the rest. The uncertainty is larger for 1850–1880, but THERE IS DATA. I have confidence that HadCRUT knows how to do statistical analysis.
“If warming since 1850 has actually been .5C, for instance, instead of 1C”
Your “about 1 C” is actually 1.414 ± 0.186 ºC, where the uncertainty is the combined (RMS) 2σ uncertainty for 1850 and 2023. So your “IF it is only 0.5 C” lies at -9.8 σ, or a normal distribution probability of 1.9×10^(-11). So, I think we can dismiss anything after the “IF” statement. Nonetheless …
Regarding MSLR and its acceleration: I’ve already addressed that:
“Up-to-date data (through 2018): rate 4.0 +/- 0.4 mm/yr; acceleration 0.083 +/- 0.053 mm/yr^2
Taken from (Wang, et al., “Reconciling global mean and regional sea level change in projections and observations”, 2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21265-6
Which uses tidal station data with GPS and GIA adjustments, giving a 100 year rise.
rise = 100*4.0 + 0.5*0.083*100^2 = 815 mm = 32 inches
And that does not include acceleration of the acceleration, which is considered in Wang 2021.”
Numbers and references are so much better that personal bias selected subjective phrases like “tidal gauges don’t show significant acceleration”.
Hiyo Silver, away
Burl,
What independent entity has tested your hypothesis that “anthropogenic SO2 emissions are the sole cause of global warming?” I’ll do it right now:
Your hypothesis has been falsified by the fact that reduction in SO2 emissions 1980 – 2010 was (151.5 – 97.0) = 54.51 Mton decrease (Our world in data), while the temperature increase over the same 30 year period was+0.494 °C (HIGHER)
(HadCRUT 5.0.1.0).
In comparison, compare 1980 to 1950:
SO2 emissions =(151.51 – 63.03) = 91.2 Mton LOWER in 1950
Temperature change 1950 w.r.t. 1980 = -0.412 °C (LOWER)
In both cases, the SO2 emissions were reduced significantly compared to the 1980 maximum, in one case the temperature change was warming: +0.494 °C (HIGHER). In the other case, with 1.67 times as much reduction in SO2 emissions, the temperature change was cooling: -0.412 °C (LOWER)
There ya go -that was trivial; your hypothesis is FALSIFIED.
Will you publish a retraction of your IJARR “paper”?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
Ganon1950:
Falsifiable means empirically testable.
That has been done, and has validated my hypothesis.
Ganon1950:
Thank you for proving that my hypothesis is correct!
Per your data, the reduction in industrial SO2 aerosol levels between 1980 and 2010 was 54.5 Megatons, and temperatures INCREASED by (+) 4.94 Deg C.
Per your data, the increase in industrial SO2 aerosol levels between 1950 and 1980 was 91 Megatons, and temperatures DECREASED by (-) 0.412 Deg. C.
All exactly as my hypothesis predicts!
ganon
Instead of laughing refute what I said and produce studies concluding there is reliable data. I already provided the source for the land coverage. Studies have shown the paucity of ocean data. It’s breathtaking how little you know about that.
cerescokid,
Your opening statement was:
“Wrong. There are no data from 1850.”
And then you immediately refuted it yourself (still laughing). I then added that HadCRUT also refutes it, giving uncertainties for all data years, including 1850-1880. If you wish to investigate it further, you could start with:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
Hiyo Silver, away
burl,
Nope, falsifiable (there is a reason that particular word is used) means that there is the *possibility* that the hypothesis can be shown false. If that is done, even in one case, then the hypothesis is false. I did that using empirical data. Therefore, your hypothesis is false. It must be discarded or modified to accommodate the falsifying case (Go for it, I won’t wait). It is also called (dis)proof by negation; If anyone succeeds in showing a case of the hypothesis being false, then it is DISPROVEN; if there are attempts to falsify, and none succeed, then the hypothesis is considered supported or confirmed, but not PROVEN ( again, it has to do with the difference between inductive and deductive logic).
It is probably not a good idea to try and lecture me on how science works or the philosophy of science.
Good luck with your revised hypothesis (or retraction).
I
ganon
This is called guessing. Even by 1934 the spatial coverage of subsurface temperatures profiles was embarrassingly paltry
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/04c632eb-8d2e-4833-8b84-43e6d155c1b8/rog20022-fig-0001-m.jpg
Here is the coverage of the famous Challenger Expedition in the 1870s. Besides the problems that have been studied about the actual sampling techniques, the spatial coverage was nada, and worthless for comparing the information to the regular, in situ, direct measurements of today. Using all the statistical methods possible still doesn’t tell you anything about the other millions of square miles not sampled during that period because of the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of the oceans. Taking another 15 million samples in the Caribbean, or off the coast of Japan would not have reduced the uncertainties about the temperature in the Indian Ocean or off the coast of California.
https://io.ocean.washington.edu/files/challengermapdragged_med.jpg
That toehold now looks potentially very valuable. The US Department of Energy recently estimated that to reach its decarbonization goals, the US would need to triple its nuclear capacity by 2050 to around 300 gigawatts. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, meanwhile, has transformed the need to move away from fossil fuels into something urgent: a now thing, not a one-to-two decades down-the-line thing. Nuclear energy — long out of favor — has re-emerged as the only zero-carbon and reliable baseload alternative for European countries seeking to wean themselves off the drug of Russian gas or dirty, carbon-belching coal.
For Westinghouse this means more than just a rush of orders. It opens dizzying visions: a way back from perdition to the front rank of nuclear suppliers in a reinvigorated industry. As one of the few Western companies with all the pieces in place — a reactor licensed and ready to sell with examples already in operation, and a big fuel-making business — it is critical to the West’s efforts not just to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, but also to deprive Russia of a vital source of power and income and to strengthen the transatlantic alliance.
Link for that: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/features/2023-12-03/westinghouse-is-key-to-a-us-nuclear-revival-and-net-zero-climate-goals
Christos,
No I can’t be more specific, it depends on topography, elevation, prevailing wind direction, local weather, atmospheric and oceanic circulation, proximity to ocean and ocean temperature at that point, etc. None of which are considered in your model, nor is the temperature dependence of C_p, which you can’t even estimate unless you know the temperature, and you don’t know what the temperature is unless you know C_p.
Thank you, ganon.
–
I also tried to answer that question:
“If the Global average surface atmospheric greenhouse effect is +33C, what it approximately is at different latitudes, like:
1). Kenya
2). Egypt
3). Greece
4). Czechia
5). Sweden
6). North Pole
Notice, the higher latitudes represent smaller areas on the Globe.”
But I couldn’t, because there is not such an answer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I did not know, but I was able to find what you were looking for:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-temperature-data-hadcrut4-and-crutem4
Particularly the second key figure
If there is +33C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it should be stronger at places with higher solar irradiance, because the core issue in atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect is the surface LW emission atmospheric feedback.
–
If there is +33C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it sould be stronger at equatorial zone, because at equatorial zone the solar irradiance is much stronger.
–
We face a paradox here:
We should have assumed, in the case of Planet Earth without-atmosphere, at Earth’s equatorial zone the far below zero C the surface temperatures…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Curry,
In your new book you remind us that of the new warming from the goldilocks of 1850’s (some 1 deg C) CO2equiv. itself is responsible for 25%, the rest is all feedback due to the warming caused by the CO2equiv.: water vapor (50%?) and clouds (25%?). Dr. Lindzen had a paper disputing this proposed apportioning and everybody knows that clouds are practically impossible to model, not sure about water vapor. If the warming due to the CO2equiv. is calculable but the feedback is not, could it be that OTHER “culprits” for the remainder of the measured warming may be at play?
cerescokid,
This is fun. You state biased, subjective personal opinions without reference or supporting evidence and launch personal attacks (telling me that I should know what I already know); and I answer with quantitative analysis and references. Keep it up, I enjoy it.
Arrhenius and climatologists ever since have …
(a) Ignored the fact explained by Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s that it is gravity that establishes what is a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient in Earth’s troposphere. Such a gradient is now known to exist in all other planetary tropospheres in our Solar System. Furthermore, it can be shown to be a direct result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production, as proven in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and my book.
(b) As is easily deduced from energy diagrams published by NASA and climatologists, the method by which they quantify surface temperatures (and increases in such) assumes that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives correct resulting temperatures for the arithmetic sum of the radiative fluxes from two or more surfaces. It doesn’t. It is derived from the integral of the Planck function for a single source. No published experiment anywhere confirms that climatologists are correct in using that law the way they do in all their computer modelling, which is thus wrong.
Gravity forms the temperature gradient, repairing it in calm conditions at night. The next morning when solar energy is absorbed mostly in the tops of clouds and in the middle and upper troposphere the new energy is spread out by gravity in such a way that the whole graph of temperature v. altitude rises to a higher but parallel position. This means that some of the new energy in the middle and upper atmosphere makes its way by molecular collisions (not back radiation) towards and into the surface. This heat from cooler to warmer regions can only happen in a force field. In fact it also happens radially in every functioning vortex cooling tube due to centrifugal force.
Hence, with all the overwhelming evidence and with the use of correct physics, I rest my case. QED.
A strong stratospheric blockage over the Bering Sea (here at 500 hPa in the troposphere) will draw a cold front to the west coast of North America, with heavy rain on the coast and snow in the mountains.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/12/06/2000Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-128.14,57.66,888
https://i.ibb.co/prnR2d9/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
I was watching a COP 28 report on Bloomberg this morning. The presenter stated 5-6 TRILLION dollars PER YEAR of capital expenditure will be required to “fight” “climate change.” What an abysmal waste of our money.
“What an abysmal waste of our money.”
–
We are getting day-after-day poorer, we are getting day-after-day poorer – and, for no reason!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
An oil executive commented that the Gulf of Mexico is relatively unexplored. They are finding very large fields there currently.
Adaptation is the key!! Stop spending TRILLIONS PER YEAR on mitigation!!
“Is it more difficult to finance now that you might have an 8% cost of funds rather than free money? Yes it is,” he said at the Bloomberg Green summit at COP28 in Dubai on Tuesday. He added that lenders need a real return or else risk creating a bubble.
The Bridgewater Associates founder said the only way to unlock the up to $10 trillion a year needed in climate investments is to make green solutions profitable.
Dalio said climate change is an expensive problem and investors have a limit given global GDP is only about $100 trillion. “We are living in a world that doesn’t have enough money,” he said.
…
Still, Dalio said it’s unlikely the planet will meet its warming target of 1.5C, meaning there needs to be a greater focus on adaptation, which “will be an area for great investment and great productivity.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-01/uae-aims-for-cop28-finance-splash-with-30-billion-climate-fund
The hits just keep on coming …
Pricing Carbon
The carbon offsets market, once estimated to hit $100 billion, is shrinking amid weakening demand. This COP summit will address provisions for the global market expected to open in 2024, impacting developers of carbon credits like Carbon Streaming Corp. and EKI Energy Services Ltd., both down more than 50% this year.
In compliance markets, pricing is extremely varied, with an emissions certificate trading at about $75 per ton in Europe but about $10 in China.
EU Carbon Price Could Hit €149 Per Ton in 2030
Additional allowances and low power sector emissions not enough to disrupt the future supply squeeze hoisting up carbon prices
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-04/stock-investors-think-these-four-cop28-debates-can-move-markets
The EV market is smaller than you think and will saturate sooner than you think.
Driving the news: The working paper, from UC Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas, explores county-level new car registrations from 2012-2022 and compares them to voting records in presidential races.
“During our time period about half of all EVs went to the 10% most Democratic counties, and about one-third went to the top 5%,” the study found.
“There is relatively little evidence that this correlation has decreased over time, and even some specifications that point to increasing correlation.”
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/25/electric-vehicles-politics
A bad recipe for dinosaurs.
In the lab, the scientists estimated how much sulfur and fluorine was injected into the atmosphere by massive volcanic eruptions in the 200,000 years before the dinosaur extinction.
Remarkably, they found the sulfur release could have triggered a global drop in temperature around the world — a phenomenon known as a volcanic winter.
“Our research demonstrates that climatic conditions were almost certainly unstable, with repeated volcanic winters that could have lasted decades, prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs. This instability would have made life difficult for all plants and animals and set the stage for the dinosaur extinction event. Thus our work helps explain this significant extinction event that led to the rise of mammals and the evolution of our species,” said Prof.
Don Baker.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/12/231204135115.htm
ganon1950,
It is noted that you have chosen to remain silent when presented with data inconvenient to your own views.
Geoff S
What data?
Geoff
It can be noted that I was away from my computer for the day. It can also be noted what kind of person you are – one that inserts himself in other’s conversations and launches a personal attack at the slightest perceived opening.
Burl,
I guess you couldn’t follow the arithmetic. I compared year pairs
by the amount of reduction. I.e., I compared cases of reduction of SO2:
1980 to 2010: SO2 DECREASED (-54,5), T INCREASED (+0.494)
1980 vs 1950: SO2 DECREASED (-91), T DECREASED (-0,412)
I’ll do it again, simply by year order:
1950 – 1980; SO2 INCREASED 91 Mton, T INCREASED +0.412 C.
1980 – 2010: SO2 DECREASED 54.5 Mton, T INCREASED +0.494 C
Either way you look at it, 1950 to 1980 falsifies your hypothesis – The SO2 emissions increased significantly and the temperature INCREASED significanty, whereas you would predict that it should have decreased.
Sorry for the confusion, but your hypothesis is still falsified.
Ganon1950:
You had it right the first time.
This time you say:
“1950-1980 SO2 INCREASED 91 Mton, T INCREASED +0.412 C
1980 -2010 SO2 DECREASED 54.5 Mton T INCREASED + 4.94 C”
So now, you have stooped to falsifing data, changing -4.94C to +4.94 C !
Again, thank you for validating my hypothesis!
burl,
I had it right both times, just approached it differently. No falsification of data, just simple math: a-b = -(b-a).
I’ll make it even simpler for the simple;
From 1950 to 1980, the SO2 emissions more than doubled, and the temperature went up +0.412 C. Your hypothesis predicts the temperature should have gone down. You can check it yourself, you have the references.
Your hypothesis is false.
Burl,
You are taking that out of context (cherry-picking)
What I indicated is that regardless of whether the SO2 increased or decreased, over the periods quoted, the temperature rose. The former (both T and SO2 increased) falsified your hypothesis.
Please stop with pathetic attempts to rescue your hypothesis. It is false!
Ganon1950:
Here is data which proves that your analysis is B.S.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Arch_2.png
You might also track it down through Climate4you.com
This site has a cumulative graph of HadCRUT monthly average global surface temperature changes.
Its shape is EXACTLY as I have maintained–decreasing temps 1950-1980, and rising after 1980.
Ganon1950:
For 1980-2010, you say SO2 DECREASED by 54.5 Mton and T INCREASED +0.494 C
Earlier (Dec 4), you said “Some of the most convincing DATA that supports CO2-GHG-AGW is the remarkable correlation between temperature and CO2 rise since 1950 without any other viable and tested explanation (yours is neither) for the temperature rise.
And now you say that when SO2 levels decrease, temperatures rise, thus acknowledging hat it is a viable option!
burl,
Your graph is what is B.S. If the data is even real, it has been massaged so much that you can’t tell what it is – The caption is not sufficient to tell what has been done, and there is no textual description or source information. Here is a real analysis done on the raw HadCRUT 5.0.2.0 data set (global monthly average) with NO MASSAGING.
Your hypothesis is still false.
https://mega.nz/file/IvVzTTgA#cp-CCfdj589Dww9_8PhU1uey2VV1ma5n5yZaRlrjknA
Rob Starkey,
I simply stated facts: US consumption is essentially the same as US production. Also, US exports are essentially the same as imports. I presume the imports/exports are economically driven – sell high, buy low.
As for what I support, that would be the same as you – keep the production, which is the same consumption, here in the US. I do not support giving money to Russia or the MIddle east OPEC countries; Nor do I support over-ocean tanker trasport of oil. I also support transitioning to (much) lower oil and coal consumption, which will take the decades you talk about. As for the import/export issue, I think there are things more important that oil companies maximizing profits.
cerescokid,
I don’t care about your unsupported and subjective hyperbolic exaggerations, used in a childish attempt to dismiss data you don’t want to have to deal with. I care about the spatio-statistical analysis of the data that does exist and the uncertainties that are derived for that data.
ganon
I provided data from a peer reviewed scientific study and historical facts. Apparently reality is not your strong suit. As a scientist you need to learn to deal with the science. If it’s uncomfortable and causes you cognitive dissonance there are remedies for that. Guessing is guessing.
No, you provided no DATA, you provided images of two maps that do not contain data, no captions, and no reference to the sources. They are deflections and an attempted cover-up for your statement, “There are no data from 1850.” That was all I contested, and your deflections do not support that statement.
ganon here is the link to the peer reviewed scientific study.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022
You really get rattled when you are proven wrong. What happened to the ethos of scientists having detached objectivity. I always know when you know that you have been proven wrong. You get upset and get up in the middle of the night.
Guesses are guesses no matter how you cut it.
Thanks, you didn’t provide that previously. However, it addresses modern (since 1900) subsurface oceanic temperature measurement. It says nothing about GMST data for 1850, for which you claimed, but have not supported, “There is no [GMST] data for 1850”. Nonetheless, thanks for a real reference to one of your deflections. I don’t mind the personal attacks, they just demonstrate what kind of person you are, and they are just another deflection from the fact that you can’t support your original claim. You can claim spatio-statistically analyzed data with resulting uncertainties are “just guesses,” but that is meaningless without quantification (which HadCRUT gives) because all scientific measurements have uncertainty and are thus “just guesses”.
ganon
I said there was a paucity of ocean data, of which subsurface ocean temperatures is a part.
Geoff and Javier are scientists. Both have engaged in climate research. Javier has written 2 books.
I’m sure some denizens would like you to read the books by Judith and Javier and report back to us on the factual inaccuracies found in the books by Javier and Judith.
They are guessing, still, about subsurface ocean temperatures in 1850.
You’re still deflecting. What you said was “There is no data for 1850”, and that is wrong, and deflections don’t change it. All you had to do was say, “I was wrong and I exaggerated, what I really meant was that; compared to what we have today, in the mid-1800s there was a paucity of data and it was of lower quality. Then I would have agreed with you. I’m not disputing the deflections that you go on endlessly about – I just don’t care about them in the context of your original, statement, which you have not retracted. Apparently, “I was wrong” (or similar) is not in your vocabulary – you’d obviously rather wage a battle by deflection. Ciao.
ganon
Here is what I said.
“ Wrong. There are no data from 1850. There are only guesses. There was no uniform, reliable compilation of temperature data from that period. Only 12% of the SH had land coverage . Only 40% of NH had land coverage. There were millions of square miles of oceans without systematic compilation of SST or OHC, spatially or temporally before 1850.”
Underline no uniform, reliable compilation of temperature data. No systematic compilation. All is true. There were ad hoc unreliable attempts with no uniform control standards.
You seem to be getting confused easily. You should run for the US Senate.
The fact remains, there is data from 1850.
ganon
The purpose of gathering data for scientific research is to identify true value. The challenges of gathering data from 170 years ago are daunting and many but those I will cover later. Here I will cover some of the inadequacies even in more contemporary settings. The following quotes are from Kennedy 2013 which provides background of obtaining SST readings on ships.
“ Most historical SST measurements were not made by dedicated scientific vessels but by voluntary observing ships (VOS) on the basis that they would contribute to the safety of life at sea. This is reflected in the geographical distribution of observations, which are largely confined to major shipping lanes.”
“ As the demands for SST measurements have changed, so have the instruments used to make them, and so have the ships and other vessels from which the measurements were made. The first systematic observations were made using buckets to collect water samples. Buckets made of wood, canvas, tin, leather, brass, rubber, and plastic—of designs as various as the materials employed in their construction—have all been used to measure the temperature of the surface layers of the ocean. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that during the collection and hauling, the temperature of the water sample can be modified by the combined actions of latent and sensible heat transfer and the warmth of the Sun. Even in the best conditions, an accurate measurement requires diligence on the part of the sailor; that is the second problem.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013RG000434
More from Kennedy 2013
“ After the advent of steam ships in the late nineteenth century, it was routine to measure the temperature of the sea water that was circulated through the steam condenser. Condenser inlet measurements and later, engine room inlet (ERI) measurements, were often recorded in ship logbooks, but they were not entered into meteorological logs until the 1930s. The convenience of using measurements that were made as a matter of routine, and the attendant reduction in the risk of losing a bucket or sailor overboard, meant that ERI measurements became the preferred method for measuring SST on board ships during the latter half of the twentieth century. That is not to say that the method was without its difficulties. Modification of the temperature of the water between inlet and thermometer was still a problem, and it was now compounded by the varying depth of the measurements.”
“In a 2010 paper, Jones and Wigley [2010] identified uncertainties associated with pervasive systematic errors in SST data sets as an important uncertainty in the estimation of global temperature trends. The obvious gulf between the ideal and the reality leads naturally to questions about the reliability of the SST record. Often this question is couched as a yes/no dichotomy: “are SST records reliable?” A more useful question is “How reliable are they?” Although historical measurements were not made for climate research, or any single purpose, it does not mean that it is impossible to derive from them a record that is useful to a particular end. However, it does mean that special care must be taken in identifying and, as best as possible, quantifying uncertainties.”
More from Kennedy 2013
“ Broadly speaking, errors in individual SST observations have been split into two groupings: random observational errors and systematic observational errors. Although this is a convenient way to deal with the uncertainties, errors in SST measurements will generally share a little of the characteristics of each.
Random observational errors occur for many reasons: misreading of the thermometer, rounding errors, the difficulty of reading the thermometer to a precision higher than the smallest marked gradation, incorrectly recorded values, errors in transcription from written to digital sources, and sensor noise among others.”
“…. where observations are few, random observational errors can be an important component of the total uncertainty.”
“ Systematic observational errors are much more problematic, because their effects become relatively more pronounced as greater numbers of observations are aggregated. Systematic errors might occur because a particular thermometer is miscalibrated or poorly sited.”
“ In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the majority of observations were made using buckets to haul a sample of water up to the deck for measurement. Although buckets were not always of a standard shape or size, they had a general tendency under typical environmental conditions to lose heat via evaporation or directly to the air when the air-sea temperature difference was large”
More from Kennedy 2013
“Generally, systematic errors are dealt with by making adjustments based on knowledge of the systematic effects. The adjustments are uncertain because the variables that determine the size of the systematic error are imperfectly known. The atmospheric conditions at the point where the measurement was made, the method used to make the measurement—ERI or bucket—the material used in the construction of the bucket, if one was used, as well as the general diligence of the sailors making the observations have not in many cases been reliably recorded. Part of the uncertainty can be estimated by allowing uncertain parameters and inputs to the adjustment algorithms to be varied within their plausible ranges, thus, generating a range of adjustments [e.g., Kennedy et al. [2011c]]. This parametric uncertainty gives an idea of the uncertainties associated with poorly determined parameters within a particular approach, but it does not address the more general uncertainty arising from the underlying assumptions. This uncertainty will be dealt with later as structural uncertainty.
First, however, there are a number of other uncertainties associated with the creation of the gridded data sets and SST analyses that are commonly used as a convenient alternative to dealing with individual marine observations. The uncertainties are closely related because they arise in the estimation of area-averages from a finite number of noisy and often sparsely distributed observations.”
More from Kennedy 2013
“ Traditionally, in situ SST analyses have been considered representative of the upper 10 or so meters of the ocean. However, the near-surface temperature structure of the ocean can be rather complex. Under conditions of low wind speed and high insolation, a stable stratified layer of warm water can form near the surface. For a recent review, see Kawai and Wada [2007]. The diurnal temperature range of the sea surface can, under certain conditions, exceed 5 K and, somewhat attenuated, penetrate to many tens of meters [Prytherch et al., 2013]. This can lead to strong temperature gradients in the upper few meters of the ocean, and consequently, measurements made at the same time and location but at different depths can record quite different temperatures. Temperatures measured at the same depth but at different times of day can also differ markedly.”
“ Unfortunately, such niceties of definition are not readily applicable to historical SST measurements and the effect of the interaction between measurement depth and water temperature on SST measurements in in situ archives is not clear. For many ships that measure the temperature of water drawn in below the surface, the depth of the measurements is not known and is likely to have changed depending on how heavily the ship was loaded. Nor is it clear to what extent any warm surface layer is mixed with cooler subsurface water by the passage of the ship or by the interaction of wind, water, Sun, and hull [Amot, 1954; Stevenson, 1964]. Similar interactions have been noted closer to the surface with moored buoys [Kawai and Kawamura, 2000]. James and Fox [1972] found that ERI measurements from ships became progressively warmer relative to simultaneous bucket observations as the depth of the ERI measurement increased, a similar pattern to that seen by Kent et al. [1993]. Reynolds et al. [2010] found that measurements made by ships, which were largely ERI measurements in their study period, were on average warmer than nearby drifting buoy observations made nearer to the surface.”
More from Kennedy 2013
“Unfortunately, such niceties of definition are not readily applicable to historical SST measurements and the effect of the interaction between measurement depth and water temperature on SST measurements in in situ archives is not clear. For many ships that measure the temperature of water drawn in below the surface, the depth of the measurements is not known and is likely to have changed depending on how heavily the ship was loaded. Nor is it clear to what extent any warm surface layer is mixed with cooler subsurface water by the passage of the ship or by the interaction of wind, water, Sun, and hull [Amot, 1954; Stevenson, 1964]. Similar interactions have been noted closer to the surface with moored buoys [Kawai and Kawamura, 2000]. James and Fox [1972] found that ERI measurements from ships became progressively warmer relative to simultaneous bucket observations as the depth of the ERI measurement increased, a similar pattern to that seen by Kent et al. [1993]. Reynolds et al. [2010] found that measurements made by ships, which were largely ERI measurements in their study period, were on average warmer than nearby drifting buoy observations made nearer to the surface.”
More from Kennedy 2013
“A related problem is that changing times of observation could potentially interact with the diurnal cycle of temperature leading to spurious trends in the data. Kent et al. [2010] note “The implicit assumption is that the sampling of conditions is regular enough that no regional or time-varying bias is introduced into the data sets by neglecting such effects.” Ships currently make SST observations at regular intervals throughout the day, typically every 4 or 6 h, which is sufficient to minimize the aliasing of diurnal cycles, particularly if the measurements are made at depth. During earlier periods when buckets were widely used, there were systematic changes in the time of observation that might have a more pronounced effect on average SSTs, but this has not been quantified.
Even when the measurement depth is known, there are potential problems. Metadata in WMO Publication 47 show that ships measure water temperatures through a wide range of depths from the near surface down to around 25 m [Kent et al., 2007]. Although the average depth was typically less than 10 m, the deepest measurements could be sampling water that is colder than the SSTfnd. How large this effect might be is not yet well understood.”
More from Kennedy 2013
“ A related problem is that changing times of observation could potentially interact with the diurnal cycle of temperature leading to spurious trends in the data. Kent et al. [2010] note “The implicit assumption is that the sampling of conditions is regular enough that no regional or time-varying bias is introduced into the data sets by neglecting such effects.” Ships currently make SST observations at regular intervals throughout the day, typically every 4 or 6 h, which is sufficient to minimize the aliasing of diurnal cycles, particularly if the measurements are made at depth. During earlier periods when buckets were widely used, there were systematic changes in the time of observation that might have a more pronounced effect on average SSTs, but this has not been quantified.
Even when the measurement depth is known, there are potential problems. Metadata in WMO Publication 47 show that ships measure water temperatures through a wide range of depths from the near surface down to around 25 m [Kent et al., 2007]. Although the average depth was typically less than 10 m, the deepest measurements could be sampling water that is colder than the SSTfnd. How large this effect might be is not yet well understood.”
“ Measurements are not all of identical quality. Kent and Challenor [2006] showed that in the period 1970–1997, the uncertainties of measurements from ships varied with location, time, measurement method, and the country that recruited the ship. Uncertainties were estimated to be larger in the mid-1970s probably due to data being incorrectly transmitted in real time in the early days of the Global Telecommunication System. Their estimated uncertainty for engine room measurements was larger than for bucket measurements. Tabata [1978a] noted that bucket measurements could be accurate to 0.15 K, but that ERI measurements were nearly an order of magnitude worse (1.16 K).”
“ An important component of the uncertainty of adjustments for the effects of persistent systematic errors arises from a lack of knowledge concerning how the measurements were made. Metadata are often missing, incomplete, or ambiguous, and sometimes different sources give conflicting information. Kent et al. [2007] assessed metadata from ICOADS and WMO Publication 47. They found disagreement in around 20–40% of cases where metadata were available from both sources. Kennedy et al. [2011c] allowed for up to 50% uncertainty in metadata assignments based on the discrepancy between observer instructions and measurement methods recorded in WMO Publication 47. Hirahara et al. [2013] used differences between subsets of data to infer the fraction of observations made using different methods.”
More from Kennedy 2013
“ A key barrier to understanding SST uncertainty is a lack of appropriate metadata. Better information is needed concerning how measurements were made, which method was used to make a particular observation, calibration information, the depths at which observations were made, and even basic information such as the call sign or name of the ship that made a particular observation.”
“A key weakness of historical SST data sets is the lack of attention paid to evaluating the effects of data biases particularly in the post-1941 records. Further independent estimates of the biases produced need to be undertaken using as diverse a range of means as possible and the robust critique of existing methods must continue. Ideally, these would be complemented by carefully designed field tests of buckets and other measurement methods.
Combining new analysis techniques that have been appropriately benchmarked with novel approaches to assessing uncertainty arising from systematic errors, pervasive systematic errors and their adjustments will give new end-to-end analyses that will help to explore the uncertainties in historical SSTs in a more systematic manner.”
From Frank 2023
“The same general assumption of random sensor-measurement error attends contemporaneous discussions of bucket and ship engine-intake sea-surface temperature (SST) measurements. Most modern workers account systematic error as stemming only from methodological imprecision, which is treated as a single-valued offset bias that can be removed by differencing. However, SST field-calibration experiments led earlier researchers to be more critical and far less sanguine. Thus, the 1975 meteorological data set compiled by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) noted that, “the RMS of differences between ship observations and Navy analyses based mostly on ship observations is [±]1.4 °C” (RMS is root-mean-square) [83]. Likewise, Weare, and Gleiker and Weare, surveyed sensor-measurement error and concluded that ±0.5 °C systematic uncertainty conditioned both global land-surface and sea-surface temperatures.
However, these cautions have not found their way into the published record.”
From Frank 2023
“ In recognition of this state, Saur concluded that, “without improved quality control, the sea-surface temperature data reported currently and in the past are for the most part adequate only for general climatological studies …. If ship biases can be determined and corrections applied to existing sea water temperature records, it is estimated that the standard deviation of differences would be reduced to 1.3 °F (0.72 °C)”. Saur’s judgment corroborates the findings of the WMO, of Walden, and of Brooks, and is applicable to the entire SST record prior to 1963. ”
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976
“ One of the largest sources of uncertainty in estimates of global temperature change is that associated with the correction of systematic errors in sea surface temperature (SST) measurements. Despite recent work to quantify and reduce these errors throughout the historical record, differences between analyses remain larger than can be explained by the estimated uncertainties.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029867
“ The results shown here reveal a level of regional uncertainty in observed SSTs that is not widely acknowledged in the climate dynamics literature. In our view, it should be. Confidence in observed decadal variability derives from confidence in the bias adjustments applied to the SST data. And as shown here, the uncertainty in the bias adjustment schemes is frequently comparable to the amplitude of the observed decadal variability itself. ”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/4/bams-d-18-0104.1.xml
“ There remain major uncertainties associated with SST reconstructions that potentially have first-order implications for our understanding of internal and externally forced variations in climate ”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/18/jcliD190972.xml
From Kent 2006
“ There are significant differences between SST observations made by different methods. The rounding of reports is more common for engine-intake SST than for either bucket or hull sensor SST, which degrades its quality. Significant time-varying biases exist between SST derived from buckets and from engine intakes. The SST difference has a strong seasonal signal with bucket SST being relatively cold in winter, probably resulting from heat loss from the buckets, and warm in summer, probably resulting from solar warming or the sampling of a shallow warm layer. There is also a long-term trend with engine-intake SST being relatively warm in the early period but with a small annual mean difference between the two methods by 1990.”
“….. made a comprehensive comparison of a global dataset of deep-water simultaneous bucket and engine-intake SSTs measured on merchant ships from several countries. They found differences that depended on the time of day, ship size, depth of intake, distance inboard of the intake thermometer, wind speed, air–sea temperature difference, precipitation, the type of intake thermometer, the type of bucket, and the side of the ship on which the observation was taken.”
“ The bucket observation of SST is expected to be prone to several sources of error. The sample in the bucket can cool by evaporation from the top surface or from the walls of the bucket in dry or windy conditions (Parker 1985). If the air–sea temperature difference is large the sample may be directly cooled, or less usually, warmed. These effects will be large for canvas buckets.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/23/3/jtech1843_1.xml
More from Kent 2006
“Bucket measurements of SST tend to sample the near-surface waters. This is particularly true when the bucket is deployed from large or fast-moving ships and in high wind speed conditions. Under these conditions it is difficult to immerse the bucket, which can bounce along the sea surface. Differences between bucket and other measurement techniques might therefore occur because of the formation of a diurnal warm layer. The bucket will preferentially sample this near-surface warm layer; the other methods will sample cooler water below.”
“There will have been changes in the method of engine-intake SST measurement over the period of this study. Early engine-intake temperatures may have been taken with a mercury thermometer in a well in the intake pipe or from a dial with temperature intervals of several degrees. Engine-intake temperatures are now more likely to be taken with an electrical thermometer. On the U.S. Navy ships studied by Saur (1963), the engine-intake thermometer was a mercury thermometer protected by a metal sleeve inserted into a well in the engine-intake pipe. There were examples of incrustation and fouling, poor exposure of the thermometer well to the flow in the pipe, air pockets inside the thermometer well, and heat conduction along metal supports to the thermometer bulb. All of these could give rise to errors in engine-intake measurements.”
Still more from Kent 2006
“The term “reporting preference” is used to describe the effect of the human observer on the distribution of measurements. When there is manual intervention in making a report there is a natural tendency to round the report, perhaps to a whole number or to half a degree. The VOS SST reports contained within ICOADS show reporting preferences that vary between countries and instrument types. Excepting half degrees, even decimal places are favored over odd. Over the whole period of 1970–97 45% of the VOS SST reports are in whole degrees and 12% are half degrees. Of the remainder of the reports, even-numbered decimal places are most numerous with temperatures with a last digit of 2 or 8 contributing 7% each and those with 6 or 4 slightly over 5%. SSTs with an odd-numbered last digit, excepting 5, are most poorly represented, contributing less than 5% each. Although each country shows some preference for whole and half degrees and even last digits there is a strong variation between countries.”
“Any bias between the methods will therefore lead to regional- and basin-scale biases in the SST field. These biases will also vary with time as measurement methods change and the methods themselves improve: canvas buckets are phased out and remote-reading precision engine-intake thermometers become more common. There are significant differences between SST derived from the different methods”
From Smith 2004
“The 95% confidence uncertainty for the near-global average is 0.4°C or more in the nineteenth century, near 0.2°C for the first half of the twentieth century, and 0.1°C or less after 1950.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/17/12/1520-0442_2004_017_2466_ieros_2.0.co_2.xml
“ The linear warming between 1850 and 2004 was 0.52° ± 0.19°C (95% confidence interval) for the globe,….”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/3/jcli3637.1.xml
So, old measurements are not as good and as frequent (time and space) as modern ones – I think we knew that, but it is good to see it quantified. Also, reanalysis is good, and necessary, to make older data sets and methods consistent with modern ones – also it is not fudging the data to align it with an “agenda”, I think that was also already known.
I find it interesting that the only “significant” corrections were ~1900-1940, not 1850-1880, and that those corrections (1) brought 1900-1940 more in line with what would be expected from atmospheric CO2 growth, and makes the multidecadal oscillations a bit less pronounced.
Thanks for all your literature research. Isn’t it wonderful how science advances, often in response to the concerns of skeptics?
These graphs show how the overwhelming SST sampling was from shipping lanes, leaving millions of square miles without regular, observations. The graph x shows spatial coverage of 1degree by 1 degree was only 10% for times before 1900.
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/436974/fmars-06-00441-HTML/image_m/fmars-06-00441-g002.jpg
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00441/full
Thanks for providing links for all the clips you have presented. While those clips are clearly chosen to emphasize the uncertainties in old data, the links allow easy access to the whole articles so that the chosen clips can be seen in context, and one can also see the efforts that have been made, to the degree possible, to repair those data deficiencies. Enough dwelling in the past – data for the last 60+ years is quite good, both for precision and coverage. Again, motives aside, thanks for your efforts.
ganon
The common theme that I have raised during all our exchanges is that non CO2 factors are ubiquitous throughout all the record. That is true for SLR, Antarctica, Arctic, flooding, etc. What fraction of the total change is attributed to non CO2 factors will be debated forever.
Relative to SST, IPCC6 9.2.1.1 says global SST increased from 1980 to 2020 by .6C. The cool phase of the last change in the AMO Index surrounded 1980. We are now in the warm phase of the AMO Index. The AMO Index went from -4 to +2 during that same period.
It will be interesting to see what the increase in SST will be from 1980 to 2040. If past is prologue, then probably not much.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg/2560px-Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg.png
Christos,
No paradox. It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C and a frozen ball covered in ice and frost (sublimation and refreezing). This would result in a greatly increased albedo (>0.8) exacerbating the situation further. It would also obviously affect your hypothesis because of albedo as well as C_p less than 0.47.
If you worried that the equator-pole temperature differential of 50 – 60 C is not large enough on (real) Earth, it is easily explained atmospheric circulation and oceanic currents that transport heat from the tropics to the poles.
ganon, thank you for your response.
“If you worried that the equator-pole temperature differential of 50 – 60 C is not large enough on (real) Earth, it is easily explained atmospheric circulation and oceanic currents that transport heat from the tropics to the poles.”
I am not worried, but on the earth-witout-atmosphere there would not be “atmospheric circulation and oceanic currents that transport heat from the tropics to the poles.”
That is why I say, of course there is a paradox.
–
The average +33C the alleged atmospheric greenhouse warming, it should be at equator some +55C.
–
So, without the atmosphere, it leads to the conclusion, it would be at equator below zero C, which is impossible. That is why I tell you there is an obvious paradox here.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The obvious paradox is that there is no Earth without atmosphere, and your treatment of the real Earth, with atmosphere, is incomplete and you obtain your +55 C at the equator from your incomplete treatment of the real earth: you incorrectly calculate the temperature of the real earth as if it were the imaginary earth and then add 33 C. That is both double dipping and a circular argument.
It is a paradox, because there is not any average +33C atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I begin with the Hansen approximation, under equilibrium conditions:
P(out) = εσAT^4 = P(in) = (1-α)S(A/4)
where ε = emissivity, σ = Stefan Boltzmann constant (5.67 W/m² °K), A is the earth surface area, T is the Kelvin temperature, α = albedo, S is the solar irradiance at 1 a.u. (1362 W/m²), and A/4 is the area of Earth’s occlusion disk.
Rearranging:
T = [(1-α)S/(4εσ)]^¼
In the initial approximation, which assumed nothing on earth changed except lack of atmospheric effects, with α = 0.3 and ε = 1.0 results in T = 254.6 °K.
My assumption would be that at this (average) temperature the world would look very different (a ball covered in ice and frost, the latter from sublimation and re-condensation). Thus, I use α = 0.8, the average albedo for continental Antarctica, and ε = 0.97 for ice. The resulting temperature calculated for the “ice world” is T = 187.6 °K.
I conclude that the climatic temperature change in going from an atmosphere-free ice world (only hypothetical, never existed) to the current state (GMST ≈ 288 °K), including atmospheric GHG effects, temperature based feedbacks (including changes to the internal climate system with T) would be:
ΔT ≈ +100 °K of climatic warming
Albedo effects are very important!
Thank you, ganon
–
“Christos,
I begin with the Hansen approximation, under equilibrium conditions:
P(out) = εσAT^4 = P(in) = (1-α)S(A/4)
where ε = emissivity, σ = Stefan Boltzmann constant (5.67 W/m² °K), A is the earth surface area, T is the Kelvin temperature, α = albedo, S is the solar irradiance at 1 a.u. (1362 W/m²), and A/4 is the area of Earth’s occlusion disk.
Rearranging:
T = [(1-α)S/(4εσ)]^¼
In the initial approximation, which assumed nothing on earth changed except lack of atmospheric effects, with α = 0.3 and ε = 1.0 results in T = 254.6 °K. “
–
Ok, but the T = T = 254.6 °K is only a mathematical abstraction.
–
“My assumption would be that at this (average) temperature the world would look very different (a ball covered in ice and frost, the latter from sublimation and re-condensation). Thus, I use α = 0.8, the average albedo for continental Antarctica, and ε = 0.97 for ice. The resulting temperature calculated for the “ice world” is T = 187.6 °K.”
–
We discuss a scientific paradox here.
At Earth’s distance from the sun, “S is the solar irradiance at 1 a.u. (1362 W/m²), at Earth’s distance from the sun, a planet Earth without-atmosphere would be a planet without water, because there wouldn’t be the atmospheric pressure to “hold” the liquid water from intensive evaporation at the equatorial areas.
–
Also, the H2O vapor is a very light gas, thus it would have escaped to space, as it has escaped from the closer to sun, and thus hotter Venus, where it could not had condensated to liquid oceans, and where only a much heavier gas CO2 has been left.
–
As a result, Earth without-atmosphere, the equatorial areas would have been much warmer, than they are now, and not some below the zero temperatures areas.
–
That is why what we discuss is a scientific thought experiment which leads to an obvious paradox.
–
Just look at the Moon, it is at the same distance from the sun, it has some water ice deposits in the deep craters at the Polar areas, and it is very hot ~90C at the noon.
–
“I conclude that the climatic temperature change in going from an atmosphere-free ice world (only hypothetical, never existed) to the current state (GMST ≈ 288 °K), including atmospheric GHG effects, temperature based feedbacks (including changes to the internal climate system with T) would be:
ΔT ≈ +100 °K of climatic warming
Albedo effects are very important!”
–
The Albedo, on planet Earth without-atmosphere would be close to the Moon’s measured Albedo (a =0,11).
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
” there wouldn’t be the atmospheric pressure to “hold” the liquid water from intensive evaporation at the equatorial areas.”
Atmospheric pressure does not hold the (primordial) liquid water, gravity does. Only H2 and He have a sufficient fractional velocity to escape Earth’s gravity. Also at these temperatures, the sublimation vapor pressure of ice is very small, what did sublime would be pulled back to the surface and re-condense. The comparison to the moon is invalid. And even if you want to make a comparison to the moon, with its low albedo, the average temperature is -38.5 (-183 dark side, +106 light side), The earth would stay closer to the average because of the much higher spin rate.
Solar flux cannot be averaged, because solar flux interacts with spherical surface, and not with the flat disk.
–
Solar flux cannot be averaged, because it is not absorbed.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That is why you divide by 4 instead of 2. A fraction of the solar flux IS absorbed (as determined by albedo). But I agree it is an approximation. More appropriate would be spatio-temporal integration, including incidence angle dependence of albedo reflection (which at high angles is higher albedo than at normal incidence, thus even colder temperatures).
ganon,
” The comparison to the moon is invalid. And even if you want to make a comparison to the moon, with its low albedo, the average temperature is -38.5 (-183 dark side, +106 light side), The earth would stay closer to the average because of the much higher spin rate.”
–
What do you estimate earth’s without-atmosphere, with the moon’s low albedo, the earth’s noon temperature at the equator then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“That is why you divide by 4 instead of 2. A fraction of the solar flux IS absorbed (as determined by albedo). But I agree it is an approximation. More appropriate would be spatio-temporal integration, including incidence angle dependence of albedo reflection (which at high angles is higher albedo than at normal incidence, thus even colder temperatures).”
–
I do not divide by 4.
I do not divide by 4 the incident solar flux.
The 4 comes from the calculation of the planet spherical surface total area, which is
4πr²
–
The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rotational spin, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Where:
Jemit (W) – is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)
r – is the planet radius
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N – rotation /per day, is planet’s rotational spin with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I would estimate (wild guess) that difference from “average” would be about the same as it is now with atmosphere x2 for the lower C_p; maybe 20-30 K above the average, or about 220 K for the imaginary ice covered planet without atmosphere.
OK, I think I get that in principle. then how do you (1) calculate the solar flux absorbed if it is not S_o(1-α)πr2? (2) How do you account for heat conduction which causes heating of the subsurface on the light side, and replenishment of emissive losses on the dark side? (3) Can you derive/describe β from first principles if it is to be a universal constant?
“I don’t even know how to do bold or italics (or sub/superscripts) here. But I would like to.”
–
That is how you start the sentence.
Then you close it with.
For “bold”, instead of ψ, you write b.
For “italic”, instead of ψ, you write i.
Start End
I hope it shows now.
and
I am afraid, i cannot show you, and I cannot explain, it is better to continue with the paradox.
Is it standard html (which I would have to learn)?
Jim,
Thanks!
ganon,
“OK, I think I get that in principle,”
Thank you. It is not easy for me to explain what you asking, because I am not a specialist in sientific research, and that is why I need help from a specialist in scientific research. I always do the best I can to become understood…
Please, ganon, what do you think I do?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The above is valid for all planets and moons without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included).
Christos,
I do not know what you do.
For your research, I would suggest a literature search to find what others have had to say on the subject. Perhaps start with:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Roy-W-Spencer-5628228
Include the discussions.
It appears that Dr. Spencer has thought about this problem in some detail, although it appears that he has only done the temporal-latitudinal integrations that I have suggested. He is also an expert in climate science and Earth temperature measurements (which I am not). Perhaps you could write up your “fundamental” equation in concise form and ask him to review it.
ganon,
“how do you (1) calculate the solar flux absorbed if it is not S_o(1-α)πr2?”
–
I do not calculate the absorbed part, what I do is to correctly calculate the not reflected portion of the incident on planet the TOTAL solar energy:
πr²*Φ*(1 -a)*S by the use of the Φ -the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet spherical shape and roughness coefficient).
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons.
Φ =1 for heavy cratered planets and moons, and, also for gases planets and moons.
the not reflected portion of the incident on planet the TOTAL solar energy:
πr²*Φ*(1 -a)*S is the TOTAL solar energy which actually interacts with the planetary surface.
The same πr²*Φ*(1 -a)*S is the TOTAL IR emitted, because of energy in = energy out to met
–
“(2) How do you account for heat conduction which causes heating of the subsurface on the light side, and replenishment of emissive losses on the dark side?”
The part of energy, which is absorbed as heat “travels” and gets emitted from the dark side along with the rotating surface.
–
“(3) Can you derive/describe β from first principles if it is to be a universal constant?”
I cannot. And we have unknown principles – the not reflected portion of the incident on planet the TOTAL solar energy:
πr²*Φ*(1 -a)*S does not get absorbed in surface, only a part of it gets absorbed.
Maybe we do not know everything that is going on in nature yet.
Aren’t there other universal constants which are not derived/described from first principles?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, ganon, for your interest in my work.
I hope scientists will eventually conclude: there is not +33C atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Nevermind, we have been through this numerous times.
ganon,
“Christos,
No paradox. It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C and a frozen ball covered in ice and frost (sublimation and refreezing). This would result in a greatly increased albedo (>0.8) exacerbating the situation further. It would also obviously affect your hypothesis because of albedo as well as C_p less than 0.47.”
–
I’ll try to calculate Earth’s Effective temperature with albedo
a =08
So = 1362 W/m²
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴
ε =1
Te = [(1-α)S/(4εσ)]¹∕ ⁴
Te = [(1-0,8)1362/(4εσ)]¹∕ ⁴ = [0,2*1362 /4εσ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te = (1.201.058.201)¹∕ ⁴ = 186K or -87 °C
–
This Earth’s Te =186K or -87 °C ( a uniform surface blackbody temperature)
1362 W/m² *0,2 /4 = 68,1 W/m² (a uniform surface blackbody IR EM energy emission )
–
It is a paradox.
Clearly there is something very wrong here. A real body
at -87 °Cnever emits 68,1 W/m², because it doesn’t happen.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No paradox, bad conclusion
1362* 0.2 = 272.4 W/m² absorbed
68.1 W/m²*(4m²_out/1m²_in) =272.4 W/m²
Stefan-Boltzmann says it happens for a black body.
The only difference is ε =0.97 for ice, so P_out = 66.1 W/m²
Ice is a poor absorber, but close to a perfect blackbody emitter.
The paradox is for -87 °C
the P_out = 66.1 W/m² is too much, it doesn’t happen.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Go argue about it with Stefan and Boltzmann and be sure to tell them WHY it doesn’t happen.
A small room at Te =186K or -87 °C
3m*3m*3m has roof, floor and walls 3m*3m *6 = 54 m²
now
54 m² *66.1 W/m² = 3570 W
–
ganon, it is a very hot room for its 186K or -87 °C !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not if the outside of the box is emitting 3570 W into the vacuum of space at 2.7 K (as the atmosphere-free dark side of a planet would). Then it is (will become) a very cold box. If fact, if the outside of the box emits at all, it will come into equilibrium with the surrounding temperature.
If your intuition leads you to a physical paradox, the first thing you should do is carefully examine what your intuition has told you, and learn from it.
ganon, you dropped that idea:
Earth’s equilibrium blackbody temperature
Te =186K or -87 °C
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect should be considered as:
288 K – 186 K = 102°C
Since Earth without-atmosphere should be considered with Albedo ~0,8 or even higher.
–
It is a good idea. Our Earth without-atmosphere shouldn’t be cosidered having Albedo a =0,3 , because it is not real condition.
–
Thus, Earth’s atmosphere warms earth’s surface by the average 102°C.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes! Even if the water came from asteroids, or maybe early volcanic activity, eventually it would spread out and cover every thing with frost by sublimation and recondensation.
There will be no shortage of rain in Australia, both north and south.
https://i.ibb.co/bddK8D7/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
This article seems very sensible, and I agree with the description of the scientific process and the political process, and I support he views in this article.
There is a genuine problem however, which can be illustrated with smoking and cancer. There was a general, growing scientific consensus that cigarettes caused cancer for many years, but the tobacco industry put up a great deal of money to fight this idea, setting up fake think tanks and funding scientists to cast doubt on the consensus. This would be fine, and science is quite capable of eventually reaching agreement, except **it mattered**. Milllions of people died as a result of this deliberate campaign of obfuscation. Many scientists felt that it was a moral imperative to establish a consensus that could result in legislation that could save millions of lives. This unfortunately leads to a situation where genuine debate is stifled.
The climate change issue is exactly the same. There are powerful interests (the oil industry) that have been trying to cast doubt on climate change for several decades now. Many scientists passionately believe that there is a moral imperative to take action, and that deliberate “bad actors” are wicked and should be silenced as a moral imperative. This leads to a situation where genuine debate is silenced as well – the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.
A bunch of words, Tim. Oil isn’t tobacco. CO2 doesn’t cause cancer, in fact it’s a beneficial gas, the gas of life.
Inhaling tobacco into your lungs isn’t natural. CO2 has been around in the cycle of life for millions of year.
There is no resemblance between fossil fuels and tobacco. This is a false analogy.
Yes, the fossil fuel companies may have used some PR to promote their product. So what, it is a beneficial product to mankind. It has save millions from dying from cold and heat. It is the life’s blood of modern life.
Climate science isn’t a hard science. It is more like sociology or psychology, not like physics, chemistry, or biology.
The results put out there by alarmist climate researchers is highly uncertain. The information produced by them isn’t fit as a basis for policy.
not just a bunch of words. actually an important point that you seem to miss. nobody is equating oil with tobacco. the point is that claiming concensus is not necessarily a bad thing and claiming that no concensus exists (as the tobacco industry did, quite deceptively) is not necessarily a good thing.
what i don’t fully understand is that the concensus around climate science is not really in dispute by dr. curry. yes, she may question the extremity of the warming of some forecasts, but the basic view that the climate is warming due to increasing co2 due to burning fossil fuels is settled science. the deniers – meaning those that denied agw was a real thing – were wrong. the debate has now moved on to whether this warming is dangerous, and if so, how dangerous. this is not a climate science debate at all but one that involves everything from economics to ecology. so i don’t understand the argument about the problem of a “false concensus” around climate science when the concensus was correct.
Tim | December 8, 2023 at 4:15 am | Reply- The climate change issue is exactly the same. There are powerful interests (the oil industry) that have been trying to cast doubt on climate change for several decades now.
Tim you may have that backwards – maybe climate activists are pushing a false narrative.
there is no doubt that Co2 has increased since circa 1850ish and the earth has been on a 150 yr warming trend. There is little doubt that the the co2 increase has contributed to some part of the warming However there remaining significant legitimate scientific dispute as to what extent the warming has been due to co2 increase. Legitimate scientific dispute as opposed to “manufactured consensus”.
The credibility of the climate science community is not enhanced by some of the shenanigans in the field such as the corruption in the paleo reconstruction arena, the fake inquiries associated with climategate, etc. similar issues with the near academic fraud in the gas stove asthma study or the 200-300+ studies showing the the world can be powered with 100% renewables.
the point is that there is as much, if not more , deception in the pro agw climate science arena than the anti agw climate science arena.
The honest climate scientists would do well with their messaging if they policed the activists.
Tim, the argument is made that China and India will not get on board with Net Zero unless America shows strong leadership in the fight against climate change by presenting a credible plan for the US itself to achieve Net Zero.
No such credible plan for achieving Net Zero in the United States currently exists.
Is it not true that President Biden has all the authority he needs as President of the United States to declare a climate emergency and to immediately impose a fast track program for reaching Net Zero for the US by 2050?
I’ve written an expansive essay over on WUWT which explores in great depth the question of just how far Joe Biden could go legally and constitutionally if he wanted to quickly reduce America’s carbon footprint.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/27/open-thread-61/#comment-3773397
The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP): a fast track approach for eliminating fossil fuels from America’s economy (WUWT, August 28th, 2023):
“Achieving Net Zero for America’s electric power sector by 2035, and Net Zero for America’s economy as a whole by 2050, cannot be accomplished without imposing strictly-enforced energy conservation measures on the American economy — measures which by necessity must be highly coercive in their impacts and effects. Under this conceptual plan, the United States would be consuming roughly two-thirds as much energy by the year 2030 as we consume today in the year 2023, and possibly only one-third as much energy by the year 2050.”
OK, Tim, the SSCECP includes a provision you might not like. In return for production cutbacks, the SSCECP incentivizes the oil companies to come on board with Net Zero by guaranteeing a level of profits either the same or possibly even higher than what they enjoy today, even while their yearly production of fossil fuels declines.
In its effect, the SSCECP enlists the oil companies as paid agents in managing and implementing the government’s energy rationing program. Being paid by the US Government to reduce production of fossil fuels while earning the same or higher profits is a deal no oil company could possibly turn down.
I think most of the major “oil” companies are now “energy” companies and will adapt to reality, with or without government incentives and guarantees. However, as most climate (and other) scientists know, a “wait and see” approach is not appropriate for dealing with irreversible non-linear dynamics; the earlier influence is exerted, the easier it is to control future trajectories. Indeed, if action is delayed too long, it can become impossible to return to the desired trajectory.
As the old cartoon said, What if we made the world a better place, and it turns out we didn’t have to? Is that so bad?
Hi thanks for your reply. I don’t disagree, I am expressing an opinion that the presence of “bad actors” who deliberately obfuscate an issue with a moral dimension causes a backlash whereby people feel they have to shut down proper debate in order to avoid “bad actors” preventing what they see as a moral imperative. It is a bad thing to shut down scientific debate, I sam trying to understand why it is done so that proper debate can be restored. When it comes to policy the whole issue is greatly complicated by the politics of oil and peak oil.
I agree. I am here to debate the science, although it seems that is not appreciated very much here, and I have to spend a lot of time responding to personal attacks that some seem to think are valid responses to my views of the science, or more likely – as you suggest, they are trying to “shut me down” and make me go away.
Some questions for Tim and for ganon1950:
1) Do either of you support President Biden’s announced goal of achieving Net Zero for the United States by 2050?
2) Have either of you got a strategy and a plan in mind for convincing China and India to make a truly serious effort at achieving Net Zero by 2050?
3) Can either of you point me to a credible strategy and plan for the US to achieve Net Zero by 2050, one which does not involve massive coercive efforts at energy conservation?
4) Is President Biden a ‘bad actor’ because he hasn’t done nearly all he could do as President to quickly reduce America’s carbon footprint, and because his administration has not published a credible plan of action for achieving Net Zero by 2050?
My estimation of their responses.
1) Do either of you support President Biden’s announced goal of achieving Net Zero for the United States by 2050?
YES
2) Have either of you got a strategy and a plan in mind for convincing China and India to make a truly serious effort at achieving Net Zero by 2050?
NO
3) Can either of you point me to a credible strategy and plan for the US to achieve Net Zero by 2050, one which does not involve massive coercive efforts at energy conservation?
NO
4) Is President Biden a ‘bad actor’ because he hasn’t done nearly all he could do as President to quickly reduce America’s carbon footprint, and because his administration has not published a credible plan of action for achieving Net Zero by 2050?
NO-it is politics, they are all bad actors
Yes, yes, yes, no
I challenge ganon to post his plans for points 2 & 3 or be shown to be a repeated liar.
Rob,
No thanks, I’m not in the habit of answering “gotcha” questions that have built in presumptions that I a m forced to accept if I answer. That does not make me a liar. What are your answers to the questions, Rob?
ganon–YOU wrote you had plans to meet points 2 & 3. I asked you to provide said plan or be shown to be a repeated liar. Truth matters and you are lacking. I didn’t write I had plans-you did.
Rob, I answered the questions. I made no commitment to explain my answers to the likes of you. Nevertheless,
#2. My belief is that they are making a serious effort. My plan is to have them continue to do so. I also think leading by example, technology cooperation, and not scapegoating them when their per capita emissions our far less than ours, would all be helpful.
#3. I don’t think “massive coercive efforts at energy conservation” are necessary at all, and thus the question is moot. I think education to offset resistance and orderly transition to other (non FF) energy sources should happen, as it already is. My plan is to support the continuation of that transition. Part of that, is the distasteful task of dealing with people that don’t understand, are not willing to discuss, or simply deny, the generally understood science and it’s implications.
No lie.
Tim, your statement, “There are powerful interests (the oil industry) that have been trying to cast doubt on climate change for several decades now.” is not what started doubt on climate change, tempered emotions and logic did.
Are you saying that the 3% are unemotional and rational, and the 97% are not? Usually, and from what I’ve observed here, it is the other way around.
No ganon, that consensus reference has long since passed. Though I do notice your efforts are as one-sided as those you accuse of being one-sided…
Yeah, that particular concensus number is long past, now used more as a label. And yeah, my efforts are one-sided, also tempered emotions (unless attacked, then I will return in kind) and logical.
J – Anderton – I will add that large parts of climate science is quite solid.
The problem is that large parts of climate science have significant issues, others studies are pure speculation.
It is those crappy studies which create distrust of the good quality science. the climate scientists and the activists are to blame.
A recent study published in Nature projected the jet stream wind speed in the 10kilometers to 15 kilometers were going to be stronger in the future due to climate change. (30k ft to 45k ft). The study stated that they have not been able to detect any change in speed over the last 50 years, but climate change was definitely going cause an acceleration of wind speed.
Just one of the many studies based on pure speculation which is common through out the climate science arena.
Jim2,
“Climate science isn’t a hard science. It is more like sociology or psychology, not like physics, chemistry, or biology.”
That’s not true, climate science is a combination of physics, chemistry, biology, and other PHYSICAL sciences, e.g., geology, glaciology, astronomy, oceanography, meteorology, etc. Human activities just add technologically amplified variability to the biology part. Climate science is based in physical causality, and is not “like” sociology, psychology, economics, and other ‘pseudo` sciences that are not.
ganon,
“climate science is a combination of physics, chemistry, biology, and other PHYSICAL sciences, e.g., geology, glaciology, astronomy, oceanography, meteorology, etc. ….”
–
Jim2,
“The results put out there by alarmist climate researchers is highly uncertain. The information produced by them isn’t fit as a basis for policy.”
“The results put out there by alarmist climate researchers is highly uncertain”.
That is a personal, biased opinion. The climatology is pretty well understood, and that understanding continues to improve with continued scientific investigation. What is highly uncertain is the societal response to that knowledge. The denials put out there by doubters, often without scientific support, isn’t fit as a basis for altering policy.
Well, ganon, you are honest to the point that you characterized climate science as “pretty well” understood. That’s just not good enough to justify 5-10 TRILLION dollars PER YEAR spent on mitigation.
Adaptation is the rational choice.
Adaptation is the rational choice.
Well, Jim2,
I am good with “pretty well understood”, and continued advance. Just like I am good with the standard model of particle physics, and quantum electrodynamics – they are pretty well understood and still advancing. I’m not good with your characterization of climatology as “highly uncertain”. As for using the perceived pejorative “alarmist climate researchers”, perhaps you should consider that they know much more about it than you, are genuinely alarmed, are trying to make the public aware, and are just advocating for rational action on the problem they perceive. As for the costs, you’d have to give supporting evidence for that number, unless you “pulled it out … “, or are just regurgitating talking points that you haven’t investigated. Even if it is a real number, “That’s just not good enough to justify … “, is just another highly biased personal opinion – thanks for that – I’ll take it under consideration. Besides, most of that money would just be new business and go back into the economy – I take it you just don’t like the idea of paying your part for collective action. Regarding adaptation, what are you going to do to help other species adapt to humanitie’s excesses? As for rationality, continued better understanding + mitigation + conservation + adaptation, is the rational choice – “either/or” is irrational.
Ganon – consider that a climate model, while it incorporates elements of physics, chemistry, and biology; isn’t a fundamental expression of a truth of the universe. Climate models are a cobbling together of elements that we know of and believe we understand. They may or, more likely, may not be complete.
We have Newton’s laws, laws laid out by quantum physics, relativity – but climate models are vastly different in quality compared to those theories.
As far as the costs of climate mitigation are concerned, I have recently posted multiple sources that back up the 5-10 TRILLION dollars PER YEAR. You may find those on this blog if you look. Otherwise, please avail yourself of the public internet.
Jim2,
(1) I never said climate models are complete (neither are Newton’s laws of motion), but they are still useful for both understanding and predicting. And, they continue to get better.
(3) If you don’t think it’s important to provide references for your cost estimates, I won’t bother to search through all your unspecified prior posts; rather, I’ll do my own searches. I find estimates, of -2 to 5% of GDP. I find that acceptable, considering the estimates also say that the cost of doing nothing would be much greater. In short, I don’t believe your one-sided “argument” based only on a “scary” large number. Unlike you, I am willing to provide references with realistic analysis, on which I base my opinions.
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/the-arctic-and-climate-change/climate-change-mitigation-whats-the-cost
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01203-6
Very well, ganon. You seem to pivot to the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy when faced with information you don’t like. You quote a 2007 and 2021 article. So would you believe what came out of COP 28??
The annual climate finance needs are projected to rise gradually from USD 8.1 trillion to USD 9 trillion by 2030 in the CPI’s average scenario. Subsequently, these estimates show a significant increase to over USD 10 trillion per year from 2031 to 2050, indicating that climate finance must increase by at least five times annually as soon as possible
This is a ridiculous amount of money. I say again, adaptation is the rational choice.
BTW, ganon, 10 trillion per year is 7 % of WORLD GDP. Not just the US.
Jim2,
I understand that, although you have not provided evidence for that number (“look through all my old comments, is not a reference”), so, as you suggested, I availed myself of the internet and found estimates of -2 to 5% of global GDP – and provided references. I don’t have a problem with that, and your having a problem with it doesn’t change my mind.
I still maintain that, better understanding + mitigation + conservation + adaptation, is a more rational approach than adaptation alone. You didn’t answer my question: what are you going to do to help other species adapt, if adaptation only is the rational response?
Jim2, you conveniently forgot to calculate the cost of adaptation and damages, if adaptation is the only thing that is done. That is not rational.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/09/can-the-economy-afford-not-to-fight-climate-change/
I apologize for forgetting the link.
https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/news/charting-future-cop28-global-commitments-urgent-action-and-kazakhstans-climate-agenda
I can’t estimate the cost of adaption because we don’t yet know what that entails. You can view that as a bug or a feature. It’s a feature because you don’t spend the money unless you see an eminent threat. I believe that’s the best way to g.
Does anyone deny the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t deny it – it is reasonably well known. I believe it has been treated in detail by Volokin & ReLlez in their paper “On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect”.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
In particular, see the section titled “Effect of planet’s rotation rate on regolith heat storage”.
As it turns out, it is not very important for the Earth because of high rotation rate, high surface heat capacity and thermal conductivity, and atmospheric insulation; all leading to small diurnal temperature maximum-minimum differentials of only ~10 – 20 °C. This leads to the upper end (near equality) of Hölder’s inequality, related to the nonlinearity effects of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation integrated over a distribution of temperatures. Additionally, atmospheric and ocean convection reduces meridional temperature differentials.
Thank you, ganon.
–
What is the atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on the Earth’s surface then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It depends on what conditions are assigned to the mythical earth without atmosphere, depending mostly on choice of albedo.
Of course, thank you.
–
We need, though, to correctly estimate what would be the Earth’s greenhouse gases warming effect, without- greenhouse gases.
–
Also, we have the notion of the planet effective temperature, which reffers to a planetary surface without atmosphere, but with the actual existing Albedo.
–
Our purpose is to evaluate the estimated greenhouse effect vs the observed rise in global temperature.
–
If the Global atmospheric greenhouse effect is small ~ 0,4°C, then the temperature rise of 1,5°C from predindustrial period 1850 is not due to fossil fuels (mostly coal, oil and natural gas) burning.
–
If the Global atmospheric greenhouse effect is higher than the temperature rise of 1,5°C, then we need to know how much higher it is.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We need, though, to correctly estimate what would be the Earth’s greenhouse gases warming effect …”
Of course, But more important than the difference between some mythical zero-GHG planet and the “real thing” is the sensitivity to change in the real world. A lot of scientists have been working on that since Arrhenius in 1895, particularly over the last 40 years.
It might be worthwhile to read about the “yardsticks” that scientists use: ECS, TCS, AND ESS (equilibrium climate sensitivity, transient climate sensitivity, and earth system sensitivity).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity/
ECS basically describes what the change will be in the longer term if we can hold CO2 (and other GHGs) constant at some level. It includes known feedbacks.
TCS describes where things will go with a CO2 doubling by increasing 1% per year over 70 years – approximately what is happening now.
ESS is similar to ECS except that it allows for longer term feedbacks, e.g., ice sheet extent and the long carbon cycle.
It is important to note that values for these parameters are not constant, they are estimated relative to pre-industrial conditions – and can change the further away it gets from those conditions. ECS is the most commonly used descriptor for expected climate change.
It also might be worthwhile to read chapter 7 of IPCC AR6 WG1 (figure 7.18 and tables 7.13, 7.14 in particular) to see where the state of understanding was as of a couple of years ago: the average ECS from many studies and different lines of evidence is given as 3.0 C (2.5 – 4.0 C, > 66% likelihood; 2.0 – 5.0 C, >90% likelihood).
Basically this means that if we can stabilize at 560 ppmv CO2, we should expect temperature to stabilize at +3 C (2.5 – 4 C likely) over pre-industrial, and if 1120 ppmv, then +6 C (4 – 10 C, very likely).
Let’s start analysing by comparison of the surface temperatures of two celestial bodies we know the best, and both of them are at the same distance from the sun.
Thus, both having irradiated by the same intensity solar energy flux.
Our Earth (Albedo ~ 0,3) and our Moon (Albedo ~0,11) have almost close values the not reflected portion of incident solar flux.
Earth Φ(1 – α)So = 0,47(1 – 0,3)1362W/m² = 448W/m²
Moon Φ(1 – α)So = 0,47(1 – 0,11)1362W/m² = 570W/m²
–
570 /448 = 1,27 or 27% more solar energy available to interact with Moon’s surface, compared to solar energy available to interact with Earth’s surface.
–
Yet, Earth’s surface is on average +68°C
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!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
No, it is not. Study the paper I referenced yesterday, as well as the integrative simulations of Dr. Spencer that I referenced a few days ago. You are as bad as Burl, in insisting that your incomplete hypotheses, with unsupported assumptions, must be right in disproving the theory of GHG warming. I have pointed out the deficiencies to both of you, but you still insist that you, both apparently without much science background, must be right, while all of 130 years of science and thousands of trained scientists must be wrong. That is an (understandable) psychological problem – one that I am not interested in dealing with.
Thank you, ganon.
“You are as bad as Burl, in insisting that your incomplete hypotheses, with unsupported assumptions, must be right in disproving the theory of GHG warming.”
–
I don’t know…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“…[you insist] that your incomplete hypotheses, with unsupported assumptions, must be right in disproving the theory of GHG warming…one that I am not interested in dealing with.”
No need to insult Christos’ intelligence, Polly. he’s not saying there’s no such thing as a GHG, his arguments are oblique to the consensus is all. I’m positive.
Polly, your sense of self-esteemed relevance about a subject, that you rely on AI for predominant familiarity on, is obnoxious; especially when juxtaposed to Christos’ studied convictions. While neithers ideas presented are canon, at least Christos has agency that goes well beyond the media serf status you deploy, including boiler plate science cred. You should have better respect; rather than parroting things you merely support, or ideas you entertain as being modeled as suitable activist convictions.
While Polly’s typically like to perch high–knowing the fundamentals about flapping ones wings doesn’t make one an expert at navigating unfamiliar terrain.
Chistos argument aside, you’re all attention getting squawk. ..”one that I am not interested in dealing with.” YET YOU DO! Over, and over, and over.
Bless your heart, trunks. You must think I care what you think – I don’t. I didn’t insult Christos’ intelligence (you did by bringing it up). You are the obnoxious one.
It’s not a question about what I think, Polly, but rather what you believe— you fall all over yourself over motivated reasoned belief.
Remember, you’re the one who called themselves a science activist, bless your heart—no confirmation bias/motivated reasoning there, eh?
A real scientist would consider the latter am absolute conflict of interest to any science sensibility, an insult to it, in fact. Keep flapping about.
Not interested, Karen.
Not interesting—Polly
The low temperature bodies have much less heat, and, therefore, they are not capable to emit their, according to Stefan-Boltzmann emmission law, the respective intensity EM radiation, those that the S-B law dictates.
–
And that is why, when S-B law is applied to planets and moons the IR emission intensities, the S-B respective to their absolute temperatures, the result is very much mistaken.
–
Thus we have the laughable 255K (-18C) emitting the impossible
240 W/m^2 !!!
–
Conclusion:
The S-B emission law application is limited by the energy a body is capable to give up.
If a body is over-loaded with energy, the energy is pouring out by EM radiation according to the S-B emission law, because at the emitting surface there is an instant equilibrium of energy transfer gets established – and establishing that equilibrium is what the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is all about.
–
When there is much less energy in the body (at lower temperatures), it cannot support the IR emission intensity the S-B emission law dictates to emit at body’s respective low temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That is why there is a T^4 dependence. It establishes equilibrium, and is not laughable. Again, examine your intuition closely.
ganon, for less than $15, you can end your confusion about the S/B Law.
https://www.amazon.com/Etekcity-Thermometer-774-Temperature-Accessories/dp/B0B71HFH9K/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1Y1AZF6QSB81G&keywords=ir%2Bthermometer%2Bgun&qid=1702228153&sprefix=ir%2Bther%2Caps%2C173&sr=8-3&th=1
LOL, No confusion. Thanks, I already have one. I bet it uses the S-B to convert measured photocurrent to temperature.
IR thermometers are not based on S-B, they are calibrated in a lab from real temperature siurces and the radiation give off at those temperatures. That data is then stored in the memory of the meter so radiation detected by the meter can be compared to those values.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
cerescokid,
Another common theme has been to minimize warming numbers “what if it is only 0.5 C”. Here is an example:
” The linear warming between 1850 and 2004 was 0.52° ± 0.19°C (95% confidence interval) for the globe,….”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/3/jcli3637.1.xml”
That is pretty dated, missing the last twenty years of data, and choice of linear fit is questionable, particularly when the recent data is included.
Here is an up-to date analysis that compares linear and exponential fits.
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
My common theme is that GHGs are the major component/cause of current warming and trying to minimize it, or blame it on other minor components of the climate system, is an exercise in futility.
After the passage of the tropical storm, the surface temperature of the Coral Sea dropped a lot. Corals can be satisfied.
https://i.ibb.co/FJds6Hk/cdas-sflux-ssta-aus-1.png
Does the Like button work?
Did any of the comments disagree with Dr Curry and explain why? If not does it mean those that trust the science think Dr Curry is right but they don’t see it as a problem? A lot of comments so I may have missed.
Let’s say we define a project (climate, virus, etc) what is the process by which we decide what work needs to be done ensuring that plan is objective? E.g. so that we’re not inadvertently biased to finding evidence for and proving one thing while missing or trying to disprove concerns with it or an alternative to it, or missing something out of the box?
I think this is most important for all of us to discuss and think through; for science and those making important decisions affecting us based on the science to answer these sorts of questions. If the system is wrong how can we trust the data, analysis, conclusions, recommendations? I sometimes hear trust science due to improvements in e.g. vehicle reliability, but how did engineering do that? Is science doing the same?
Why would we feel safe to fly? We may not know all the details, but we’re probably aware of procedures learnt from failures of the system. We require that system and the investigation of failures and near misses to keep checking or correcting the system. Are we requiring similar of science for climate, virus etc? I presume mistakes in science may take a lot longer to spot than in engineering (and even if we do, is it perhaps not seen as a mistake, but as progress?) by which time the consequences and costs may be very high.
What is the system for science; why trust science? Is it the same system for pure and applied? Or sort of same but the system struggles due to urgency and complexity? Would pure and applied not be very different processes that need to work in different systems? I see climate and virus as similar to my engineering work; against the clock, easy to miss something out of the box, complex, have to be able to put things into realistic perspective, high consequence, serving us all as the final end users. Or how would others define this? Whether my definition adequate or wrong is the science system (as used for climate, virus) suitably designed for it? I feel final end user (as opposed to the customer between science and the rest of us) power, freedom of speech, suitably informed, plays a vital role in helping us to realise the out of the box blind spot, putting things into perspective, reining in the pie in the sky ideas.
Both science and engineering improve from experience and testing. I see no reason to deny their intent because there are situational time constraints.
Dr. Curry sheds factual light on the subject in all its incarnations.
Having defacto faith in science is ill advised once it is known that the mechanics driving political activism has taken hold within any field of science—such is rare; it first needs political impetus to drive agency. Climate science has agency for political activism, most scientific disciplines don’t.
Ironically, activism is the primary denier of climate science, for all the reasons described in Dr. Curry’s essay. Examples of described “exaggerated sense of knowledge” are rife, embarrassingly so; many examples are seen in CE.
An activist who triangulates the qualifying mechanical plumbing for funding (the determinant qualification for funding is blessed by consensus) is the scientist who publishes, those outside the activist box, don’t publish (they don’t get funding). Activists who push forward peer reviewed contrivances (they’re not all contrivances, though enough where it matters) are anointed believers of science; therein lies the walled garden for ideological agency in climate science. There are no lack of promoters for said contrivance. It’s a blending of truth with obfuscation, it can’t be easily untangled.
Why is an activist is an activist? For reasons of scientific integrity? They believe in science? A relationship between science fact and the activist should not exist, such is a contrivance of science, not science. Activists are given agency, there’s the answer.
Paul,
Yes, I disagreed with Dr. Curry’s angle. She argued, as others have, that skeptics of the consensus narrative were not being heard because their CONCLUSIONS prevented them from getting published in peer-reviewed journals. I argue that it is skeptics’ LOW PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY STANDARDS and UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE CONSENSUS POSITION that relegate them to predatory pay-to-publish journels.
A prime example is the “causality and climate” paper by Koutsoyiannis et al featured on this blog in September. A surprising statistical inference was made with no discussion of errors or confidence levels! Data was smoothed and truncated. The author defending the paper showed glaring ignorance of the carbon cycle. Yet gullible “skeptics” on this blog ate it up. Why? Because the CONCLUSION was what they wanted to hear: “CO2 cannot be the cause of tempertature rise”!?
I have read Dr. Curry’s book, which ironically is about climate uncertainty. It is fair to say that she did not feature the Koutsoyiannis paper because of its thorough discussion of the uncertainty in its analysis. She picked it because of its conclusions which are not at all credible.
“…skeptics of the consensus narrative were not being heard because their CONCLUSIONS prevented them from getting published in peer-reviewed journals.”
Conclusions? Or premise: hypothesis? I thought conclusions come after the science is done. Science usually requires funding for studies to test a hypothesis. Who could have guessed that scientist should submit to being wrong before any science is done.
Was it Demetris Koutsoyiannis who funded himself?
David – You have the reason for the skeptics skepticism backwards.
Far too much of what is claimed to be climate science is pure crap, yet the activists vehemently defend the crap.
A study claiming that climate change will cause the jet stream wind speeds to increase even though the is no data showing an increase since the inception of devices to measure the wind speeds.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01884-1
the paleo reconstructions are teeming with corruption.
The 100% renewable energy claims are preposperous, near totally devoid of reality. Again, activists defend and promote what is obvious crap.
the point is that the climate scientists and the activists are to blame for the what would be termed unfounded skepticism simply because the honest scientists get drowned out by the activists.
Jungletrunks,
Koutsoyannis stated conclunsions, not just hypotheses. But OK, you forgive him for writing a crappy paper because it was self-funded.
Joethenonclimatescientist,
You fail to recognize that real (substantive) skepticism is a two-way street. You lose.
Jungletrunks,
In line with skepticism being a two-way street: substantive skepticism is taken seriously by science/scientists and often advances it. Fake skepticism can usually be disproven by simple thought experiments and logic. If so disproven, it does not need further testing or funding. I see many cases here of pseudo-scientists practicing ignorance, followed by willful ignorance (ignoring constructive criticism and substantive skepticism), only to repeat the same thing over and over again pretending that it is evidence or refutation of the skepticism.
Joe,
What is wrong with a paper predicting effects on the jet stream, even if no change has yet been observed?
You are implying that climate scientists are in general not honest. You do have the “climategate” emails as an example of, shall we say, too much exuberance. But I know many honest, dedicated, very careful climate scientists who are part of the consensus.
I have also had too many run-ins with blatantly dishonest skeptics, whose motivations I do not understand, but who clearly want to fool their readers, not enlighten them. Perhaps I will detail some of my experiences in a later post.
“Koutsoyannis stated conclunsions, not just hypotheses.”
Demetris’ conclusions were reviewed and accepted in a peer review. Right? The conclusions were based on his research evidence, or are you contending that his entire paper remained unsubstantiated hypothesis? If so, how did it pass peer review?
Your own sour grapes it seems. Everything you contrive that denies this reflects on your pitiful self, and ideology.
“Fake skepticism can usually be disproven by simple thought experiments and logic”
What a sad specimen activism produced of you, Polly.
Joe,
In a discussion of the legitimacy of consensus climate science, you add the comment “The 100% renewable energy claims are preposterous, near totally devoid of reality.” There are of course two separate questions here:
1. Is anthropogenic climate change an issue requiring action?
2. How should we achieve or approach NetZero, if we conclude that should indeed be the goal?
I think you conflate these quite different questions. There is no doubt that achieving decarbonization, NetZero, is a real challenge. That should not in any way affect one’s answer to the first question, but it appears to be affecting yours. You and I have different answers to 1. But I tend to agree with you that achieving 100% renewables is a tall order, unless nuclear is included as a part of renewables.
I am disappointed that many who, like me, answer 1. with an unambiguous YES, still exclude nuclear from the solutions. There may be some movement. AOC (probably not your favorite politician) has given some support to a “green nuclear deal”. I am trying to get others in my tribe to see that obstructing nuclear is, practically speaking, supporting the continuation of fossil fuels. You could help me by telling those in your tribe that the easiest way to demonstrate you are an idiot is to chant “drill baby drill”.
Jungletrunks,
“What a sad specimen activism produced of you”
Look in the mirror, Karen.
Squawk; you had to look deep into your dogeared, encyclopedic cheatsheet package to pull out that brilliant retort, Polly.
trunks,
Keep it up – make yourself obvious, Karen.
Cyclone Jasper is breaking through into the Gulf of Carpentaria.
https://i.ibb.co/Kw1L046/himawari9-ir-03-P-202312150630.gif
I share this paper with no particular POV, except that phrase “follow the money” comes to mind.
From the 2023 study
“As sea-level rise (SLR) accelerates due to climate change, its multidisciplinary field of science has similarly expanded, from 41 articles published in 1990 to 1475 articles published in 2021, and nearly 15,000 articles published in the Web of Science over this 32-year period.”
“If these trends continue, the next IPCC assessment report (expected from 2026 to 2030), will face the daunting challenge of exploring nearly 9000–18,500 additional SLR-related articles”
Of course, there is the question of how many of those 18,500 studies don’t make the cut.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00920-4
This study has been the object of much discussion of late.
“Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming.”
Within the confines of climate change think tanks, they are thus already developing new strategies of reducing climate change.
Having 8 billion people hold their breath for 2 hours a day has been rejected as just a temporary fix.
A more permanent solution is being considered including its own promo.
“Snuff’em out to help’em out. A new strategy to save mankind”
Sort of a modern version of the Vietnam “We had to destroy the village to save it.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295157
Unless I’m misunderstanding or missing something I’m still not seeing any real opposition to the core argument in the opening comments by Dr Curry, yet I’ve not seen an explanation of why it would not be a problem or how science (climate, virus) remains objective.
Ganon said science improves from experience and testing. I am assuming good intent. But I’m not clear, roughly, in which ways and how science improves, how it remains objective.
I think despite our best intentions and efforts it goes wrong in ways we thought could not possibly happen and it’s often something out of the box or when under pressure (time, customer, competitors) and system failure, something we have become blind to in our determination to do well. I think engineering has processes (some of which I’m mentioning in these comments) reducing these problems but I don’t understand how science does this.
David Andrews, I think, was raising a concern about sceptics for low process and methodology standards and unfamiliarity with the consensus position. But from what I can make out that point is not addressing the main point from Dr Curry above, just one aspect, or do I have that wrong?
To respond to the concern though; I’m wondering if this concern arises because of the system: What is keeping it objective, how can people question and raise concerns without having to prove it first, go through a peer reviewed papers system. We don’t use a peer reviewed papers process in engineering; concerns, alternatives etc need to be actively sought and raised asap and I don’t see what the plan is driving the work for the peer reviewed papers keeping it balanced and objective.
My/our customers (like us also large engineering companies) or their customers may be raising concerns etc perhaps not knowing as much as we do, and perhaps to us they might feel similar to sceptics to science, but we have to listen and have to satisfy them with our investigations and answers, we all need the final end user and I feel that is an important factor improving engineering.
Paul, you make good points that are often unappreciated. For example, to answer “I don’t see what the plan is driving the work for the peer reviewed papers keeping it balanced and objective,” the answer is private self-trained experts like Steve McIntyre and Nic Lewis are get published sporadically. Climategate was actually mostly about the email conversations of the consensus scheming as to how they could block McIntyre and McKitrick from getting the data behind the dubious hockey stick graph. They basically told everyone to deny their requests and to deny their submitted papers and delete these emails when done.
In climate science the customer is the government agency paying them, not the public.
Here is climate tree ring proxy expert Rosanne D’Arrigo explaining why it’s okay to throw away data that does not have the right message and keep the cherries that do.
https://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/
Steve McIntyre had to wait until the death of D’Arrigo’s partner to get a chance to recover on of the 26 missing tree ring studies. It did indeed have a hockey stick shape but the blade was in 1200 and the shaft continued into the 20th century. Bad data, very bad. See most recent few posts at climateaudit.org
Fortunately, the hockey stick is now painfully obvious … particularly for those that wanted to discredit it. As far as I can see, the corrections forced by McIntyre and McKitrick did not make any difference in the conclusions.
Even the climate reconstructions published today looking at the last 1000 years use the same Gaspe strip bark bristlecone pine that the NAS told them not to use anymore as its original sampling data was taken for a study looking for CO2 induced growth. The potential for CO2 effect confounding should have eliminated the bristlecones but since they had the right shape of data series, a hockey stick, they were given a weight 32 times higher than the lowly sea foraminifera deposit layer proxies by MBH.
There was so much bad science in MBH, the study, that produced what was the cover image of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), it takes many pages to document. The scandal is the consensus knew all along it was bad science but it told the correct story so it was published in millions of school textbooks and was the basis of Al Gore’s Nobel Prize winning movie. (Michael Mann claims he is a Nobel Laureate.:)
To say all that was fine because it was correct after all is a little bit circular. We can’t rely on the confirmatory science either.
It’s a bit like the police planting blood evidence of the suspect at the scene because they “know he’s guilty” but the story needs to be clear and simple for the lowly jury. The Innocence Project proved the police and prosecution were wrong about murders on death row more than half the time where there was DNA evidence to go back and test (in cases that occurred before DNA testing was available).
My reply is waiting to be freed from random moderation detention.
ganon
In 1951 Senator Kefauver held hearings on organized crime where they heard about the desire to have certain inconvenient persons rubbed out. During this 2006 Senate hearing, they heard about the desire to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
And those who wanted it gone accomplished just that. In the minds of millions it never existed, in spite of its existence not being questioned for decades and in spite of volumes of studies since 2006 finding that it did exist.
People believe it didn’t exist, not because of the scientific evidence , but rather because they want to believe it.
Scientists are duped every day. Scientists with hubris are duped twice a day.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070201040004/https://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
As far as the hockey stick goes, Steve McIntyre is still at it:
https://climateaudit.org/
Furthermore, the hockey stick is a consequence of basically averaging together disparate proxies that were selected to reflect the modern temperature from the instrumental record.
Another reason the hockey stick handle would be flat, and not reflect pre-modern temperature swings, is because most proxies average out annual variations. That is to say, the resolution is not granular enough to reflect yearly temperatures. Many years are smoothed together which, again, tends to flatten historical temperature swings. Even ice cores aren’t necessarily dependable since the firn takes several years to solidify in to ice. And even then, for past CO2, the gas may well migrate within the ice.
At any rate, sticking the instrumental data on the end of averaged proxy data is like sticking an apple to an orange and calling it a banana.
(1) the is nothing wrong with joining two overlapping temperature records. It is not “sticking and apple and an orange together and calling it a banana”. It is like statistically cross correlating two overlapping temperature records and calling them a (longer) temperature record.
(2) The two most common proxies, tree-rings and ice-cores have annual resolution over the time period of the HS.
(3) Interannual variability and the small degree of curvature in the HS handle do not change the shape of the blade, which was correct and correctly analyzed – now it is much bigger, matching the projections.
(4) The denials of, and deflections from, current warming from y’all are pathetic.
Yes, ganon, you have already made it clear you are content with sloppy data and sloppy science. And you are quite happy to spend trillions of dollars based on it.
If you look at the data, the proxies span about 2 C. Real precise that. Garbage really.
https://www.climate.gov/media/9605
ganon1950 | January 5, 2024 at 8:41 am |
Not surprising that Ganon’s 4 points in his response neither address or even acknowledge the existence of the core issue in the HS dispute.
Is it because he is unaware of the core dispute or simply deflects to avoid admission.
Jim2,
Not real good at reading graphs, are you? The maximum span
of a dozen proxy reconstructions, at any given year is ~0.8 C. Instead of cherry-picking a single graphic that is 18 years old> Maybe you should give references to the original sources:
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/past-climate
Takes the figure from IPCC AR4 (fig. 6.10, p467)
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf
If you were really interested in the material, you might want to read the full chapter 6, instead of making up your own false interpretations. But then, maybe you are just loath to admit you are lying about 18-year-old IPCC data.
JoeTNCS,
As usual, you falsely presume to know what I know. I was responding to specifics is Jim2’s comment.
The core issue is whether MBH falsified data and tried to cover it up. Or if they made mistakes and tried to cover it up, but then corrected those mistakes. The other core issue is whether climategate negates the results of multiple other CE temperature reconstructions (that are in general agreement with MBH) – IMHO, No. The other core issue is whether it continues to be a deniers’ attempt at discrediting, and deflecting from, current rapid warming – IMHO, yes, but a failure to do so.
Yes, I misread the chart, but the rest of the observations hold.
JoeTNCS,
Well then, I guess you better tell me what the core issue is and give evidence for it. And yeah, you misread (or misrepresented) the chart and called it garbage. I’m pretty sure where most of the garbage actually comes from.
Also, ganon, the UN/IPCC is a political entity, not a scientific one. They cherry pick scientists and results to support their narrative of catastrophe. Some associated with them have cherry picked proxies, truncated proxies that didn’t support the narrative, used specious methodology and statistics, and tried to shut out scientists that don’t agree with them. Not the company I would keep.
ganon1950 | January 5, 2024 at 3:33 pm |
JoeTNCS,
“Well then, I guess you better tell me what the core issue is and give evidence for it. ”
Ganon – For someone that has been parroting the robustness of the HS , it is surprising that you claim to not know what lacks robustness. Virtually every climate scientist involved in the paleo reconstructions is quite knowledgeable in the parts that are not robust.
Take a gander through the long proxies. The core issue will shouldnt be too hard to figure out. As I stated, your 4 points bypass any knowledge of the issue.
Ganon comment -ganon1950 | January 5, 2024 at 3:33 pm | “And yeah, you misread (or misrepresented) the chart and called it garbage. I’m pretty sure where most of the garbage actually comes from.”
Ganon – Care to point out any chart I referred to ?
care to point out any chart I referred to as Garbage?
JoeTNCS,
So you either can’t, or won’t, tell me what the core issue is. From that, I’ll just have to assume that you don’t know. Thanks.
Sorry about the graph misrepresentation/garbage comment. That was meant for Jim2.
22 years later, the last thousand years still look like a hockey stick to me.
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
And reference to original paper therein.
Pandemic of the unvaccinated: David Andrews raised a point that sceptics who don’t follow the advice e.g. didn’t take the vaccine suffered due to a higher death rate.
I did follow the link to ourworld in data, maybe not study it as deeply as I’d like before responding, so I may have missed but I don’t know the details of the data used: On another similar report it was not clear to me but sounds like first 14 days of one jab was counted as no jab, maybe that’s okay if it’s not realistic to call it 1 jab, but seems to me that is also unrealistic for the unvaccinated group to count vaccinated (within 14days) people as unvaccinated. A report also said hesitancy has typically been most prominent among adults older than 60 years, and associated with underlying health conditions, so I’m not clear the details or significance of issues like that and how or if it might bias the results. How do I know if at the same time adverse health issues due to the jab were investigated and what is the absolute risk.
Peer reviewed papers system: I’m not sure how we get the overall perspective when papers are mentioned. To my mind for critical projects like this you may need a work request (WR) system so the work write up refers to a WR number. From that we can see specifically what was asked for (by those funding and requesting the work) and what wasn’t. So if the WR only asked to look at a positive feedback, or only asked for vaccine effectiveness against Covid, it needs to be clear it is not the complete picture, and following the WR system upwards and sideways we can find where the other branches are to complete the picture (and the overall assessment where the branches meet) e.g. negative feedbacks, other adverse health impacts of the jab and the absolute risk, which might be insignificant compared to other risks in life. Is science using a system like that to ensure a balanced plan and a paperwork trail we can follow?
My other perspective on this is since 2021 I’ve been frequently meeting many unjabbed in most major towns in my county, wide age range, ignoring the advice; since the start of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” I’m not aware of any of them hospitalised or dying due to Covid; health etc seem no different to pre pandemic, so perhaps the absolute risk is low and there are more important risks and things to worry about, or something’s amiss with the data and analysis, although I appreciate it’s only a subjective observation. At the start of the virus I was extremely cautious, winter 20/21 I started my own data analysis, as I got further into data analysis plus my feelings as an engineer on the jab validation, emergency approval, no liability, all eggs in one basket approach, my thoughts changed.
Paul in UK | January 4, 2024 at 6:14 pm | Reply
Pandemic of the unvaccinated: David Andrews raised a point that sceptics who don’t follow the advice e.g. didn’t take the vaccine suffered due to a higher death rate.
Paul – Dont be over infatuated with the peer review studies showing the unvaxed died at much higher rates than the vaxed. There are a lot of red flags that point to bad underlying data. The medical experts, etc should have spotted the red flags or at least explored the conflicting data
red flags include:
1) per capita death rates of the 65+ of 50 per week per 100k during the nove 2020 wave (the second wave) vs 200+220 deaths per 100k in the 3rd wave
2) The death rate in the 3rd wave as a percentage of the 2nd wave was within the historical norm of most all other pandemics. 80%+ of the deaths were in the 65+ age group and 85%+ of that age group were vaxed. Why did the deaths in the 3rd wave fall within the historical norm if the majority of vunerable were vaxed?
3) as a corollary to my point in #2, 80%+ of the deaths were in the 65+ age group and 85%+ of that age group were vaxed. there simply wasnt enough of the unvaxed people in the vunerable age group to sustain that high of rate of deaths.
Because the unvaxed vunerable population was so small compared to the vunerable vaxed population, it doesnt take a high rate of errors to skew the results. A few vaxed deaths coded as unvaxed will have a relatively high effect. Likewise understating the unvaxed population will skew the denominator . That happened in numerous states in the US.