text:
by Judith Curry
Best wishes to all for the New Year!
by Judith Curry
Best wishes to all for the New Year!
From the FAR at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_08.pdf
Figure 8.5 gives an estimate of when a CO2 signal should have been detected and measured. Under the "Business as Usual" scenario, described in http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_app_01.pdf I find "the energy supply is coal intensive and on the demand side
only modest efficiency increases are achieved." This seems to be a very reasonable description of what has happened since the FAR was written. So, according to this publication, we should have been able to measure a CO2 signal by 2002. So far as I can determine, to date, no CO2 signal has ever been measured in any modern temperature/time or OHC/time graph. However, it is impossible to prove a negative.
When Climate Etc first started, it was suggested that we could have some sort of table where we could record what has been agreed on both sides of the CAGW debate. I am not aware that this has ever been attempted by our hostess. If none of the warmist denizens of Climate Etc can come up with a peer reviewed reference, which details how a CO2 signal was measured from modern data, and what the value obtained was, may I suggest that we agree that there has been no measurement of a CO2 signal.
Why don't you help those of use who believe we have trying to flog a dead horse, by describing what you would accept as a CO2 signal in any modern temperature record?
CO2 leaves a strong signal.
That signal says CO2 rises and Temperature does not care what CO2 did. There may be a trace effect from the man-made part of the trace gas, but it is well inside the noise and cannot be proved or disproved.
Look at the correlation between Albedo and Temperature. That has always been in phase since the Polar Ice Cycles started controlling Albedo.
Bob, you write "Why don't you help those of use who believe we have trying to flog a dead horse, by describing what you would accept as a CO2 signal in any modern temperature record?"
I suggest you read the FAR, Chapter 8, which I have referenced, and which gives a very full description of what would constitute a CO2 signal.
The bottom line of that chapter is that 1 C warming over pre-industrial constitutes the strength of the signal needed to show that CO2 is a separate effect from natural variation. The fact that land area averages have already exceeded that easily is proof enough, I would say, or do you want to wait for the ocean to catch up?
Jim D, #1, you can't attribute that 1 deg C warming to AnthroCO2, and #2, note the widespread social benefit of that 1 deg C warming.
moshe, so tell me about your attribution. Surely not Muller's.
kim, the "skeptics" have fallen short of coming up with anything that has an full amplitude of more than 0.2 C (stadium waves, PDO, solar variation, volcanoes). A 1 C change is expected by AGW in the not-too-distant future and we are already 80% of the way there. There is some denial among skeptics when it comes to climate trends measured by multi-decadal means.
And much denial among the alarmists at centennial and millennial scale forces, the climate minima and optima of the Holocene, long may they wave.
" Steven Mosher | December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
That is not what 8.5 shows you moron."
Excellent observation. Back to the science.
Steven, you write "That is not what 8.5 shows you moron."
What I wrote originally is EXACTLY what Fig. 8.5 shows, and I am NOT a moron. I quote form the FAR
The answer is given in Figure 8 5 The upper curve
shows the global mean warming for the Business-as Usual
Scenario (see Appendix 1) assuming a set of upwelling
diffusion climate model parameters that maximizes the
warming rate (viz , AT2X = 4 5 0 K = 0 63 cm2 sec ' and
7t = 0) Under these encumstances detection (as defined
above) would occur in 12 years.
As you observe the window of detection possibilities is between 2002 and 2047. Under the conditions of the BAU scenario, detection should have occurred at the earliest possible time. The later date should only occur, if stringent measures had been taken to curb the use of fossil fuels; which has NOT occurred.
I know you will do anything rather than admit that I am right, but it would help with discussions, if, as our hostess requested in a previous thread, you omit your rudeness, and just stick to a scientific discussion.
Jim Cripwell | December 31, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
Technically, Jim Cripwell is perfectly correct. He is not a moron, clinically. However, the idiomatic use in language of the phrase "you moron" doesn't refer to clinical definitions, and it is a misunderstanding to apply the clinical standard or to argue with the idiomatic usage just as much as it would be to answer, "How are you?" in polite exchanges with strangers with a detailed rundown of one's medical history.
In that respect, Steven Mosher | December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm | is perfectly correct, and is also accurate or very nearly true. Likely, it is a waste of time, as it appears to be undertaking the task of stooping to the level of an inveterate time waster with the expectation one will not be beaten by superior experience.
I'm not suggesting that Canadians do nothing but waste time with unproductive error, or that the Ottawa region is notorious for the high level of the art of unproductive time wasting especially in its civil service — astronauts Peter Hadfield and Roberta Bondar for example are diligent and productive proof that not all Canucks are time wasters — but I know Steven Mosher has better things to do than waste his own time lowering himself to the standard of this thread because I've seen the laudable results of Mosh's patient and careful work. Jim Cripwell, by that standard however, ought continue doing as he always has.
"Surely not Muller's"
As I understand, Muller has come to his firm conviction regarding the predominance of the "A" in"AGW," based on some philosophy of science voodoo that has to do with his inability to locate other causes with any confidence. Mosher explained it once. I might have it wrong. I suppose I'm a moron as well.
You mean this?
"Detection requires that
the observed changes in climate are in accord with detailed
model predictions of the enhanced greenhouse effect,
demonstrating that we understand the cause or causes of
the changes"
So would a comparison of model runs with greenhouse effect to model runs without greenhouse effect count?
Or how about comparing proxy reconstructions of forcings and see if any of those could have produced the modern temperature rise?
Bob, you write "So would a comparison of model runs with greenhouse effect to model runs without greenhouse effect count?"
Absolutely not. The key words in the quote you use are "observed changes", or in other words, hard, measured, empirical data. Unfortunately, I don't know what you education was, but the expression "signal" is so common in physics, that it is, sort of res ipsi loquitor. Asking me to describe what a signal is, is sort of like asking me to describe what a measurement is, as we have discussed before. I am at a loss to know where to begin, since I have been dealing with making measurements and detecting signals of one sort or another for most of my life.
A signal has to be something that is measured. If you don't understand what a measurement, then you cannot understand what a signal is.
I read the whole chapter and for all the scientific references and semantics, all it's really saying is that they have found nothing. Stating the obvious and piling on the agony, they also say that this doesn't mean that there is no effect. If I tried to use that in a business case in part or full justification for the billions, nay trillions of $ that are likely to be spent in "mitigation", I would be laughed out of the room and quite rightly so as well.
Stephen: Any validity that the comments in your post may have had were nullified completely by your initial insult. While Jim appeared to be asking questions, your comments failed to answer any of them. You really should be able to do better than that in the debate. It's not cool to browbeat, however superior your intellect and / or grasp of the issues…
Thanks, Chris, for your comments. I must disagree with one of them. You write "It's not cool to browbeat, however superior your intellect and / or grasp of the issue" I dispute that Steven Mosher has a superior intellect to me, on scientific matters; and scientific matters are what count when discussing CAGW. I recon I know a lot more science than he does.
Bart R. I have no problem discussing science with people who write under an alias. I have very strong objections to people, like yourself, who engage in personal attacks while hiding behind a cowardly alias. Such people deserve to be ignored; which is what I will do in future.
R. Gates, you write "Interesting logic."
This discussion is a waste of time. What I object to is being misquoted.
Jim C.,
You are always asking for objective proof, yet you make a claim to superior knowledge of science over Mosher, yet offer no objective proof. Then shy away from an offer to assess the validity of your claim.
You are puzzle indeed Jim C.
I think we nailed Jim C. down on the size of signal he needs which is 1 C as in the AR1 he approvingly quotes, but I suspect we won't see him admit that in so many words. It is fair enough to wait for 1 C before declaring yourself convinced something is happening in line with CO2 predictions, but if this was his limit, he should have said so a long time ago.
bob droege | December 31, 2013 at 11:49 am |
"Why don't you help those of use who believe we have trying to flog a dead horse, by describing what you would accept as a CO2 signal in any modern temperature record?"
Let me do that, Bob. More warming in the middle troposphere than the surface in the tropics is ostensibly the CO2 fingerprint. Of course for 17 years neither the surface nor the troposphere has warmed in the tropics and that's the signal of jack diddly squat warming. :-)
We could answer this question very easily by giving you both an independent test on a broad range of objective climate related science.
Would the test be made up by a Consensus Group or a Skeptic Group or is it possible to find a Group that is not biased? I am very interested in your independent test. You will never have an independent test that the different sides agree is not biased.
"You will never have an independent test that the different sides agree is not biased."
I strongly disagree. There are some some fundamental and even higher level very objective tests that could be used to test someone's proficiency across a broad range of science. They are used all over the world every day. A sample of questions from these could be used. I have no idea how Mosher would stand up to Cripwell. It would be interesting to see.
If that preening peacock that calls himself Steven Mosher hasn't called you stupid, an idiot, or a moron, it just means you are a progressive drone just like him. Members of the vanity tribe aren't nearly so insulting of their own.
What I do wonder is why, back when Mosher was running the State Department and Defense Department, as well as the U.S. military's weapons development and international sales, no one took the time to give him a class in basic courtesy.
I wasn't clear, but I meant a comparison of the empirical data to both model runs with and without the greenhouse effect.
All the hard empirical data you are looking for is modeled as well. My training is as a Chemist and I do some work in analytical chemistry, and all my signals are modeled responses, usually changes in voltage or current.
To me, the increase in global temperature by any of the metrics is the signal, and we compare that to different models to determine which is the correct theory, Can we start here and maybe get somewhere?
It is all models anyway in my opinion.
Bob, you write "To me, the increase in global temperature by any of the metrics is the signal, and we compare that to different models to determine which is the correct theory, Can we start here and maybe get somewhere?"
It is a signal, if and only if, you can prove that the increase in temperature was definitively caused by a rise in CO2 concentration.
If you are starting from an observed temperature rise, then at some point you have to decide how much of this temperature rise is caused by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Since we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth's atmosphere, this is impractical to do. We need to have measured every single naturally caused change in temperature. And this has not been done.
All we can do is, as I have stated over and over again, is to observe that there is no CO2 signal, from which it follows, as night follows day, that there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
Just because the experiment is not controlled, doesn't mean you cannot compare the data to what the theory would predict, and we can do that.
Anyway, you are citing one of the IPCC reports on what would constitute detection of an AGW signal, and then going back to the same old same old.
Do you agree with the report you cited at the beginning or not?
By your reasoning, the climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from 10 or 20 or any other number one might select, because we can't do controlled experiments. Why do you pick zero, when the data shows some increase in CO2 and some increase in temperature?
And there is a mechanism for that increase, namely that CO2 in the atmosphere radiates in the IR and some of that radiation hits and warms the surface. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more the surface is warmed.
" Berényi Péter | December 31, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
The only indisputable CO₂ signal detected so far is the large scale greening of our planet. "
That's not a signal, it is a response. Besides, the temperature response is quite obvious and it can be extracted as a variational approach with respect to the energy-conserving thermodynamic variables, such as via the CSALT model.
BP, you seem so rusty with your physics, did you miss out on some aspect of the curriculum?
Not only are their plains-antelope prey being crowded out by trees,
grasslands are a co evolution process ie they expanded with the grazers in the Cenzoic and provide mechanisms for cooling feedbacks .eg Retallack
Grasslands have long been considered products of the coevolution of grasses and grazers (Kovalevsky 1873). Few plants other than grasses can withstand the high-crowned, enamel-edged teeth and hard hooves of antelope and horses. Yet these same animals are best suited to the abrasive gritty opal phytoliths and dust of flat, open grasslands. Grasses recover readily from fire and nurture large herbivores such as elephants: both fire and elephants
promote grassland at the expense of woodland
The authors whilst noting did overlook the elephant in the room.
Bob, you write "Just because the experiment is not controlled, doesn't mean you cannot compare the data to what the theory would predict, and we can do that.:
"There is none so blind that he who will not see." Sorry, Bob, I would love to continue this discussion, but all I would be doing is repeating what I have stated over and over again, and which you refuse to agree is correct. You just bring up the same old, same old, red herrings, over and over again. I suspect you simply cannot understand what the word "signal" means in physics.
Why don't you find a physics professor at the nearest college or university, buy him a few drinks and discuss what you think a signal is in modern physics.
Or look at it this way, you can measure temperature, or a globally modeled temperature and you can measure CO2 concentration which is also modeled and compare the change in both, and since both are non-zero the most wrong conclusion you can get is that the relationship between them is zero.
That's it in a nutshell, you could not be more wrong saying that climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.
Man, I love flogging a dead horse, don't I.
Book recommendation– The Why of Things: Causality in Science, Medicine and Life, by Peter Rabins (psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins)
He describes 3 models of causality– Categorical, Probabilistic and Emergent. Each category can be understood in terms levels (predisposing, etc) and Logics (empirical, empathic, ecclesiastic)
I would relate this to climate science in that there is a legitimate scientific controversy as to whether climate change can be understood as probabilistic (there x % likelihood of x degrees of warming) or emergent (climate change is a nonlinear complex system in which the emergent nature of many interacting parts makes prediction impossible). The public debate, and some of the give-and-take on Climate Etc) assumes that climate science is categorical, ie either/or, yes/no, proof/nonproof. The logic underpinning the scientific debate is empirical and empathic, the logic behind the public debate is ecclesiastic (belief or disbelief).
Cliff Mass Weather Blog: "Snow Makes It Cold"
Rick | December 31, 2013 at 11:56 am |
I applaud your recommendation, and thoughtful analysis. However, you come to a general conclusion that differs slightly from my own about the public debate.
For myself, I see the public debate as bimodal. For some, mainly those moved by agendas of one sort or another, the public debate in the main reduces ecclesiatically to a matter of belief; for others educated in Science and adhering to its fundamental paradigm, we treat as accurate or very nearly true regardless of belief what explanation requires fewest assumptions, exceptions and additional explanations (hence is simplest, parsimonious and universal) for the observations we have until such time as new observations require on this basis amendment of the explanation.
Belief is orthogonal to Science. There is no virtue to any ecclesiastic vector in technical discussions of what Science reveals. This is the principle distinction between the 'hard' and 'soft' sciences, where belief is treated differently. An Economist, Political Scientist or Psychologist, for example, might be regarded as normal within their field for holding views based on belief. I believe in market solutions and capitalism, but I acknowledge that — except insofar as history and mathematics always reveal — socialism and communism, corporatism (which is fast being relabeled 'Kochism') and fascism are also economic systems an Economist could adhere to in varying degrees within the generally accepted definition of the field. I'd think my Economics likelier to produce better results than theirs, but I would have no cause to indict or impeach their process solely based on their beliefs.
In climatology, I can. I can say Roy Spencer's Evangelical Declaration in itself invalidates every statement he makes in regard to climatology, period. Faith that God has made the climate to be invincible to human action is, by the way, theologically just wrong in the Christian tradition (Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12..), but it is more wrong to hold such an erroneous faith as a view and claim to do Science based on it.
"I can say Roy Spencer's Evangelical Declaration in itself invalidates every statement he makes…"
Did he make a declaration specifically related to climate?
Every one of us has our beliefs – it comes with being human
The difference is, some of us take steps to separate our beliefs from our work, and some of us don't.
So is there evidence that Roy Spencer's beliefs are influencing his climate science? Did he make a specific statement related to that?
That wasn't directed at you, RG
Happy New Year, BTW
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | December 31, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
Res ipsa loquitur.
Thanks Bart R. I honestly had no idea Dr. Spencer had signed such a document. It does explain things about his positions on the issues more clearly to me now.
I wish we could engage in some of these real debates about climate and stop this childish bickering that is all too common on these threads lately.
Doug Badgero | December 31, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
I agree.
Before long, people will end up posting offensive links about each others' families and sarcastic straw man 'clarifications' of the ad hominem attacks of others, like
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=religious%20bigot or worse.
It's a sad way to start a year, for adults.
So, by way of apology for my comments, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1P1TasxA2U
Religious bigotry should be unwelcome here. Where's the moderation?
Bart R's calculated, propagandist, and disingenuous attempt to poison the well WRT Dr. Spencer does not hold water logically. Dr. Spencer can be wrong about intelligent design and at the very same time be correct that the climate system is self-regulating. Clouds, anyone?
To Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scientists science is the study of God's creation. Regardless of the whether it's God's creation or creation is as creation does… it's the same either way. BartR evidently believes that all scientists who believe in God are dishonest and don't know how to designe experiments, make observations, or explain what they observe in terms of the laws of nature. Relgious scientists simply believe that God created the laws of nature. Atheists believe this self-consistent set of rational laws that govern the universe just popped up from some lucky happenstance. Either way the laws are the same. BartR is a simply a religious bigot and he should not be able to find a home for his offensive anti-religious diatribes on this blog. Moderator please remove it.
You hit the nail on the head, David. The warmists are continually trying to find ways to divert attention from the data, whether it an attempt like Bart's to slime scientists who believe in God or to put up a bunch of equations or models that seem to display the story the warmists want. All these attempts are disingenuous and deceptive IMO.
jim2 said :
"… put up a bunch of equations or models …"
Yea, those classroom chalkboards from the old school days were such a waste of space! (sarcasm intended)
This will be a great year for analytical earth sciences. Fun, and not boring.
TonyB said:
If Csalt is so good-and I don't want to comment either way as I don't know-why don't you prepare it for peer review in an appropriate journal so it can reach a wider audience that will make use of it?
While the hero of the deniers, WhatYouTalkinAbout Willis answered with this recently:
"Talented amateurs such as yourself should consider writing a paper for peer review and publishing in a journal such as Nature. There have been many amateur scientists who advanced knowledge, no reason I can see for you to not to attempt to join their legion."
Thanks, John. Been there, done that, I'm one of the few people with absolutely no scientific credentials to have a peer reviewed piece of writing published in Nature in the last while. And while you may be right, I am generally averse to publishing in the journals. In part, this is because of the difficulty of getting things past the pal-review process. In larger part, it is because of the sometimes glacial slowness of the whole thing.
Mostly, though, the reason is that I feel that I can have more effect on the ongoing scientific conversation by publishing here. My strong sense is that not only do I reach more people on WUWT. I also reach the people that count, the movers and the shakers on both sides of the climate aisle, all of whom read WUWT.
Be clear that I'm not saying that publishing in the journals is bad or wrong. I just think that I can have a much greater sway publishing here in a timely manner, than publishing four months from now in some journal that not many folks read.
All the best,
Double standards all the way for the deniers.
Rick | December 31, 2013 at 11:56 am |
I find it ironic that in a thread starting with a book recommendation discussing logic in Science, the rush to demonstrate and defend illogic is so strong.
As a Christian, I can hold beliefs and still practice logic distinct from that religious faith. (Sadly, we see even here that there are others who claim to belong to many world religions who can say they hold these beliefs and still practice hate, infamy and mischief clearly distinct from the basis of their proclaimed faith.) I can, and it is not a rare gift, for example understand the geography of a globe and geophysics of plate tectonics and astronomy of a Universe formed by a Big Bang roughly fourteen billion years ago while still appreciating the spiritual truths of a Garden of Eden, of a Great Flood, of a Hell and a Heaven.. But I can't accept the claim by anyone that because they have read a scripture they can conclusively eliminate from their inferences any particular rational outcome before they've even looked at the data. THAT is religious bigotry. Going to the extent of not just writing up such religious bias against Science as a doctrinal proclamation and signing it as a member of the 'Cornwall Alliance' or any other pseudoreligious pseudoscientific political, polemical Consensus is hostile both the the roots of Science and of the Truth for which Faith in general, and Christianity in particular, stand.
I can hold the physical world as God's handiwork to be the true writing of God's Hand, and the work of an objective and honest Scientist in looking first to the data that world produces by the honest logic of inference, which by its very ab initio nature must produce results closer to the Creator's intentions than any scriptural interpretation, and still be a Scientist. No one can hold any view that injects any religious writing between observation and logical conclusion and still uphold valid Science, or valid religion, either. They have turned both into tools of duplicity and folly.
If you do not come to the experiment with an open mind ready to accept what the data informs the inference, building only on the explanations with the fewest assumptions, the fewest exceptions, and the most general application, then you are biasing your work. Period.
So your work must be dismissed to the degree you embrace more assumptions — such as the many superfluous assumptions built into any religious explanation of the way the physical world works — and more exceptions — such as the many superfluous exceptions built into any religious explanation of the way the physical world works — and less generallity — such as the implicity restrictions of any religious explanation of the way the physical world works — period.
Hence Dr. Spencer's works in full and in total must be dismissed, regardless of any potential value, as fruit of a poison tree. Period.
Bart R. somehow holds the belief that the expression of a falsity can be conjured into truth if he uses more words. More words is often just an obfuscation tactic. You attempt at sliming Dr. Spencer is a fail outright and a slap in the face of logic.
tonyb, do you not realize that the CSALT model is nothing new and is not really deserving of a research article?
Lean, Kosaka & Xie, Foster&Rahmstorf, Lockwood, Cowtan, etc are all doing something similar.
I keep pounding on it because it is basic physics that the skeptics and deniers refuse to believe.
"I keep pounding on it because it is basic physics that the skeptics and deniers refuse to believe."
Lol, GAT that's half made up, which one did you use GISS, CRU, NOAA? Maybe you used Manns hockey stick.
And SOI, you call that basic physics? Basic maybe.
Why not average all measured surface pressure, or why not use New York to London, or Tokyo to San Francisco ? Maybe New York to San Francisco?
Very much a joke.
What CSALT does right now is act as a reverse weather forecaster that can hindcast the global average temperature accurately without using any direct measures of temperature.
All CSALT requires is historical time-series of these characteristics:
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) as defined by the difference in values of atmospheric pressure in Tahiti and Darwin
Aerosol concentration in the atmosphere as generated by volcanic events (and potentially man-made events such as armed conflicts).
LOD (Length-of-Day) as defined by the correction in the Length Of Day measure in seconds.
TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) as a measure of the variation in solar insolation due to quasi-periodic sunspot activity.
The parameters form the mnemonic CSALT, with the CO2 acting as the main driving force to the rising temperature trend (the "control knob" ) and the other SALT terms adding fluctuations (i.e. natural uncertainty) to the trend. The orbital forcings from Scafetta and Wilson help to fill in the details
Bart doesn't seem to realise that the very essence of science is testing, testing and more testing.
If your hypothesis doesn't stand up to testing then it's invalid, regardless of how much you believe in it.
phatboy | January 2, 2014 at 5:21 am |
No, "testing, testing and more testing" is the essence of quality control and discrimination.
The very essence of Science is, "We hold to be accurate or very nearly true that explanation which relies on least assumption, allows least exceptions and applies most universally based on all observations until such time as new observations require amendment."
Not just Science can be tested. Testing is neither exclusive domain of Science nor its particular hallmark. Shibboleth is one favorite word of a frequent commentator here, and is a biblical test of 'ethnic purity', but no one in the world today mistakes ethnic discrimination for Science, or anything but hatred-fueled obscenity, despite how much testing, testing, testing is done by racists.
In short, your test fails the test of essence.
The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But "prove" used in this way really means "test," in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be translated as, "The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
– Richard Feynman
phatboy | January 2, 2014 at 11:12 am |
Being charitable to Feynman, he was clearly trying to simplify his explanation for a less ambitious audience.
Newton's Laws for example are not conventionally wrong, although they fail tests of observations near the speed of light; Newton's Laws are accurate or very nearly true, becoming less so as one approaches the speed of light. Einstein amended Newton's explanation by extending Newton's Laws through the lens of Relativity, reducing the exceptions and increasing the universality of Newton's Laws.
Testing against specific standards of simplicity (least assumptions), parsimony (least exceptions) and generality (most universal) is indeed the essence of Science. "Testing" as a bland and indistinct overarching concept is not. One might as well call "respiration" the essence of what it means to be American, or "reproduction" the essence of what it means to be Texan.
"Newton's Laws for example are not conventionally wrong, although they fail tests of observations near the speed of light;"
This is a reasonable statement, the rest is charitably drivel, Newton's laws gave reasonably correct answers for everything they were applied to, until they were used to calculate the orbit of Mercury, and it was still close. This criteria does not to Co2 as the control knob of the climate.
Bart, he said that during a lecture at the U of Washington.
The point is, science, if done properly, is blind to the beliefs or otherwise of the practitioner.
phatboy | January 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
..he said that during a lecture at the U of Washington.
As I said, a less ambitious audience.
The point is, science, if done properly, is blind to the beliefs or otherwise of the practitioner.
The point is, the practitioner, if doing Science properly, must be agnostic to their own beliefs prior to the data, and must not inject dogma overriding inference in their analyses.
Don't get me wrong; while this completely impeaches Dr. Roy Spencer's attempts at Science as a matter of his prejudice biasing his research, it does not mean one ought not pay attention to Dr. Spencer on much he has to say about climate, for example in the realms of policy. Not only is Dr. Spencer admirably experienced in the technology and terminology — though we must sadly disqualify his outcomes as biased — but I venture few scientists could claim so much contact with or understanding of politics and politicians, and thus as a voice discussing policy, it's important to hold his views closer than those of many unbiased sources.
And speaking of valid testing which one believes Feynman may have approved, new research has tested the sources of uncertainty in research on climate sensitivity (http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/solution-cloud-riddle-reveals-hotter-future) and found a way to cut out half of the uncertainty by testing whether hypothetical mechanisms in simulations match observations.
Testing, testing, testing, for simplicity, parsimony, and universality to find the accurate or very nearly true explanation.
The point is, the practitioner, if doing Science properly, must be agnostic to their own beliefs prior to the data, and must not inject dogma overriding inference in their analyses.
Of course, that would also disqualify anyone who really believes in AGW
phatboy | January 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
If their beliefs came prior to the data, then it would impeach any TLA dogma.
I provided a link to the signatories of the Cornwall Alliance statement.
Do you have a similar link for anyone who based their AGW views on tracts written in Latin, Greek or Hebrew centuries ago based not on data or mathematics but on some other foundation?
Otherwise, your point comes across as propaganda.
phatboy is correct. The ability to do good science does not correlate to belief or non-belief in God. And you are also correct that scientific hypotheses are tested against observation(s) of nature. Bart is trying to score a goal, but has come up short. Short on anything but empty words, that is. Those he has a lot of.
Bart, do you really imagine that people first analyse the data before deciding whether or not to believe in something?
That's not how beliefs work.
Beliefs (and emotions) emanate from a part of our brains which is virtually deaf to reason and logic – only responding to vague stimuli – but which shouts back very loudly indeed.
Have you ever wondered why, for example, an intelligent woman chooses to stay with an abusive partner?
And it doesn't matter if what you believe is close to the truth or a million miles away – the very fact that you believe something will cloud your judgement of it – but not necessarily of other things.
That's what the process of science should guard against – nobody's immune.
Some – maybe most – scientists recognise this fact, but some don't.
phatboy | January 3, 2014 at 4:59 am |
So.. you're saying Feynman's lecture and Roy Spencer's religious faith endorse spousal abuse, therefore we should approach science through a lens of prejudice?
That's your thesis?
I'll stick with Isaac Newton's Principia, if that's okay with you.
I'm glad you approve of Newton, oh BTW he was very religious.
Putting that aside, do you hold the the climate science from the Green crowd poisoned as well?
phatboy – it is obvious that Bart R. sees Dr. Spencer as a credible threat to the CAGWer religion. And he is right about that. If Bart didn't see Dr. S as a threat, he wouldn't be wasting his time here in his attempt to poison the well.
Bart, with your talent for twisting things around, you should be a lawyer or a politician – oh hang on, you might already be.
You can stick with what you like – just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Mi Cro | January 3, 2014 at 11:00 am |
Newton was very religious, is exactly right. Yet it was Newton's argument (not his authority, but his clearly enunciated and rigorous logic) that religion ought be kept strictly out of scientific inference. I'm not creating a new argument here to address Dr. Spencer's errors, but merely citing Isaac Newton — a Scientist at least as religious as any supposed evangelist of today — to explain what is wrong with Spencer's position, and why Newton would have rejected Spencer out of hand.
If it's not good enough for Newton, why is it good enough for you?
Attempting to embroil strictly technical scientific issues in matters of religious doctrine is a pernicious act that calls into question the religious faith of the sort of manipulator who would use such a tactic as much as it damages the credibility of their pseudoscientific posturing. Cherry-picking little bits of Feynman for false argument from authority, introducing appeals to emotion on spousal assault — for crying out loud, how low can you stoop, exploiting the battered and abused?! — and the like to defend the indefensible is simply more proof from his adherents of how wrong a path Dr. Spencer has set down.
Judith, please do something about this person.
Our Climate Study Group formed because many of us think Consensus Climate Theory is wrong.
If they are wrong, something else must be Right.
Have you read the Climate Theory of Maurice Ewing and William Donn and Tom Wysmuller and Alex Pope?
I think Ewing and Donn and Wysmuller and Pope are right.
Ewing and Donn had valid Theory in the 1950's and 1960's. It snows when oceans are high and warm and that puts ice on land. It stops snowing when oceans are cold and frozen and too low to flow through the Arctic and the sun removes ice from land. That was what caused the Major Warm Periods and Major Ice ages. Tom Wysmuller taught me and some others of our NASA Alumni about Ewing and Donn in 2008.
Now, since Younger Dryas, the oceans levels are high enough, just right, to keep warm water flowing in the Arctic all the time. The Polar sea ice thaws and freezes and turns snowfall on and off and that regulates Albedo and therefore regulate temperature in a more narrow range for the past ten thousand years. IR does most of the cooling of Earth, but it has no set point and Albedo does the narrow bounding.
That is why Earthshine Albedo Data and temperature correlations are so important to our Climate Study Group.
If we are not right about our Climate Theory, then Climate needs something else for a set point other than the temperature that Polar Sea Ice melts and freezes and Climate needs some powerful driver like Albedo that is always in the right direction to bound temperature.
IR provides most of the cooling for earth with a temperature to the fourth power effect, but it has no set point with feed back around a set point to keep temperature bounded as close to the set point as we have been for ten thousand years and still are inside those same bounds and temperature is not headed out. Look at temperature data for the millions of years before the Polar Sea Ice Cycles developed, the bounding was not tight in these bounds.
Random luck with solar energy does not work to keep temperature tightly bounded for ten thousand years. Temperature has not wandered around an average for ten thousand years, it was driven up and down past a set point. Our Theory is Right or There is something else. Our Theory is Right or There has to be something else.
What else has a set point and a driver that has worked in the right direction with tight bounds for ten thousand years? I look almost every day and I have found nothing else. There is nothing else.
Look at actual data. The oceans warm and open the Arctic to provide Moisture to Rebuild Ice on Land. The Open Arctic is a necessary and desirable part of the natural cycle. It has gotten warm in the same bounds many times and it always snows more and always gets colder afterward, after the ice rebuilds. Consensus Climate Scientists don't understand the Polar Ice Cycles. They use things they don't understand to make earth cold and then rebuild ice. It cannot happen that way. They have NO Polar Liquid Water to provide moisture for their phantom snow using their Theory. They add ice when the water is frozen and they take ice away when the water is wet. That is backwards. You get no lake effect snow after the lake freezes. You get no ocean effect snow after the ocean freezes. The have let their flawed theory cause them to build flawed models and they have followed them religiously and made flawed forecasts for 17 years that have not come true. They promised our children would not see snow in the future. Snowfall has increased. LOOK AT ACTUAL DATA. The ice on mountains gets rebuilt during warm times when water is wet. The ice on mountains does advance and make earth colder after the snow falls in the warm times. While the tails of glaciers are still retreating, the ice at the heads of glaciers are rebuilding for the next advances. The Roman and Medieval and Current Warm periods are the times when the Ice Rebuilds and afterwards it always gets cold. When the data is published for 2013, you will see that we have had another year that did not get warmer than 1998. It is now snowing too much for Earth to get much warmer. The warm periods must stay warm long enough to rebuild the ice on land and then it can and will get colder and turn off the snowfall. After the snowfall is turned off, the ice that has built up will continue to advance and make it colder for some time before it melts fast enough to retreat. They think that ice volume is increasing while the earth gets colder, but volume has started to decrease while the advance is still occurring. THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ICE CYCLES. It cannot happen the way their theory explains it.
Ice Volume cannot increase after the Polar Oceans are covered with Multi-Year Ice and the snowfall stops, yet, that is what they claim does happen. They freeze the oceans first and then add ice on land. Where could they get moisture for that?
You can use Polar Waters and Polar Ice instead of Arctic, because more snow falls on land in the South when Oceans are Warm as well as in the North, but the Arctic has warm water under the Arctic Oceans and that provides the Primary Set Point for turning snowfall on and off for controlling Ice on Land in the Northern Hemisphere where more Ice Extent and Albedo can and does make more of a difference. Temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years because Albedo has stopped decreasing for 17 years. Watch for the new Earthshine Report, that is overdue, that will support this.
They keep finding things, as the glacier ice recedes, that show it has been this warm before. This is not the first or last time that glaciers retreated to advance again later. They retreat when there has been a long time with not enough snowfall at the heads, as during a little ice age, and they advance when there has been a long time with more than enough snowfall at the heads, as during a Roman or Medieval or Modern Warm Period. Ice Extent is max at the coldest period of a little ice age. Ice Extent is min at the peak of a Warm Period. The ice Extent makes the difference and is not a result of something else causing warm and cold.
Look at data and think about what I wrote.
Do any of you believe what I wrote makes good sense?
I do want to know what you think, after you read and think about this.
Alex Pope
I've thought about it for years, and you've not been shown wrong.
@ Alex
I'm with Kim; right or wrong, at least your theory makes sense.
From day one, the proclamation, with no dissent tolerated, that CO2, a gas whose atmospheric concentration was 350+/-ppm, was the master control for the Temperature of the Earth and that the TOE could be controlled by controlling the ACO2 portion of overall atmospheric CO2 didn't pass the 'smell test'.
After 20+ years of relentless propaganda in favor of the concept, it still doesn't.
Is your theory compatible, on a multi-decadal basis, with the stadium wave?
Cliff Mass Weather Blog: "Snow Makes It Cold"
(sorry, posted in the wrong place the first time)
HAP, I think it makes good sense. The effect of open water on snow fall in the shadow of Lake Erie is called lake effect snow. Throw on some albedo feedback from snow, water vapor cloud feedback limiting max temps, and that open arctic water radiates far more heat to space than ice does, and I think you have a pretty strong set of regulators.
I think this matches observations to means.
And would support a stadium wave effect, as well as a AMO, and PDO.
Let me add a few more observations, surface station day over day annual average max temps are flat since the 50's. In the 8u- 14 lwir bands down welling in on 35F clear sky day is less than -40 F, less than 150w/Sq meter, far less than the 350W/M it's suppose to be, and anyone can prove this (these) for themselves.
Lastly GAT trends are very processed, and they all use the same basic methodology, which is why they are all about the same. And models all model Co2 the same way, so doing no increasing Co2 vs increasing Co2 gives the same junk out, perfect case of gigo.
And the warmists will reject it all because it doesn't match the models of Co2 which are all based on the effect it has in a lab.
The only global climate model that is applying the Stadium Wave concept is the CSALT model.
Skeptics have lots of ideas that are pieces to the larger jigsaw puzzle of climate variability, yet the denier faction makes the crucial ABCD mistake of suggesting that their replacement theory is the entire solution.
Therefore you have someone like HAP who is running on fumes with a rhetorical narrative. His "logic" may sound convincing to a gullible fool but it is lacking in any mathematical foundation. You realize there is a reason that scientists learn math, eh?
"His "logic" may sound convincing to a gullible fool but it is lacking in any mathematical foundation. You realize there is a reason that scientists learn math, eh?"
Well, us 'gullible fools' give HAP additional points for adjusting his theory to explain the observations. Plausibly. This is as opposed to the Climate Science tradition of adjusting the observations to explain the (mathematical) theory. Or, more recently, explaining that no matter WHAT is observed, it 'is consistent with' the theory. Implausibly.
HAP is the Chauncey Gardner of this blog's comments section. All he writes is puerile dreck Consider the vague and nebulous quotes he regularly adds to blogs, such as this:
"When the Arctic is liquid, Earth is cooling
When the Arctic is ice, Earth is warming
This is the Thermostat of Earth"
or this bit
"The temperature, during the past ten thousand years, has cycled from warm to cool to warm to cool many times. in more recent times we had the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by the Warm Period that we are in now. This will be followed by another cool period. The Oceans are warm, the Arctic is open and the snows have started to rebuild the snow packs and glaciers. The ice will advance and cool earth until the Oceans cool and the Arctic stays frozen year round again."
Note the similarities to the fictional movie dialogue, with the simpleton Chance the Gardener mistaken for the profound thinker Chauncey Gardner :
President "Bobby": Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby": In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President "Bobby": Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby": I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.
Like Max_OK, I find this place good for laughs.
Webby, you're a bit slow aren't you.
First, at high latitudes water reflects as much as ~30% of incoming solar when the sun is directly overhead, and even during summer this is only a small range of longitudes, the rest of the arctic reflects far more than this. Second, the temperature of the clear sky is very cold. At 41° N latitude on a 35°F day it's -40°F, on a 20°F day it near -60°F. 32°F water radiates far more energy to a clear sky than does ice. During summer my rough estimates make it at worst a wash, far more likely a cool zone, and when the sun at not at its furthest north an extreme cooling zone.
The whole open arctic being a warming tipping point it nothing but bad science.
That's not a problem, maybe you're just blind to the manure you're getting fed?
"HAP is the Chauncey Gardner of this blog's comments section. All he writes is puerile dreck"
WOW!!! If I ever need an example of reasoned, scientific argument to refute some theory or another, can I quote the above, substituting the refuttee's name for HAP's? Don't hardly get no more scientifical than that. You really blowed HAP's doors off. Don't worry; I'll be sure to attribute properly.
@ blueice2hotsea
So you get more moisture from cold frozen ice than from warm wet water.
You and the Consensus Climate People think alike, but data does not agree.
It snows (and rains) more when oceans are warm and wet and less when oceans are cold and frozen.
Mi Cro | January 1, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
That's not a problem, maybe you're just blind to the manure you're getting fed?
MiCro is getting uncomfortable because the science is advancing in a direction that he doesn't approve of.
I just like to see science based on actual data, and not modeled abstractions of the data. But after actually looking at the real data, I know why they don't, their whole hypothesis would be proven wrong. Same reason you ignore my comments and just throw insults at me.
The inland sea also contributes to sea-effect snow-fall and glacial advance in the continental interior.
I don't dispute that some of this likely did happen.
Nice example of the role of variability or non-determinancy of outcomes.
From most-certain to least certain, the variability factors are
CO2 : secular trend strong with uncertainty only in the slow feedbacks
LOD : stadium waves are slowly varying
TSI, tidal, & orbital forcings : pseudo-cyclic but rather weak
SOI : unpredictable but reverts to the mean in the long term
Volcanic aerosols : unpredictable with short-term cooling transients
With more analysis these effects will become better characterized.
Huh, one out of how many runs? How about, what is the probability that such a pause shows up in an AR4 run under the A2 scenario?
Many model runs have pauses of various lengths from 10-20 years, but they showed this one because its timing also coincides. So, rather than disproving models, the "pause" helps to confirm them.
"So, rather than disproving models, the "pause" helps to confirm them."
Well Jim, I am no model basher, but that statement is quite contrary to the facts as I understand.
Again, what is the probability that such a pause shows up in an AR4 run under the A2 scenario? For the pause to help confirm models, we should be seeing a significant probability that 10 to 20 year long pauses occur in model runs. In fact, we should be seeing some evidence of more than one 10 – 20 year pause occurring in a single model run.
Is it probable for these model pauses to occur or do we have to hunt for them?
I don't know how often 20-year pauses have shown up, but it has been said before that these occur. Also from the graph, you can see how these pauses become less likely later due to the faster temperature rise later, so if we are looking for pauses, we should only see them early in the warming, as we are now. This may be the last pause of its kind. They should get rarer with time.
JimD, "I don't know how often 20-year pauses have shown up, but it has been said before that these occur.
I would be nice to discuss the type of pause, reversion to mean or hiatus that is occurring rather just a pause.
The type of pause that is happening now looks to be pretty rare, once in millennia rare, but then it could be an artifact of the mixed bag of instrumentation. Wouldn't that be a hoot :)
Imperfect models attempting to replicate imperfect data with all the subtle signs that things just don't quite mesh.
It could be helped by the sun, for example. the models don't have that effect for this decade.
JimD, "It could be helped by the sun, for example. the models don't have that effect for this decade."
Possibly, but solar is some of the most controversial data and based on TSI it would take several decades to even measure a significant impact. The rate of OH uptake is on the order of 250 to 500 years per degree C depending on how you interpret also controversial and far from complete data.
That chart shows that GISS 1200km interpolation has a barely significant impact on GMST and the regions interpolated have about half the energy per degree C and the estimated "Global" average temperature anomaly.
It looks a lot like chasing phantoms or the "Utah Cold Fusion" effect to me.
Ultimately these pauses are just noise against a more obvious background trend.
JimD, "Ultimately these pauses are just noise against a more obvious background trend."
Right, but the "most obvious" trend doesn't correlate that well with CO2 equivalent forcing. If it did, there would likely not be a pause and the pause would definitely not be in the Tmin data which is the best proxy for water vapor, which is suppose to produce 2/3rds of the impact of CO2 equivalent forcing.
captd, if you take 30-year trends it correlates very well. Clearly it isn't the only thing happening, but it is the biggest one by far that is explained, over the last century.
JimD, If you took the first three experiments, the University of Utah solved world energy problems.
Oh and btw, if you take global Tmin, sensitivity to CO2 is 4.5 C and 1700 and was perfectly normal.
On my graph, the scaling shows 100 ppm per degree C. If this was an experiment, so far it looks on target.
That was supposed to 1700AD but competing spell checks didn't like that.
Jim, as they say the devil is in the detail.
An unfortunate feature of that model from what I can work out is that the runs are generated by 'pasting' historical runs (forced with a historical data set) onto future runs with projected forcings, This occurs right at the time of this pause you show in the model run. This may not affect CO2 forcing by much but from what I can understand the aerosol forcing seems to change sources for it's data. Eyeballing maps of aerosol forcing makes it look like this forcing takes a sudden step change. I can't do a full investigation but it looks to me as if the 'pause' in that model run could just as easily come from a data handling issue as anything else.
Info sources
(Section 3d and Fig3)
(If you click on the aerosol forcing for 20C3M and SRESA2 you may see what I mean)
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | January 1, 2014 at 2:47 am |
This is how well a model can match the GISS temperature record over the last 130+ years:
.. get back to me when you have some ammunition to debunk the consensus ..
Why then did the Consensus get so utterly flatfooted by this Pause, and put up a vigorous pause-denial front for over a decade ?
Could this be a case of : if you can't beat them join them ? So that having finally having given up on pause-denial, the Consensus then tweaked the model to admit and show it ? After all, the Consensus hasn't balked at tricks like hiding data and declines before, so such chicanery would not exactly be new tactical territory.
You mean stuff like Morner?
N.-A. Mörner, "Planetary beat and solar–terrestrial responses," Pattern Recognition in Physics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107–116, Nov. 2013.
These deniers give us little pieces of the jigsaw puzzle yet claim that it is the entire signal.
Keep it coming in the new year. We will keep on feeding off your table scraps and make the consensus models stronger and stronger.
WebHub I don\t know if your comment was aimed at my post but what you choose to completely ignore is straight down the line consensus science. If you introduce a sudden change in forcing that will have an impact on temperature. think of volcanos, The change from historical aerosol data to projectioned aerosols in MRI seems to do. The result SHOULD be a pause if the aerosol forcing suddenly goes up. Now tell me which bit of the science I got wrong?
I;m sure climate models are good tools for investigating some aspects of the climate system, it's just I;m suggesting this section of this models output is bad for investigating short term temperature trends given the step changes in the input data at this very moment.
I'm surprised the people at RealClimate didn't pick up on that point given it's very basic nature,
HR, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I understand HR from the Bad Brains better than I do you.
The blogosphere is having much fun about the climate scientists stuck in summer sea ice in Anarctica.
"The saga of the stricken Antarctic expedition continues to fascinate and intrigue. The news overnight is that all the passengers are to be evacuated by helicopter, leaving only the crew on board."
All theory is grey, but green life's golden tree.
H/t Goethe via J. Mieses.
Yeah, Don, you can't make this stuff up. And instead of just shutting up until they are rescued, they continue to push the AGW party line, clearly oblivious to the fact that it makes them look stupid to the vast majority of the population.
The evacuation is off. A chopper from the Chinese ice-breaker was to transfer the strandees to it, then from it to an Australian ice-breaker by small boat. But the Chinese vessel is now ice-bound, the Aussie ship will see if it can break though to it, but not currently hopeful.
"…they continue to push the AGW party line, clearly oblivious to the fact that it makes them look stupid to the vast majority of the population."
Let's be honest…the vast majority of the population doesn't really give the issue of AGW much thought at all. But in reality, a group of scientists stuck in highly changing sea ice near the Antarctic says nothing for or against AGW, but more about the dangers and risks of working in that extreme environment. Maybe we could all just try for more honesty in 2014?
Actually, Gates, it says more about the total ineptitude of the "expedition" organizer. And we should also admit that those who don't follow the AGW debate will likely find it odd when someone stuck in the ice argues that the ice is melting.
@ R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | December 31, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
Frankly, your comment looks as blatantly silly as the AGW group looking to make news of decreased sea ice – now desperately stuck in that ice.
Your kind really doesn't understand when to stop digging the hole…
"Actually, Gates, it says more about the total ineptitude of the "expedition" organizer."
Unless the expedition organizer was specifically responsible for reading the satellite and ice condition charts (normally this would be a ship crew navigational function), then to blame the organizer for getting stuck in the ice is highly misplaced. It is true that a very small segment of the population at large might find this ironic and humorous (especially if the supposed irony is pointed out by Faux News, etc.), in reality, this potentially dangerous situation is not really anyone's fault, says nothing meaningful about AGW, and is simply part of the hazards of doing research in the extreme and rapidly changing environment that Antarctica is.
"Your kind really doesn't understand when to stop digging the hole…"
No, "my" kind, that is, honest non-poltically motivated rational skeptics believe in honest and direct approaches to events. The reality is that not one expert in sea ice would be going to Antarctica to look at declining sea ice, but more likely, the causes for the slow long-term rise (which Judith will be posting about very soon). Of more interest as well, is the long-term decline in net continental ice mass loss in Antarctica, which is more indicative of the long-term imbalance in the Earth's climate energy system.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | December 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
"Actually, Gates, it says more about the total ineptitude of the "expedition" organizer."
Unless the expedition organizer was specifically responsible for reading the satellite and ice condition charts (normally this would be a ship crew navigational function), then to blame the organizer for getting stuck in the ice is highly misplaced.
Huh, for an "honest skeptic" you don't seem to be very interested in finding out why they are stuck in a day and age where near real-time satellite imagery is available. You'd rather just blame the crew. Wonder why? Doesn't fit your narrative to have the expedition leader responsible?
Honest skeptic… don't make me laugh!
Huh, for an "honest skeptic" you don't seem to be very interested in finding out why they are stuck in a day and age where near real-time satellite imagery is available. You'd rather just blame the crew. Wonder why? Doesn't fit your narrative to have the expedition leader responsible?
Honest skeptic… don't make me laugh!"
So the event organizer was also the navigator, responsible for reading navigational, satellite, and sea ice charts, eh? Quite a multi-tasking fellow!
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | December 31, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
Huh, for an "honest skeptic" you don't seem to be very interested in finding out why they are stuck in a day and age where near real-time satellite imagery is available. You'd rather just blame the crew. Wonder why? Doesn't fit your narrative to have the expedition leader responsible?
Honest skeptic… don't make me laugh!"
So the event organizer was also the navigator, responsible for reading navigational, satellite, and sea ice charts, eh? Quite a multi-tasking fellow!
Gates, again assuming something versus researching it, eh? Some skeptic you turned out to be.
By the way Gates, do you also believe the CEO is not responsible when the finance team "cooks the books"? After all, the CEO isn't the one typically responsible for accounting, right?
K scott denison,
I "presume" nothing about why this ship got stuck, other than someone or a several people inaccurately read sea ice and satellite charts. Navigation near moving and shifting sea ice is tricky business in the best of conditions and suddenly changing wind and storm systems can be unpredictable. Not knowing exactly what information those responsible for navigating this ship had prior to getting stuck, it is difficult to assess where to place the "blame". A captain would never endanger his ship, crew, or passengers intentionally, and if I "presume" anything, it is that rapidly and unpredictable changing conditions, common near the coast of Antarctica is the biggest factor.
"By the way Gates, do you also believe the CEO is not responsible when the finance team "cooks the books"? After all, the CEO isn't the one typically responsible for accounting, right?"
You speak in generalities presumably to make some point. What point would you like to make? Is there some specific situation or event you're wanting to make a point about?
Per a commenter at the Bish's, the Russian captain saw the ice fast approaching but departure was delayed by the scientists 'faffing' around with whatever they were 'faffing' around with.
"Per a commenter at the Bish's, the Russian captain saw the ice fast approaching but departure was delayed by the scientists 'faffing' around with whatever they were 'faffing' around with."
A captain's first responsibility is for the safety of the passengers and crew. Until we get more details of what the captain knew and why he chose to navigate (or not navigate) the ship where he did, it is all basically speculation right now. But the coast of Antarctica is certainly one of the most difficult environments to navigate, and even the best captain's with the best intentions can get stuck. If he is a good captain, he would not have chose to knowingly endanger the passengers and crew because of "faffing" around. Absurd.
If this is a story about someone disregarding danger to make, or avoid losing, money, the "skeptics" would lose interest in it fast.
Thank you, Kim, for pointing out what a little research and being skeptical can do. Now, Gates appears to waffle on his "it wasn't the expedition leader's fault, it's always the captain" assertion.
My point, dear Gates, is that you are most certainly *not* an "honest skeptic" as you self proclaim.
Jim D | December 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
If this is a story about someone disregarding danger to make, or avoid losing, money, the "skeptics" would lose interest in it fast.
And your evidence is? And, by the way, this story most certainly IS about someone disregarding danger to make money. If you can't see that, then I suggest that you are blind.
Maybe he was just skeptical of the danger and didn't disregard it.
Yeah, ks d, I hear there's a lot of money in blaring the trumpets of climate alarmism. I suppose we shouldn't poison the jury pool with speculation about where the blame for delay lies; the truth of that will be moderately easy to demonstrate.
@ kim | December 31, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
Happy New Year kim…
Consensus propaganda ship trapped by ice that its passengers maintain has already melted.
I seem to remember a similar, lesser incident a year or two ago, but google search hits are now understandably dominated by the current comedy.
I was hoping to find a thread on the global warming Antarctica "science" expedition stuck in ice and unreachable by three icebreakers to date.
One would be tempted to call out its leader (Dr. Turney) as a liar of sorts, but such observations are of course censored on this site (as Dr. Titley reminds us). Unfortunately, if public discourse continues in the direction of NOT being able call out things as they are, you are left with the party lying believing such behavior is a perfectly workable mode of operation.
Much as Obama continues to lie without recourse, there have been several recent events in the media that reflect where such unbalanced "civil" discourse leads. AGW has built an entire movement on the belief that it is acceptable to manipulate the truth, data and even history for its own objectives. Many who sat on the fence during this period in history now want only "civil" discourse to ensue.
In other words, when you follow the Mawson expedition of 100 years ago where historic records/pictures show no ice and clear access to the shore for his wooden ships by and expedition 100 years later to observe the loss of sea ice in an unprecedented [global] warming world and become trapped in ice of sufficient thickness that even three icebreakers can't rescue you…
..It's still not "ok" in civil discourse to call out the AGW movement as a lie and those who foster its underpinnings as liars.
StevieMac reminds us that Turney was a co-author on the ridiculous and withdrawn Gergis opus; now here he is 'researching' life's green and golden tree.
Teddi | December 31, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/ addresses the story fairly, though I have to say by any measure, Newsbusters has it dead wrong with http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glosses-over-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice .. but then, Newsbusters has been coming out with this agenda-driven angle for a while now, so it's small surprise.
Everyone sees the irony. The people stuck in the ice see the irony, and comment on it. It's implicit and obvious. If the joke needs explaining, the explainer has a touch of Asperger's or a polemical point to make. Oh look, they go to WUWT to explain their joke. Do you see me explaining the irony of going to WUWT for better understanding of Science?
"It's still not "ok" in civil discourse to call out the AGW movement as a lie and those who foster its underpinnings as liars."
Well, if you have evidence that shows the Earth's climate system did not continue to accumulate energy in 2013, I would love to see it. As a skeptical warmist, such as I am, to call me a "liar" would be to suggest that I am being dishonest about why I hold the position I do. I hold it only based on the science and the data. If you can show me data that shows the Earth climate system is losing net energy, please present it to me, as this is exactly the kind of data that I, as an honest skeptical warmist seek. Otherwise, your talking of wanting to call people "liars" is simply politically motivated pablum.
@ Bart R | December 31, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
I disagree wholeheartedly with your take on the media coverage. It has been an atrocious display biased CYA as ever seen in the international media as discussed in many venue – the best being here(the first two articles cover it very well): http://joannenova.com.au/
(the first two articles cover it very well)
And this article has great overall coverage with interesting pics:
@ R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | December 31, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
Your dissertations here are understood and have been counter argued very well mores times than AGW predictions have been incorrect – which is to say a great many times. Curricular logic discussions aside, its as k scott denison says above – common sense suggests this current affair will not play out very well for most looking from the outside in as opposed to those caught in internal curricular logic debates over the fine art of digging out from one's previous AGW positions.
Titley lied about extreme weather in a congressional hearing. Turney is lying about the the intent of his "expedition" and yes, AGW is a lie. You can presume upon those comments my response to you…
"…common sense suggests this current affair will not play out very well for most looking from the outside…"
Oh, no doubt those who readily lap up the pablum spewed out by Faux News and other Murdock dominated "news" outlets will make much hay of this, but the public at-large will care very little and it will make very little to no difference.
I'm gonna sound a bit like Joshua….
Hey, another weather event being used as evidence there is no such thing as AGW… (see wicked US snowstorms of 2013 and 2011, abnormally cold stretches in EU, recent slow US hurricane seasons, 2013 arctic sea ice recovery) not to be outdone by those who use similar weather event to say this is sure evidence of AGW and another example of what we can expect to see more frequently in a warmer world… (see superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene and Katrina, Tornado season 2011, and assorted droughts and floods).
Same ol same ol…. neither dog hunts.
@ John Carpenter | December 31, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
I'm gonna sound a bit like Joshua….
Yes, you do sound like Joshua…
Since when is record sea ice weather ?
Global Sea Ice Area Second Highest On Record For Date – Closing In On All-Time Record: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/global-sea-ice-area-second-highest-on-record-for-date-closing-in-on-all-time-record/
R Gates All you have to do is ask
" evidence that shows the Earth's climate system did not continue to accumulate energy in 2013, I would love to see it"
Hint you have to open your eyes first
Would you love to hear it as well
Hint use your ears.
1 The total sea ice area is nearing 950,000 Sq K greater than average for thid time of year [More ice less heat or accumulated energy in 2013 virtually all of 2013 how could you miss it].
2. A pause for 17 years in global warming ie no heat accumulation not only in 2013 but for the last 17 years overall. You can use various measuring sites some not as long as 17 but all over 9 years.
3. 2013 ranks 6th in all time highs, so 5 of the last 10 years have been warmer than it ie it is getting colder [no heat accumulation]
4. Arctic ice rebound in 2013 fastest ever No heat accumulation in 2013.
5. Sea levels starting to flatten prior to falling off no heat accumulation
6 Oh, yes- Climate scientist ship on expedition to show warming antarctic now deliciously, ironically, futilely and fatuously stuck in summer ice build up to record levels in the antarctic. Ship of fools . Only thing better would be if the Passenger list included Mann, Cook, Gates and Captain Ahab.
[Suggestions welcome for other passengers please]
They're all ancient mariners now; some of those moments lasted forever.
"angech | January 1, 2014 at 5:12 am | "
Angie-baby from Australia, you are completely lost in your inability to understand how the natural variations can account for the pause.
"Since when is record sea ice weather ?"
Did I say anything about record sea as weather? No. You insert words in my mouth that we're not said. Please read and think harder about what I wrote. The ship stuck in the Antarctic was the result of a weather event, existing ice from a larger mass breaking up and being blown by wind which surrounded and trapped the ship.
With regard to record global sea ice extent you can start here to see the trends.
In general, there has been no real trend in global SIE with the Antarctic increase making up for Arctic decrease. A single year data point means nothing.
Heh Joshua, pretty close.
kim | December 31, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
Was that "withdrawn prior to final publication where errors were found in the review process, corrected, and the paper reissued with corrections?"
Big whoop. Happens all the time. Why is it even worthy of special mention, that care is taken to correct mistakes?
It's one of the few things scientific publications do right more often than not, and in sharp contrast with the Wegman plagiarism fiasco, the sole other withdrawn paper in climatology that Retraction Watch has listed.
Dr. Joelle Gergis has over three dozen publications to her name, and this the only one that even raises an eyebrow about an issue uncovered by the authors themselves before SteveMac's chest-thumped 'discovery'. Senior author David Karoly's citation count (http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=dvEJT1wAAAAJ&hl=en) itself is mindbogglingly admirable. Turney's name doesn't show up on the list of co-authors for the paper so far as I can find; perhaps you mean he was a peer reviewer, thereby part of the process that caught and corrected the mistake?
Why is the CSALT model able to pick up a strong 27 year signal in the global temperature anomaly?
Because according to G.W.Brier [1]
"To obtain a repeat of an extreme tide, much nearer to the same day of the year, requires 334 synodic months or 358 anomalistic months since 334 X 29.53 = 9863.22 days and 358 X 27.55 = 9864.52 days and 27 X 365.24 = 9861.54 days = 27 years. No smaller set of integers will satisfy the equations better."
The temperature response is tied to the seasons and if some cyclical extreme event happens to synchronize with a latitudinal season this will show up in the temperature. Thanks to deniers such as Ian Wilson for pointing this rather obvious (in retrospect) fact out.
[1]G. W. Brier, "Long‐range prediction of the zonal westerlies and some problems in data analysis," Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 525–551, 1968.
Well, according to Robert…
TV proves that your carbon footprint is now going to grow, in CO too.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Plowing-Through-Koch-ist-G-by-Eric-Zuesse-Climate_Climate-Change_Climate-Change_Climate-Change-Deniers-131231-756.html presents an intriguing discussion of two opposing views, well-cited and referenced, rational, respectful, and readable.
Were I given to New Years' resolutions, I might aim to uphold such a standard in my comments for 2014.
I can't recall viewing another site that was such a mess.
Faustino | December 31, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
It is a mess, isn't it?
Perhaps it is like the poster, "A clean desk is a sign of a sick mind."
One ought perhaps comment on the irony of such well-ordered thought emerging from such clutter and mayhem, but then the irony is obvious, so the joke doesn't really need explaining.
Well-ordered, you say?
Do you spend your time googling for the word "Denier"?
You really ought to get out more.
Good news, my mind must be very healthy.
Faustino | December 31, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
Oh, it's hardly news that your mind is healthy, by all appearances. Best wishes it continues so for the New Year.
'According to a new Pew Research Center analysis, six-in-ten Americans (60%) say that "humans and other living things have evolved over time," while a third (33%) reject the idea of evolution, saying that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.'
"Younger adults are more likely than older generations to believe that living things have evolved over time. And those with more years of formal schooling are more likely than those with less education to say that humans and animals have evolved over time."
The study also said "There also are sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap."
"Differences in the racial and ethnic composition of Democrats and Republicans or differences in their levels of religious commitment do not wholly explain partisan differences in beliefs about evolution."
Well, I know what explains it. Many Republicans are anti-science dumbbells, even dumber now than they were three years ago.
'According to a new Pew Research Center analysis, six-in-ten Americans (60%) say that "humans and other living things have evolved over time," while a third (33%) reject the idea of evolution, saying that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.'
"Younger adults are more likely than older generations to believe that living things have evolved over time. And those with more years of formal schooling are more likely than those with less education to say that humans and animals have evolved over time."
The study also said "There also are sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap."
"Differences in the racial and ethnic composition of Democrats and Republicans or differences in their levels of religious commitment do not wholly explain partisan differences in beliefs about evolution."
Well, I know what explains it. Many Republicans are anti-science dumb bells, even dumber now than they were three years ago.
Yes, I saw that and was puzzled how Republicans have appeared to regress on their thinking about evolution, because nobody goes from believing evolution to not believing it, so I think the explanation is that the self-identifying Republicans have reduced to a more hard-core base in recent years, and that may be down to the Tea Party turning away the moderates.
I apologize for the duplicate post. I also forgot to use my new name.
BBC online have a story on the variability of our species: Human evolution, from tree to braid http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25559172 . It shows how an apparent sequential variety of human and related species were in fact variations in an inter-linked group, a single species.
Author Professor Clive Finlayson says that: "Some time ago we replaced a linear view of our evolution by one represented by a branching tree. It is now time to replace it with that of an interwoven plexus of genetic lineages that branch out and fuse once again with the passage of time. This means, of course, that we must abandon, once and for all, views of modern human superiority over archaic (ancient) humans. The terms "archaic" and "modern" lose all meaning as do concepts of modern human replacement of all other lineages. It also releases us from the deep-rooted shackles that have sought to link human evolution with stone tool-making technological stages – the Stone Ages – even when we have known that these have overlapped with each other for half-a-million years in some instances. The world of our biological and cultural evolution was far too fluid for us to constrain it into a few stages linked by transitions."
The relevance here is that it throws new light on the variability, adaptability and plasticity of our species – features that have been central to our success, and of our capacity to cope with a changing world.
Finlayson is director of the Gibraltar Museum. He works in caves there which have a record of occupation for over 100,000 years, with much evidence on human development in changing circumstances. His soon to be published book "The Improbable Primate: how water shaped human evolution" might be of interest to CE readers.
Dr. Curry, could you correct Steven Mosher for the unnecessary name calling?
Thank you Andrew. I would indeed be grateful if our hostess would say something on this issue. I enjoy a discussion of science, but it would be nice if we could stick just to the science, and not the rudeness. I suggest that Bart R ought to be included in the reprimand as well, if one is forthcoming.
Jim Cripwell | December 31, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
Could you explain the reasoning behind this vituperative attack of yours on people of good character?
It is entirely out of line with the spirit and letter of the Climate Etc. https://judithcurry.com/blog-rules-and-netiquette/
Note, I ask about your comments, not about yourself. Your remarks attack people, not arguments; although Mr. Mosher's comments absolutely warrant response from you, since they clearly show your arguments to be not just in error but also without foundation in reality, one finds it odd you think my observations on the semiotics of the exchange to be worth your comment at all absent an acknowledgement of Mosher's valid points and correction of your own errors first; please, don't take this personally — I don't personally know you or anything about you, and am discussing only the arguments produced on both sides.
Mr. Mosher cannot be said conventionally to have used offensive words, as his mild idiomatic usage of the phrase, "you moron" is broadly accepted as an attribution to the circumstance of one having produced an egregious error, not to a quality of a person. Barack Obama has called himself, "you moron", in public. The Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs called George W. Bush a moron in public. Bill Clinton's been called "you moron" by his own wife in public. If it's good enough for three US Presidents from themselves and their friends, it's hardly arguably offensive language. As to why you continue to grind this axe against Mr. Mosher, I do not know, nor do I care to ascribe any malice, envy, sense of inferiority or other motive to you about it.
Bart's approach well represents the Consensus position. Alarmists are allowed abuse, fraud, etc; skeptics aren't.
Gail | January 1, 2014 at 4:09 am |
Do I sound like a 'Consensus' to you? Really? That's Alarmingly backwards as a representation of my views.
The Blog Rules were not my invention, but the standard our host has posted. If you're complaining that Dr. Curry is too 'Consensus', as some sort of hipster irony, then perhaps it is a generation gap that causes the divide between what you say and what most of what Dr. Curry says about her own views.
As to Mr. Mosher's views, he and I come down squarely on opposite sides of many, if not most, issues, except that when Steve Mosher posts things that are correct, I don't go out of my way to make a vast fool of myself by opposing those correct things he says.
Heck, later in the comments sections, one of the jims posts something I agree with about the sorry state of publishing in Science. I commend him on it. That same jim then makes factual flubs in directly attacking me ad hominem. But like many adults, I can separate in my mind where someone has said something right, and where someone has said something that is not only factually wrong, but in apparent violation of Dr. Curry's posting rules. And like many adults, I can tolerate the personal insults from strangers for the weak tea irrelevancies that they are.
If you believe that personal attacks are a winning strategy of any sort — and a brief perusal of your contributions to Climate Etc. to date furnishes plentiful evidence that you do — then you condemn your comments to irrelevancy and pointlessness. Who cares to dwell on what personal insults are exchanged in a space supposed to be dedicated to discussion of better, more interesting things? A person isn't a climate, and 'winning' an insult flamewar is still losing by any meaningful measure.
Steven Mosher doesn't participate in unnecessary name-calling as Bad Andrew alleges; Mosh uses an idiomatic phrase indicative of the circumstance of a person caught in an egregious mistake. No one would ever say what Mr. Mosher did to an actual clinical moron. We can't take it from what Mosh wrote that he meant to label Mr. Cripwell with an epithet, unless we are incredibly out of touch with how the English language works. What we can say is, it's two words out of a long, salient, compellingly rational and methodically correct response to Mr. Cripwell's comment that refutes utterly every point of it.
If you care about the two rather meaningless words more than about the climate science ideas, perhaps your time would be better spent at a blog called Meaningless, Etc.
On behalf of everyone, Bart, it remains only for me to thank you for that most precious, meandering self-aggrandizing post. We honestly had no idea your ego was so intact.
Gail | January 2, 2014 at 1:31 am |
Curious of you to pick on ego and meandering.
Which is more self-aggrandizing: to say one is like an adult, or to say one is speaking on behalf of everyone?
As to meandering, it is difficult to know whether fifteen ten line posts or 500 three line posts in a month would be called more meandering, unless one read them all for coherence. I'm not alone in giving up on seeking coherence in drive-by short-line multi-posters like kim's meandering poesy, or your slightly less poetic snipes, long ago.
Bart R
Curious of you to pick on ego and meandering.
Curious of you to pretend such an obvious thing is curious.
.. self-aggrandizing …
Right or wrong, your smugness and excruciating superiority complex is never far away.
… meandering …
Good grief, just look at the post in question. Supposedly responding to being characterised as in the Consensus, the replies drift to the blog rules, Mosher …..
What the criticisms complain happened: http://www.dilbert.com/2014-01-03/
What actually happened: Steven Mosher | December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm | (note the moderator's snip of in effect, two words, that in no way altered the meaning of the original Mosher reply).
How can anyone mistake Mosher's conduct for that of the Pointy Haired Boss?
We've now had more complaining about those two words by many times the length of the original and topical reply Mr. Mosher gave, and no acknowledgement of the errors that prompted Mosher's timely, accurate and correct comment.
How is this a better situation than if the original two words had been left in, and Mr. Cripwell had accepted the correction, apologized (if he felt so inclined, not that it matters one way or the other), and we all had moved on?
Gail, on Bart's habit of meandering …
Good grief, just look at your post in question. Supposedly responding to being characterised as being in the Consensus, your replies drift to the blog rules, Mosher …..
Look up the phrases "unifying theme", and "lost the thread", to understand the nature of the attention deficit meander.
Glad you looked them up, prompting this mea culpa. Accepted. Good on yer, as Beth would say.
Gail | January 4, 2014 at 4:04 am |
Care to post the whole comment you're cherry picking from?
It appears to be stuck in moderation for no discernable cause, which rather leaves the reader who hasn't seen it thinking you're making things up.
Which, they'd turn out to be right about.
Minutiae much?
As an honest skeptic and a warmist, I always look for evidence that might refute my warmist position. I given an analysis of the 2013 Climate Year here:
If any honest non-warmist skeptic has evidence that would refute my continued warmist position (scientifiic evidence please, not your political perspective), I would love to see it.
Happy New Year to all…and if a modest El Niño develolps in 2014, a potential warmest year on record next year, just as the Aussies enjoyed this year.
"As an honest skeptic and a warmest, …" and clearly modest too. Not hint of pomposity with you Gates.
"…a potential warmest year on record next year,…" quite a good joke as I sit here in 0F versus our average high of 28F. Please remind me how I will recognize this warmest year on (an extremely short) record?
K Scott Denison:
I use the term "honest" skeptic not to highlight anything special about me as a person, but in support of skepticism in general, and to contrast the honest and appropriate use of skepticism as a tool, rather than a destination. Skepticism is an approach to knowledge and its evolution. Some would use it as badge or destination, as though skeptics do not evolve in what they hold as true. If they are not evolving, then they are not trying to.
Yeah, sure you do. Sheeesh… talk about being honest in the new year. I suggested starting with yourself.
Oh, and Gates, please remind me how I'll recognize that next year is the warmest on (an extremely short) record? And please, send that warmest year soon 'cause we're freezing our tundra off here in Wisconsin!
"Oh, and Gates, please remind me how I'll recognize that next year is the warmest on (an extremely short) record? And please, send that warmest year soon 'cause we're freezing our tundra off here in Wisconsin!"
Yep, you are getting air right from the Arctic there in Wisconsin right now. Here in Colorado, we are having a very warm and dry winter so far. Australia is having it's warmest year ever. The average across the planet will tell us how much sensible heat was in the troposphere this year. This is a very poor metric to measure AGW by, but seems to be the currently accepted proxy for the energy imbalance in the climate system.
You must have a reading deficiency Gates. The question is this: HOW WILL I RECOGNIZE THE WARMEST YEAR ON (an extremely short) RECORD WHEN IT GETS HERE?
I'm not asking about averages, I want to know what impact I should expect where I live? Temperature swings pretty wildly and widely here. So exactly how will I ever notice if it's up a degree or two?
"You must have a reading deficiency Gates. The question is this: HOW WILL I RECOGNIZE THE WARMEST YEAR ON (an extremely short) RECORD WHEN IT GETS HERE?
I'm not asking about averages, I want to know what impact I should expect where I live? Temperature swings pretty wildly and widely here. So exactly how will I ever notice if it's up a degree or two?"
How YOU will ever notice depends on you, doesn't it? If you are scientist, you can measure the changing temperatures a variety of ways, but it seems you want the "man on the street" perspective. If you can keep going about your life, shopping, working, etc. and nothing seems to change, that is your gauge eh? If you can't walk outside, and say, "Gee, it seems 0.5 degrees warmer this year?" This is a great question, and I would suggest you read up on how a warmer could affect our weather patterns, maybe beginning with the work being done by Dr. Francis at Rutgers:
Ah, I see, the weather patterns that never have seemed to be the same year to year for 56 years of my life COULD now change. Wow. Glad you cleared that up.
Of course K Scott Denison,
Our personal perceptions and anecdotes are interesting to us, but mean nothing. That's why we collect data over large temperal and spatial ranges and then look for trends and relate those to actual physical forcings. Climate is not a random walk.
Regarding your point #2, I'm curious to hear your reasoning as to why you think OHC has not been rising continually throughout the Holocene. Since the start of the Holocene, the average surface temperature has been hovering around 15C. The temperature of the upper mantle is estimated to be 500C or more. Sandwiched in between surface and mantle are the Earth's oceans, with an average temperature somewhere south of 4C. My assumption, based on my simple understanding of thermodynamics, is that OHC should have been steadily rising for the past 10K years. I think the recent OHC increase is nothing unusual and not at all due to an increase in CO2.
" My assumption, based on my simple understanding of thermodynamics, is that OHC should have been steadily rising for the past 10K years. I think the recent OHC increase is nothing unusual and not at all due to an increase in CO2."
No, ocean heat content has not been increasing steadily during the Holocene. An excellent recent study on this can be found at:
If you can find another forcing that would have caused the recent rise in ocean heat content besides the 40% rise in CO2 and similar large rises in methane and N2O, please let me know what they were.
Climate is not a random walk.
Anti persistence is and has global effects.
Happy New Year RGates!
Regarding your link, I have access only to the abstract. From the abstract, I assume that the proxies as interpreted by Rosenthal et al are accurate and represent the 10,000 year temperature profiles of the North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters. However, it sounds like a huge stretch to extrapolate these IMW profiles to that of all ocean water on Earth over 10,000 years. It sounds like their conclusion is a bit of a leap.
I also assume that, since you are a skeptic, you would agree with me on this. I have seen you make several comments in the past strongly implying that there is substantial variabilty in the oceans' spatially distributed temperature profiles.
"If you can find another forcing that would have caused the recent rise in ocean heat content besides the 40% rise in CO2 and similar large rises in methane and N2O, please let me know what they were."
??? You just gave me a link to a paper that purports to show huge increases in OHC during the Holocene Thermal Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period. What forcing is Rosenthal working with? Whatever it is, your CO2-methane-N2O forcing pales in comparison.
Btw, I'm still very curious to hear your reasoning as to why you think OHC has not been increasing continually throughout the Holocene. As I commented before, since the start of the Holocene the average surface temperature has been about 15C. The temperature of the upper mantle is over 500C. The Earth's oceans are sandwiched between the two with an average temperature less than 4C. Why do you think OHC would not increase steadily under these circumstances? The paper you linked to does not answer that question.
"The UK Met Office's chief scientist, Julia Slingo, has become a Dame in the New Year Honours List.
"Prof Slingo was recognised for her services to weather and climate science."
I await Tony B's reaction with interest.
Well, she sure didn't see that coming ;-)
"…especially that CET has a greater regional significance than merely Central England."
Sounds very interesting Tony. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. The correlation of CET with the AMO, NAO, and thus NH temperatures in general would be of interest. Considering the huge influence of the position and strength of the Gulf Stream and the sensible and latent heat that comes from it (or doesn't) to warm England and other parts of the NH, I can't imagine that CET is not correlated with a greater regional significance.
"Sounds very interesting Tony. "
Yea, sounds very interesting Tony. Curious to see how well the CET temperature record works in comparison to the global temperature records in being able to be characterized by the forcing terms. Forcing of energy is conserved only at the global level, I hope you realize and understand.
"Forcing of energy is conserved only at the global level, I hope you realize and understand."
And only at the full global climate energy system level as well, with the oceans as the biggest part of the system. Even global sensible heat is a very poor proxy for changes in Earth's climate energy system, but seems to be the currently adopted standard.
"CET may be well correlated for 50 year averages, less well for 10 year averages, and very weakly for annual averages."
CET would be highly correlated with net latent and sensible heat flux from the Gulf Stream as well has the position of that ocean current in relationship to natural fluctuation in atmospheric circulation patterns.
50-60 year running averages of CET do seem to remove local variability enough to show that the last century has an exceptional double rise with a pause in the mid-century period. It is well beyond anything else in the multi-century record.
"North Atlantic temperatures affect CET but so do certainly also variations in blocking and other persistent weather phenomena."
Weather patterns, blocking, etc. affect the CET mainly as "guides" to the energy that comes primarily from the Gulf Stream. They guide it towards or away from England, but the latent and sensible heat that comes from the Gulf Stream is the key ocean energy source driving CET.
Julia Slingo I know little of – but she coauthored a paper with Tim Palmer that I quote a lot – so I am inclined to congratulate her.
The world's longest instrumental record of temperature, Central
England Temperature (CET), began to be collected in 1659 in an area enclosed by Lancashire, London, and Bristol, a few years after the invention of sealed liquid thermometers. It is the only instrumental record that extends back to the Little Ice Age (LIA), a period of cold climate in Europe, and the time of the Maunder Minimum, when sunspots vanished almost entirely for 70 y (1). The record then covers several subsequent episodes of natural and anthropogenic warming of multidecadal durations. Manley (2) painstakingly compiled most of the early monthly CET series, and Parker et al. (3) the daily data from 1772. Both are updated to
present by the Met Office Hadley Centre.
CET is regional data. Although it has been a common practice in studying paleoclimate data to use proxy data from, for example, an ice core in Antarctica, to represent global climate after dividing the former by a factor of ∼2 or by a model-determined, latitude-dependent scaling factor, theoretical justification is only beginning to be emphasized (22). The present finding that the low-frequency portion of the regional data agrees with the global mean (with a scaling that is slightly larger than 1) during the 162-y overlap period supports the notion (but does not prove) that a single time series can, in fact, be used to represent the global mean variation. To validate the CET time series for the preindustrial era in its ability for near-global representation, we use the multiproxy data of Delworth and Mann (12), which has near-global coverage (Fig. 3B). Before 1850, the CET AMO agrees with this multiproxy data in phase; the amplitudes in the proxy data are only relative. The spatial pattern of this multidecadal variability in the multiproxy data is similar to that in the recent global instrumental record a monopole with emphasis on the North Atlantic region extending to the Pacific and North American region (23, 24). However, after 1850, there is a gradual divergence in time of the multiproxy record from the global instrumental record. This is well recognized, but the cause is unclear (25). CET, being an instrumental record, does not suffer such a divergence.
What's a the bottom line? Read the paper.
Much more recent – Lorenz gets a few mentions.
This record has previously been analyzed to study interannual and interdecadal variability up to the 25-y period (4); interannual winter variability and its association with solarforcing (5);and itsvarianceat interannual, interdecadal timescales compared with a general circulation model output (6). The lower frequency portion of the record, longer than 50 y, has not been adequately analyzed, the difficulty being that even this long record is not long enough to avoid the cone of influence from the edges of the time series. Here we use a statistical approach to quantify the edge effects. It is this low-frequency portion of the record that contains information about an important multidecadal mode of variability that extends into the modern, industrial era.
Tuing and Zhou – op cit
Chief, Nobody believes in your baby chaos. It is baby-like because it can't compete with the sustained forcings of CO2 governed by laws of energy conservation.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.
Obviously we can start with Tim Palmer – head of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and Dame Julia Slingo, hed of the met office as 'believers'. This is of course – the very core of mainstream climate science.
You will notice that Slingo and Palmer make their statements in the context of seasonal and decadal prediction, which is still a very difficult initial value problem, more along the lines of the Lorenz ideas. Century-scale climate projection, on the other hand is a boundary, not initial problem, that is determined by forcing not the details of initial conditions.
"Century-scale climate projection, on the other hand is a boundary, not initial problem, that is determined by forcing not the details of initial conditions."
This is an important point that many seem to not grasp. The boundary of the century-scale climate is determined by total energy the system loses or gains, and this, over the coming century will be determined by the rapid rise in GH gases (we must not forget methane and N2O!). The variability within that period (especially in regard to atmospheric temperatures) will be determined by short-term unpredictable external forcing (such as we get from a volcano) and the internal variability of ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux, such as we get from ENSO, the PDO, AMO, etc.
Very much a Baby Chaos concept. There are no doubt noisy parts of the temperature signal but these are swamped by the external forcing factors, seasonal swings, and free energy component variations.
The CSALT model accounts for these factors and for sure the noise and chaos is at the baby level.
Every day on average the temperature drops ~18°F sometimes as much as 6-8°/hr if the sky is clear, always less if it's cloudy. After the first few hrs, on clear nights the rate of cooling is limited by how fast the ground cools, which varies greatly based on land usage. It cools until the Sun comes up.
The rate is limited on average by clouds, it's been about the same for 60+ years, and it has no linear trend.
I've got a novel idea. Why don't you try actually read and understand the paper? Else it is just another pointless repetition of your favourite talking points.
It is turning out that all natural fluctuations are traced to forcing functions, free-energy terms, seasonal swings, and perhaps a small amount of residual noise either not accounted for (aleatory) or due to measurement error (epistemic).
Chief wants to push his Baby Chaos theory as it just adds to the FUD.
Michael Kanellos recently (Oct.28) had an article in Forbes titled can LED Bulbs Make Nuclear Plants Obsolete. He believes LED bulbs are so efficient their use could "mothball 44 reactors" and when combined with networked controls could eliminate the need for another 35 to 45 plants.
Read the details at
That is, of course, assuming that people use LED bulbs in the same way, for the same duration, that they do non-LED bulbs. A rather poor assumption.
Yes, that is a quite a bit – considering lighting accounts for around 12% of total electricity consumption.
Now about the other 88% …
Kanellos says lighting accounts for 19% of electric power consumption.
My source: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99&t=3
Even if lighting does account for 19%, that still leaves 81% non-lighting
Home use of electricity in the U.S. has declined for the third straight year, and is expected to decline further in 2014.
We were warned about a decline in our standard of living if we used less power. Has anyone lowered their standard of living by using less power?
"Has anyone lowered their standard of living by using less power?"
Nope. Oddly, all my gadgets (and I've got way too many) use less energy than ever. Green Tech means less is more. Sorry, nuke plants…we may not need you…
I stopped using my central heating around 5 years ago, because it just became unaffordable. Now I just wrap up as warm as I can.
I no longer go out nearly as much as I used to, because fuel has become more unaffordable.
I now eat microwaved meals far more than oven-cooked meals, to use less electricity.
I can't remember when last I relaxed in the bathtub – nowadays I stick to quick showers.
Other than that, my standard of living hasn't gone down much.
Hey Max, maybe three years isn't a strong trend, ya think? Go back a little further in terms of total US consumption and you'll see that, not surprisingly, consumption seems to track the economy.
Electricity prices rise a couple of percent? So what?
Perhaps the decline has to do with the state of the economy. No one is worse off? Tell that to the homeless and unemployed.
Existing nuclear power plants have very low ongoing costs – low fuel cots. It seems more likely that serviceable plants will be preferentially retained.
Uh, Max, the median income in the US is down from its peak by about 10%. So yeah, the standard of living IS lower. Been on a downward trend since 1999. Guess less electricity is correlated (but not necessarily caused by) a lower standard of living.
Looks like electricity consumption was going up prior to the last three years (even during the recession) so I wouldn't attribute it to income or the economy.
Interesting blog here on the impact the AAE "jaunt" in Antarctica is having on real research: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/rescue-effort-for-trapped-antarctic-voyage-disrupts-serious-science/
the NZ antarctic conservation program,has found and developed 100 yr photographs from Shackeltons stranded Ross sea party.
HuffPost headline at this moment. 4 C by 2100.
I agree, individual papers are always open for more to come along and confirm or oppose them. Here they identify a main source of variability among models that determines their climate sensitivity. As most suspect, it is the magnitude of the cloud feedback, and here they try to address that. A reduction in low clouds with a warming climate is a positive feedback, and they point to support for the more sensitive models from observations in this area. Unlike recently publicized purely statistical papers, this one is mechanistic, which for me is scientifically more interesting.
Pekka, yes, this is where the observations are being used to discriminate between the models, and interestingly those closer to the observations are also more sensitive. I vaguely remember a similar conclusion by Trenberth one or two years ago regarding the models closest to simulating a proper ENSO were also the more sensitive ones.
Zhu et al (2007) ( ) found that cloud formation for ENSO and for global warming have different characteristics and are the result of different physical mechanisms. The change in low cloud cover in the 1997-1998 El Niño came mainly as a decrease in optically thick stratocumulus and stratus cloud. The decrease is negatively correlated to local SST anomalies, especially in the eastern tropical Pacific, and is associated with a change in convective activity. 'During the 1997–1998 El Niño, observations indicate that the SST increase in the eastern tropical Pacific enhances the atmospheric convection, which shifts the upward motion to further south and breaks down low stratiform clouds, leading to a decrease in low cloud amount in this region. Taking into account the obscuring effects of high cloud, it was found that thick low clouds decreased by more than 20% in the eastern tropical Pacific… In contrast, most increase in low cloud amount due to doubled CO2 simulated by the NCAR and GFDL models occurs in the subtropical subsidence regimes associated with a strong atmospheric stability. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD008174/full
I am quite sure that this paper can be found unpaywalled somewhere. It brings up the hoary question of distinguishing between any mooted change from greenhouse gases and natural variability.
What do we really know about cloud changes over the past decades?
A significant feature is the relatively large decrease in cloud to late int the last century. Which is supported in the tropics by ERBS. The change here is much greater than the mooted change in greenhouse gas 'forcing' in the period. In my mind that suggests less feedback and more natural variabiliy. Another feature is the increase in cloud in the 1998/2001 climate shift – found also in Project Earthshine.
These shifts are captured as well in surface observations.
An index of Pacific decadal variability based on a multivariate empirical orthogonal function analysis of National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis is used to extract associated signals in satellite-based measurements of atmospheric parameters. This index captures the 1976–1977 ''El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-like'' warming shift of sea surface temperatures (SST) as well as a more recent transition of opposite sign in the 1990s. Utilizing measurements of water vapor, wind speed, precipitation, long-wave radiation, as well as surface observations,our analysis shows evidence of the atmospheric changes in the mid-1990s that accompanied the ''ENSO-like'' interdecadal SST changes.
Burgman, R. J., A. C. Clement, C. M. Mitas, J. Chen, and K. Esslinger (2008), Evidence for atmospheric variability over the Pacific on decadal timescales, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35
CERES is confirming the reality of large natural variations in response to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation – and to ignore it flies in the face of this reality.
This includes a video by Sherwood with the mechanistic explanation.
Thanks Jim D. We'll be hearing more about this in early 2014.
…that's if we survive that long!
"…that's if we survive that long!"
Just party responsibly on New Year's Eve, and you should be fine.
Yes, the bottom line is that new estimates of the positive cloud feedback push the sensitivity up.
"Yes, the bottom line is that new estimates of the positive cloud feedback push the sensitivity up."
And align model estimate of sensitivity even more with the paleoclimate data, specifically with the strong set of data coming from the mid-Pliocene.
A 10-minute video on what is wrong with cap and trade. Basically it is good for business as usual and the market place, but not effective for stopping climate change.
I've never been a fan of cap-and-trade. I like the idea of taxing carbon instead of income. It would mean more money for me.
Regarding the 4C by 2100 prediction and its foundational basis in water vapor feedback theory, is there a summary description out on the Internet somewhere which describes the water vapor feedback mechanism in laymen terms?
If it exists, that summary description would hopefully be reasonably concise but also reasonably informative in describing the various interacting mechanisms through which those water vapor feedback processes operate.
At what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is all the reradiated IR absorbed? There has to be a theoretical max.
"At what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is all the reradiated IR absorbed? There has to be a theoretical max."
That's not the way it works. The effects are logarithmic, meaning they roll off with decreasing effect at higher and higher concentrations. Thus, going from 1000 ppm to 1100 ppm has less effect on Earth's energy balance than going from 200 ppm to 300 ppm, so never is all the reradiated IR absorbed, as some of it is always going to radiated directly into space.
No matter what the concentration, there is always a highest CO2 molecule that is radiating, with no CO2 molecule above it to absorb that radiation.
Sorry but the saturation argument sinks.
Anyone have a take on the new Sherwood paper in Nature yet? It looks controversial, to say the least.
A quote from the abstract of the Sherwood paper in Nature:
"The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming."
Yes, looks like the paper will be controversial.
"Yes, looks like the paper will be controversial."
Controversy is good.
"More than 8 million acres of China's farmland is too polluted with heavy metals and other chemicals to use for growing food, a Cabinet official said Monday, highlighting a problem that is causing growing public concern.
The threat from pollution to China's food supply has been overshadowed by public alarm at smog and water contamination but is gaining attention following scandals over tainted rice and other crops. The government triggered complaints in February when it refused to release results of a nationwide survey of soil pollution, declaring them a state secret.
The figure given at a news conference by Wang Shiyuan, a deputy minister of the Ministry of Land and Resources, would be about 2 percent of China's 337 million acres of arable land.
Some scientists have given higher estimates of as much as 60 million acres, or one-fifth of the total, though it is unclear how much of that would be too badly contaminated for farming.
The issue poses a dilemma for communist leaders who want to maximize food production but face public pressure to ensure safety after an avalanche of scandals over shoddy infant formula and other goods.
The explosive growth of Chinese industry, overuse of farm chemicals and lax environmental enforcement have left swathes of the countryside tainted by lead, cadmium, pesticides and other toxins."
China is learning the downside of "pollution for profit" the hard way.
China is learning the downside of "pollution for profit" the hard way.
Ironic isn't it, when you consider that China produces around half the world's photovoltaic cells, and around 95% of the world's neodymium (for wind generators)
I doubt you are suggesting the production of photovoltaic cells and neodymium are at the root of China's pollution problem. Can you quantify the environmental harm from these two?
No, I can't at the moment, but you're quite welcome to look it up
Phatboy, I figured you couldn't. I also have to wonder if you know neodymium magnets are used for everything magnets are used for, not just for wind generators. I use neodymium magnets at home for a variety of purposes.
I said I can't, but really meant I won't – not on this particular night of the year.
And just how much neodymium goes into your fridge magnets and other toys, in comparison with a wind generator?
Not surprising when a government is trying to balance growth to pull the people out of poverty (and prevent revolution) with managing the environment. I'm sure the Chinese government would be all ears should you wish to suggest the ideal solution for walking what is a very difficult, very thin line.
phatboy | December 31, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
"I said I can't, but really meant I won't – not on this particular night of the year."
Sure, you could if you wanted to, but you just don't want to.
And I could bench press 700 lbs if I wanted to, but I just don't want to.
Would you want to find out what proportion of neodymium magnet production is used in windmill generators?
No, you asked me a question – the answer to which you could easily have found out yourself.
I declined to answer.
Get over it.
Lewis Carroll would have appreciated the following:
Phatboy: A lot of the neodymium produced is for windmill generators.
Max_OK: How much is a lot?
Phatboy: I don't know. It's your job to find out what I mean by a lot.
Thanks, Phatboy, for making me chuckle.
Lewis Carroll
In the meantime, the real version of what was said is on record just above for everyone to see.
Nature is quickly becoming the scientific equivalent of the Daily Prophet.
R. Gates,
Of course it is an asymptotic curve. Do the models incorporate that aspect of basic spectroscopy in their CO2 models. All I see is "doubling" in the literature including the last Nature paper, it should be easy to calculate.
Yes, all the models take the basic logarithmic GH properties of CO2, methane, N2O, etc. in their physics. The use of the doubling metric at around an additionally 3.7 w/m^2 TOA energy imbalance is the amount without feedbacks involved, which, by themselves is estimated to raise tropospheric temperatures (sensible heat) at the surface a little over 1C. However, with feedbacks being a huge unknown, and other nonlinear effects, the actual temperature is a subject of huge debate and speculation with a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm. It seems constrained within a broad range of as low as 1.4C to 6C, with a long-term average estimate of around 3C. Paleoclimate data related to the last time CO2 was close to 560 ppm, would seem to favor higher than the 3C figure, and over the long-term, much higher sea levels and eventually (many centuries at 560 ppm), all of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica going away. Some think this will be "good" for everyone, though it seems this "warmer is better" crowd is not keen on thinking about the big effects this will have on the global ocean:
Thanks R. Gates that was helpful. I can appreciate the complexity.
You did raise another question. Not to be oversimplistic but from a sheer thermodynamic standpoint don't we really need an energy imbalance to have life exist on the planet? Incidentally, wouldn't a larger energy imbalance have been needed in the past to accumulate all the fossil fuels we are now burning. The equations have to balance out, no free lunches.
I will leave R. Gates to answer, but we need the insulation from GHGs, not so much the energy imbalance, which is a transient and varying thing.
Great questions John. Of course energy is always flowing to and from Earth and always in a state of imbalance, and attempts to reach a balance is exactly what drives life, and all activity in the Universe, and is in fact, the basis of "times arrow" or entropy itself. But those are larger issues and we could go on for hours on that topic alone.
But you ask: "Incidentally, wouldn't a larger energy imbalance have been needed in the past to accumulate all the fossil fuels we are now burning. The equations have to balance out, no free lunches."
Indeed, the Earth is always losing or accumulating energy over short and long-term time scales. in the distant past, there have been periods when much more energy was being accumulating in the system, as well as much less. The fossil fuels we burn today are energy stored in the system millions of years ago– "stored sunlight" as it were. But there were also long periods when the system accumulated much less energy than today– the "Ice Planet" periods where much of the sunlight was reflected away by vast ice sheets that reached almost to the equator. What we look for is "forcings" that tip the climate back and forth from the energy "accumulation" modes to the opposite. Currently, based on our largest energy reservoir of the ocean, and TOA measurements, we can pretty confidently say we are in an energy accumulation phase, and every climate model and basic physics clearly identifies the cause of this energy accumulation to be the accumulation of anthropogenic GH gases in the atmosphere, which keep more energy in the system than is arriving when averaged on an annual basis.
Thank you Judith and we do reciprocate.
The trouble with climate science is that advocacy
is built into the language. It all starts with the
words 'greenhouse gases' These words should be
expunged from the language because they are
meaningless scientific jargon. More than that they
are an attempt to bias your brain towards a
particular view of nature and they have succeeded
in poisoning discourse towards political views
rather than scientific .
Let's take a closer look at the label 'Greenhouse
gas". Firstly, a greenhouse is an enclosed space
and works because it lets sunshine in and prevents
warm gases from escaping out. No such structure
exists in nature. That CO2 can absorb large
quantities of heat is controversial. The specific
heat of Nitrogen (N2) (70% of atmosphere) is about
29, while CO2 is about 36 (<1%) both at 25C. So on
that basis each gram of N2 will absorb almost as
much heat as each gram of CO2!. Secondly, your
view of CO2 depends on whether you are a chemist
or a physicist If you are a chemist, all CO2 is
the same, if you are a physicist CO2 has hundreds
of different modes to absorb radiated heat, Indeed
carbon 14 in CO2 is routinely used to date
archeology samples. For example, Europe switched
from Texas crude to Iranian in 1940 because of the
U boat threat in the Atlantic. Is this why the
first bout of anthropogenic heating ended and
reversed so dramatically in 1940? Much more
research needs to be done to establish which CO2
modes existed in 1940 and why they changed so
Hail to the Liar-in-Chief …
From the article:
The fight against the crippling regulations imposed by Barack Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency on the coal industry is ratcheting to a higher level now that the regulations are soon to be imposed. Obama has said he wants to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020, calling for an end to the country's "limitless dumping of carbon pollution."
The new regulations will severely limit carbon dioxide emission from already existing coal plants as well as limit emissions on new plants. In addition, the new regulations will force all the plants to adhere to "commercially feasible" clean-energy technologies, a prospect so grim that even West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin described them as "impossible" to achieve.
In 2012, U.S. coal production dropped to its lowest level in almost twenty years. The prospective loss of jobs is huge; economist Nicolas Loris of the Heritage Foundation said coal industry jobs will fall by 600,000 jobs by 2023. He added, "It's going to significantly cripple our economy. It will reduce household income as people are forced to spend more money on their energy bills. Anyway you shake this it's a no-win for our economy." He concluded by telling Newsmax, "Now that it's starting to become a reality and the war on coal is really coming, I do think you'll see more opposition."
Last week both of Kentucky's senators and five GOP congressman from the state filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenge in the Supreme Court to the EPA's authority to regulate coal plants, saying the EPA went too far applying a 2007 Supreme Court decision that allowed it to regulate greenhouse gases.
Another science journal fail … (and a copyright law fail). This is another good reason to put scientific works on the web. It's cheap and good!! You can't beat a combination like that.
From the article:
Science from 1957 – copyrighted research, still behind paywalls
1957 was a noteworthy year for science: the USSR launched Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2, IBM released the first FORTRAN compiler, and the UK's Medical Research Council published an early report linking smoking and lung cancer. There were groundbreaking publications in the fields of superconductivity and astrophysics such as "Theory of Superconductivity" by John Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieffer and "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars ('B²FH')" by Geofrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge, William Fowler, and Fred Hoyle.
On The Road, Next Exit…2053Both of the articles above are copyrighted, but thankfully their publishers have made them available in full online, so that you can read them, even though it may still be illegal to copy and distribute them. Many articles from 1957 remain behind paywalls, including those in major scientific journals such as Science, Nature, and JAMA. Are you interested in a historical perspective on, for example, "Soviet and U.S. Professional and Technical Manpower" or the "Breeding Behavior of Cichlids"? You can't read those articles unless you pay or subscribe (the first costs US$20 for one day of access; you can purchase the second for US$32).
It's remarkable to find scientific research from 1957 hidden behind publisher paywalls. True, some older articles – especially those with enduring impact – have been made available on third party websites, though it is often unclear whether this is being done with the consent (or temporary forbearance) of the copyright holder, or simply being provided by enthusiasts who cannot imagine that access to these works is still legally restricted. But this is not a stable solution for providing reliable access to science. Third party postings can be difficult to find or taken down, links can get broken, and would-be posters may be deterred by the risk of a lawsuit. Under the pre-1978 copyright term, all of this history would be free to scholars, students, and enthusiasts. Now, to get these articles from the publisher, you need a credit card or institutional subscription. And the institutional access that many top scientists enjoy is itself not a stable solution – even institutions such as Harvard have considered canceling their subscriptions because they can no longer afford the escalating prices of major journal subscriptions.
Not all scientific publishers work under this kind of copyright scheme. "Open Access" scientific publications, like those of the Public Library of Science, are under Creative Commons licenses, meaning that they can be copied freely from the day they are published.
jim2 | December 31, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
One rarely sees such good sense.
Thank you.
Have been annoyed by this sort of thing for many years and is the reason why I cancelled my membership to the IEEE. My main interest for joining was for access to their online library, historical and current papers, but the discount given to members was derisory. Could see no benefit whatsoever of being a member and many other engineers that I discussed this with in the newsgroups agreed. As usual, follow the money. Greedy. grasping self serving institutions and organisations that will defend the status quo tooth and nail because to do otherwise would involve losing income.
On the same note, how can you trust any of the so called peer reviewed journals for scientific objectivity and truth with so much money at stake ?…
Why don't climate scientists get more respect? Well they keep publishing this kind of garbage …
and this …
and those are from alleged professional scientists.
But an amatuer scientist can refute those with actual data …
here …
and here …
Maybe Bart R. can come up with another good FUD and spin web site that will put the "deniers" in their places. Right.
Watts had no substantive answer and just quoted the article verbatim. Maybe he'll think of something for damage control, but nothing there to comfort his denizens yet.
Willis's item unfortunately supports this, because it shows that low clouds have a major impact on sensitivity because increased low clouds cause cooling, and decreased ones cause warming, as has been know for some time. The Nature paper says, yes, decreased low clouds, therefore positive feedback, with warming.
But JimD. The chart Willis put up is a function of surface temperature. So, it factors in clouds of all types. Again, it proves that clouds are a net negative feedback (I feel compelled to say "negative feedback" means the higher the surface temp, the less energy is allowed to get through to the surface – this due to the confusion nature of climate science-speak.)
Willis's plot only shows more low clouds mean more cooling. When there are less clouds it is more warming, and that is the direction it is going.
JimD – his plot shows that the higher the surface temperature, that the more TOA undergoes a net cooling. There is nothing in the chart that displays the type of cloud – it doesn't matter.
In fact, with a little more slicing and dicing of the data into grid cells, you could substitute this sort of relation for cloud behavior in a climate model.
Now that would be interesting.
The clouds over colder water would be shallow, and those were cooler with more cloud. He isn't accounting for how much or which way cloud amounts change, and that is the important part.
OK, I don't understand what you mean by "which way." The TOA imbalance shifts to more energy being deflected, a negative feedback.
So what do you mean by "which way?"
I do appreciate the fact that someone else isn't getting drunk tonight :)
maybe a drink later, not starting now.
The big question is whether low clouds reduce in a warming climate. The models say yes they do. Less low clouds is less cooling, which is a positive feedback. The low cloud cover is a main factor in the cloud forcing, while high clouds are pretty much a wash in terms of net warming or cooling with more coverage.
So, now, someone should be able to take the output of the "correct" model or models, chart the same data the same way Willis did and the charts should look the same, no? That would be a valid test for a climate model.
That's a fair criticism Pekka and I was hoping you would weigh in.
But Willis' charts, the ones with the surface temp color bar, still is what it is. It distinctly shows a negative feedback – more SWR is reflected into space than IR is radiated to space. This appears to hold for all SST temperatures and provides yet another illustration of the negative feedback of clouds.
You can quibble with the 1994 paper, but I would like to hear why the above interpretation is wrong. It's DATA, after all!
The important point may be that the steady-state distribution of clouds is a product of the P-V-T phase diagram. As global temperatures warm, the distribution of clouds to first-order may not actually change much, and instead move up or down in altitude (likely up) to match the preferred P-V-T state. If that is the case, it is more of a wash. Or, as JimD said, the higher-altitude clouds may have more of an impact, as different parts of the phase diagram set in, i.e. ice clouds vs droplet clouds.
Bottom-line is that cloud feedback tracks the relative warming and gets incorporated in the CO2 control knob as a smoothly varying function.
Let's see, WHT. I can believe your hand-waving or I can believe data. Damn, it's a tough decision.
jim2, plotting clouds against surface temperature is not just showing a response to warming but also, and probably more, a response to geographic location. This plot is not useful unless those are sorted out. What appears to be happening is that low clouds that have a large cooling effect are reducing in area with warming.
jim2 | January 1, 2014 at 9:58 am |
Let's see, WHT. I can believe your hand-waving or I can believe data. Damn, it's a tough decision.
Is the guy with the fudged data Wee Willie Eshenblot by any chance?
The mean density and altitude of clouds are part of the CO2 control knob.
Here is some good data and the CSALT model fit to that data
Captured in 20 year intervals to allow you to weep more easily as your anti-science crusade continues to be crushed.
jim2 | December 31, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
Took me a while, but here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-susan-brooks-thistlethwaite/christian-theology-climate-change_b_4545090.html
So I put on my blue suede shoes, my Levi's and my party shirt. We had a steak at the Great Western – billed as the greatest steak on Earth. The Great Western is to place to cowboy up in Rocky on New Years Eve. We hit the carnival after dinner – put flashing multi-coloured stars around our necks – rode the bumper cars – had an argument and went home. We decided we couldn't start 2014 like that. So walked into town – got some water at the Strand Hotel in Yeppoon – where a nice girl gave me a noisemaker. I danced on the beach to the band in the hotel – kissed my wife of twenty years at midnight. We walked home a few km's in a very sweaty tropical night. The lads on the street corner outside the pub wished me a good evening – or words to that effect – you lucky basterd.
We walked home – which seemed much longer than the walk there – occasionally blowing my noise maker to set the dogs off. Frankly – hitting the shower and going to bed with my ipod nano and The Three Musketeers was the highest priority.
I don't intend to start 2014 going over the same tired old ground. Come up with some new stuff guys – and a little bit more detailed analysis. Quoting an abstract may be informative – that's what abstracts are for – but it really needs to be accompanied by reading the paper and placing it in a broader context. Use Pekka as an example.
All the best for 2014.
The Australians missed the opportunity to say 'All the _from_ 2014' to all those who haven't caught up yet. That would have been cool.
Few more hours here.
All the best from 2014 – Jim.
Regards from the tail end of 2013.
R. Gates, One thought, It might be a black swan event that tips the climate to the extremes, (meteor, supervolcano, solar event) as well. If we weren't burning our fossil fuels global temps might be lower than we really want as the energy accumulation might be worse. The models are just models, just look at how the financial and mortgage worked out for everybody in 2007, the Junk Bond models in the 80's and Mcnamara's vietnam body count models in the 70's.
Happy New Year and may we all stay out of the pack ice.
Old papers thrown away,
Old garments cast aside,
The talk of yesterday,
Are things identified;
But time once torn away,
No voices can recall:
The eve of New Year's Day
Left the Old Year lost to all.
John Clare (1793-1864)
"A New Year's resolution is something that goes in one year and out the other."
Faustino: Sad but true.
But I think the contributors to i these columns will continue to be dissatisfied with the IPCC verdicts on climate and continue to voice their objections for whatever reasons. Thanks to Judith for supporting us.
moso, I put on my Aussie guise and went to the tennis. I was hoping you'd drop by some days ago, as my wife and I were trimming 70-feet-plus bamboos and could have done with some (youthful?) expertise and agility. Succeeded with relatively minor injuries, not comparable to those incurred (by me, while Helen cheered) from England's totally abject display in Melbourne Helen's home ground).
Folks, it is New Years eve. Surely there are better things to do this evening than to continue snipping on the edges of AGW here.
I look forward to Dr. Curry's post on the potentially deadly farce going on in Antarctica at present. But not tonight. Happy New year to all, including to those for whom it has already come.
Juditth, thanks for providing us this excellent forum.
Happy New Year!
Sun-Climate 101: Solar-Terrestrial Primer
Sun-Climate 101: Solar-Terrestrial Primer
If a C02 temperature signal could be detected in some way, a device could and would be at least designed to measure it. There is no such device and so far no design for one.
Bad Andrew,
I have designed such a device (well, I have modelled it on a beer coaster, using the finest 2B pencil).
It would be very impressive, with a large red control knob, lots of flashing LEDs, and a voice synthesiser programmed to utter the words "It's worse than we thought", and "Danger, danger" if the knob is turned too far. The voice chosen would emulate that of the Daleks in Dr Who.
The rest of the design is Top Secret, and my personal Intellectual Property.
I can guarantee that my Device will produce any Temperature Signal desired. Please send a large amount of money in unmarked notes. I promise I will start right away.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike, you might source more appropriate technology from Red Dwarf rather than Tardisville.
I saw this quotation from wattsupwiththat.com:
""When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.""
They mentioned it was published in Nature:
"Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates."
Am I incorrect in saying the models have been wrong compared to the observations, showing more warming than was previously thought? If the models had an error underestimating the warming, but are consistently over-estimating warming, the question is begged: do we really know enough to say anything about climate.
The sea surface temperatures around Antarctica are below average at the moment.
Indeed, according to noaa data, the southern ocean south of latitude 60 South (or even 50 south) has been steadily cooling for 30 years.
The most likely cause is wind. No need to invoke clumsy freshening mechanisms / other warmist nonsense.
Jim D,
Are you saying you can detect an ACO2 temperature signal without accounting for all the other factors affecting temperature?
Or are you claiming that the signals for all the other factors are so well understood, and that list very confidently thought to be complete, so that the ACO2 signal can safely be deduced by subtracting out all the others?
Or what?
It's called defluctuating the signal. All the natural variability terms can be carefully removed by applying variational principles to the conserved free-energy factors.
What is left is the predicted anthropogenic response driven by the CO2 control knob.
Fun stuff, not boring.
Insofar, Web, as "all the natural variability terms" are fully understood and finely measurable, we can have an unexplained residual. The attribution of the residual to CO2 has some scientific basis, obviously, however, there are many here who think that that attribution is not proven. My position as a non-scientist is to say, well, maybe, but even if it is true, that does not demonstrate (a) that any warming will be adverse or (b) that we can do anything about it without incurring excessive costs for any diminution of temperature rise achieved.
All economists have is the "unexplained residual". Big whoop, get back to me when you understand physics.
… are you claiming that the signals for all the other factors are so well understood, and that list very confidently thought to be complete, so that the ACO2 signal can safely be deduced by subtracting out all the others?
> It's called defluctuating the signal. All the natural variability terms can be carefully removed by applying variational principles to the conserved free-energy factors.
Which presumes a claim to fully understand all the non-ACO2 factors?
yes, and all the skeptics can respond with is a change in the subject — i.e. "that does not demonstrate (a) that any warming will be adverse "
You lost the battle and the war.
I quote Tung and Zhou 2013 again above. This is just one of many actual peer reviewed papers that show a 'residual' greenhouse gas signal of 0.07 to 0.08 degrees C/decade.
Webby and his blog science disagrees? Well who cares very much. Endlessly repeating the same message? Tedious.
Chief will endlessly repeat what amounts to a Baby Chaos theory. It is completely stunted and barely able to explain a 0.1C residual.
On the contrary – it is peer reviewed science that use the longest instrumental record on Earth to identify natural variability. It say that the 'warming signal' was overestimated by a factor of two.
Deterministic chaos is the reason for the variability – but the effect comes back to specific mechanisms and combinations of mechanisms.
Why is this such a problem?
The residual approach.
I confess I really do not grasp how this "defluctuation" algorithm can "carefully" remove certain variation factors without first separately understanding and measuring them.
The chaos is considered baby-like because it is a tenth of a degree on top of a 300K signal. Much easier to represent the forcing contributions as a perturbation, which is what the CSALT model does.
The Baby Chaos theory of the chief is marginal.
Webby calls it deflucuating. English is flexible – and new words sometimes take off. I'd say it's doubtful though.
It is called multiple linear regression.
In this case you take multiple curves and scale them to the temperature curve to get the best fit.
What we know is that is that natural variability added to warming in the recent warming – 1976 to 1998. What we get as a result is models like this from Kyle Swanson at realclimate.
It proceeds by excluding large natural variations – poetically called dragon-kings – at times of climate shifts – 1976/77 and 1998/2001 in particular.
The future is shown – showing what the paper suggests is an indeterminate period of non-warming.
Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly
constant global mean temperature.
The methodology of multiple linear regression cannot predict the future – see the Lean an Rind projection which is already wrong in every detail – for prediction you need an actual theory that accounts for climate shifts.
The cause of the climate shift in 1998/2001 was changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation influencing cloud cover – following it seems the earlier decrease in cloud cover and warming.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=62
and – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Earthshine-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=94
'Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.'
chief is blowing smoke. He couldn't do the math if his life depended on it.
The CSALT model works very well to determine the underlying contribution of the CO2 control knob to recent temperature rise. The contribution of pressure, via SOI, is obviously limited, as it cannot sustain a differential for long, being that it is based completely on atmospheric density and atmospheric height.
So given that the temperature is still rising and the average pressure (i,e SOI) has not gone anywhere, something else is causing the warming. That is likely CO2 as the other parameters of the CSALT model, aerosols, LOD, and TSI are not going anywhere either.
Gee that was totally novel and interesting webby.
'On time scales of 10 to 50 years (and longer) decadal climate forecasts are difficult to make with general circulation climate models due to their many uncertainties [IPCC, 2007]. By including overturning of the ocean's meridional circulation in a numerical model and using observed distributions of ocean heat content for initialization, Smith et al. [2007] forecast rapid warming after 2008, with ''at least half of the 5 years after 2009 predicted to exceed (1998) the warmest year currently on record.'' But another model
that also attempts to account for meridional overturning circulation [Keenlyside et al, 2008] forecasts the opposite, ''that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming''.[4]
An alternative approach to numerical model simulations for assessing recent climate change and forecasting future change in the next two decades is direct analysis of surface temperature observations. By isolating and quantifying the specific changes arising from individual natural and anthropogenic influences, the causes of past change are identified, thereby rendering forecasts for future decades possible, assuming plausible future scenarios expected for each influence. We use this empirical approach to develop global and regional surface temperature scenarios for the next two decades.' http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Lean_Rind_1.pdf
Well we all know who got it right between Keenleyside and Smith. Smith's a bit of a by-word for well you totally stuffed it. Just as webby is.
Let's have a look at Lean and Rind. What they do is take some curves and scale them to fit the temperature curve. I am sure I could explain this to a 10 years old.
Where Bo….Bp are linear scaling factors
So how did L&R 2010 do? About as god as webby in fact – the future projection ludicrously shows a linear increase. Why? One problem is in the future of ENSO.
A better idea would be to use the 1946 to 1976 period as an analogue for future conditions – unless you understand why that is it is all nonsense. Lean doesn't. She has one big El Nino and a small La Nina in the next 20 years and imagines that is scientifically credible? Webby certainlhy doesn't despite all the references I have given him – and no one has ever imagined that his blog science is credible. .
The residual approach.
I confess I really do not grasp how this "defluctuation" algorithm can "carefully" remove certain variation factors without first separately understanding and measuring them.
The chaos is considered baby-like because it is a tenth of a degree on top of a 300K signal. Much easier to represent the forcing contributions as a perturbation, which is what the CSALT model does.
So your "chaos" here is natural variation I take it. Baby-like, you say.
But is the presumed anthro residual any less baby-like ?
And how does this address my question above? Let me put it another way – does this approach presume full knowledge of natural factors? If not, how can you know what the (supposed anthro) residual is ?
Someone say chaos?
Yes what's the anthro residual webster? I keep asking as well. And all we get is some sort of knob polishing.
"So your "chaos" here is natural variation I take it. Baby-like, you say.
But is the presumed anthro residual any less baby-like ?"
The anthro warming signal since 1880 is 0.8C and 1.2C on land. Compare that to the baby-chaos of perhaps 0.1C residuals.
Just because it is a small effect, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Science just tries to get at the truth.
The maximum signal appears to be about 0.6 degrees C.
But who is going to quibble about 0.2 degrees C over 120 years.
So the residual warming is some 0.06 to 0.08 – as I keep saying. Nothing to be concerned about over decades decades to come? Especially as temperatures stubbornly refuse to rise over the next few decades? It is modulated by chaotic variability on decadal scales.
A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.
Sensitivity here is not the linear sensitivity that most people blather on about. The argument is about whether sensitivity is high or low? Then the entire argumant is misguided. Sensitivity here is the nonlinear γ of Michael Ghil in the link below.
Webby and his ilk can either progress to a deeper understanding of complexity or not – it is not my problem. But as Swanson and Tsonis point out – it will have implications for the politics of mitigation.
eh – forgot to close my italics.
OK Chief, that chart is taken from Tsonis and it shows significant warming,
The CSALT model also "cleans" the signal using Tsonis terminology. This is what it actually looks like:
Tsonis applied a 20-year filter. I didn't have to do this because I applied Wyatt&Curry's LOD stadium wave principle to defluctuate the signal. Notice that it follows the logarithmic ln(CO2) concentration.
"But who is going to quibble about 0.2 degrees C over 120 years."
No one, but since AGW is no where near that low over the next 120 years, your point is irrelevant.
Delineating the relative role of anthropogenic forcing, natural forcing, and long-term natural variability in 20th century climate change presents a significant challenge to our understanding of the climate system (1–7). Observations suggest the warming of the 20th century global mean surface temperature has not been monotonic, even when smoothed by a 10–20 year low-pass filter. Temperatures reached a relative maximum around 1940, cooled until the mid 1970s, and have warmed from that point to the present. Radiative forcings due to solar variations, volcanoes, and aerosols have often been invoked as explanations for this non-monotonic variation (4). However, it is possible that long-term natural variability, rooted in changes in the ocean circulation, underlies much of this variability over multiple decades (8–12). Quantifying whether there is a large role for long-term natural variability in the climate system is important, as such variability could exacerbate or ameliorate the impact of climate change in the near future. Further, large magnitude variability may require revisiting the types and magnitudes of imposed forcings thought to be responsible for the observed 20th century climate trajectory (12). More ominously, a climate with large magnitude natural long-term variability in general is a climate very sensitive to imposed forcings, raising concerns about extreme impacts due to future climate change (13).
Due to its large heat capacity, the ocean is the likely source of natural long-term climate variability on interdecadal time scales. The oceans can impact global mean surface temperature in several ways; directly, through surface fluxes of heat, or indirectly, by altering the atmospheric circulation and impacting the distribution of clouds and water vapor. However, our understanding of how the ocean impacts the global mean surface temperature is strongly limited by available observations, which historically have consisted primarily of sea surface temperature (SST) measurements.
The desire to optimally use these SST observations suggests a two-stage approach to objectively quantify the role of internal variability in the 20th century climate trajectory. The first step requires linking SST anomalies to anomalies in the global mean surface temperature. Climate models provide a means to derive such a link, under the assumption that the current generation of climate models captures the essence of the signature of oceanic variability on the global mean temperature. To see that this is the case, we consider annual mean surface temperature fields extracted from 10 multicentury preindustrial control climate simulations, each derived from independently constructed models containing coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamics and advanced physical parameterizations. Such control simulations provide an ideal laboratory for testing ideas about internal variability in the climate because by definition all variability in these simulations is considered to be internal.
Again – you try actually reading the paper. It was actually a model approach.
The background rate of warming – sans internal variability – was some 0.06 to 0.08 degrees C/decade in the 20th century. The current rate of warming is negligible – and this is overwhelmingly likely to persist for another decade to three. There is no conceivable way of predicting climate beyond that – but the 20th century pattern is unlikely to repeat with centennial cooling in Bond Event Zero.
Actually read the science instead of repeating nonsensical warmist talking points.
I failed to notice the original comment by Gail till now. Perhaps this was a question about the AR1 1 C threshold that even Jim C endorsed. I would say that regular CO2 forcing physics with support from paleoclimate and other observational evidence predicts that the warming will reach 1 C sooner rather than later, and when that happens, it is the only theory that predicted it.
To Chief, I would note that the average rate in the last 50 years is twice the rate you quote which is evidence of an acceleration, even with the "pause" counting towards that 50 years.
That's not what webby says – or indeed any of the relevant science.
After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal
episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. A recurrent multidecadal oscillation is found to extend to the preindustrial era in the 353-y Central England Temperature and is likely an internal variability related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), possibly caused by the thermohaline circulation variability. The perspective of a long record helps in quantifying the contribution from internal variability, especially one with a period so long that it is often confused with secular trends in shorter records. Solar contribution is found to be minimal for the second half of the 20th century and less than 10% for the first half. The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.
Tung and Zhou are far from on their ownsome. I have shown the S&T model result, I have shown the Swanson result at realclimate, I have shown results that that account for the warming rate after excluding ENSO influences.
All we get in return is warmist talking points. In this case a confident assertion – sans any science at all – that warming rates are twice what I quote peer reviewed science as saying. Who shall we believe Jim?
The 'average rate' of the last warming period 1976 to 1998 – was influnced by ENSO 'dragon-kings' in 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 – periods of climate shift. The trend from 1976 to 1998 includes contribution from frequent and intense El Nino in the warm Pacific decadal mode.
The 'trend' from 1946 to 1998 – a complete cool/warm regime – the rate of warming is 0.7 degrees C/decade. By all means crunch the numbers Jim. That would make a change for the new year.
Whoops – 0.07 degrees C/decade.
GISTEMP linear trend last 50 years (1963-2013) = 0.155 C/decade. Last 25 years (1988-2013) still 0.15 C/decade, and more than half of that is the so-called "pause".
By the close of the 1997 – 1998 El Nino to 1998 – 1999 La Nina cycle, none of the energy that left the ocean was still present at the surface. Gone. Long gone. Did it turn around at Pluto and come back?
What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world's climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth. http://www.technobahn.com/articles/2013082215310006.html
There is actual science behind the periods chosen – and in the expectation of no warming at least for another decade to three. Not to mention the peer reviewed science quoted.
So here we have increased net downward radiant flux – and ocean warming – in 1998. Energy gained – and not lost – but declining quite rapidly through the La Nina of 1999.
The drop in the global ocean heat storage in the later part of 1998 is associated with cooling of the global ocean after the rapid warming of the ocean during the 1997–98 El Niño event (Willis et al. 2004).
Arbitrary periods and ignoring internal variability entirely – are just silly little warmist talking points with no possible linkage to reality – or to science.
You actually need to have a theory with explanatory power to make sense of anything. And Arrhenius isn't all that powerful in the wider context of a wild climate.
It's Max Manacker v Pekka by proxy – Federer and Nieminen are about to play at Brisbane International. May the best proxy win.
After his practice the other day, Federer wandered around amongst the crowd, in true Aussie egalitarian fashion.
The media is the massage:
Tourist ship?
It was a costly taxpayer funded, globull warming 'research' project.
Morale remains high?
Who cares. Yer ill considered, irresponsible jaunt is risking the
safety of rescuers and more costs
Another unintended consequence of government funded global warming hysteria.
Beth and jim2 would have blamed Titanic tragedy on the ship's passengers.
More deeply enjoyable news ironcerning the "cruiseship"…two notorious skeptics…Anthony Watts and Joe D'Aleo of Weatherbell are lending a hand by providing long range weather date to determine when the wind might change in order reduce ice…
Put that in your irony pipe and suck on it…
@Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 1, 2014 at 9:05 am | said:
"Beth and jim2 would have blamed Titanic tragedy on the ship's passengers."
Well, you have a point there Max. They are under the spell of CAGWerism. They no longer have free will. Something must be done before we all end up in Antarctica!!!
Let us pray to the Great Obama! Obama, please see fit to save us from CAGWerism! We beseech thee!!
Maybe Obama can expedite a crate of cell phones to the ship?
Tourist ship huh?
Read this:
I especially like the comments.
R. Gates
Well, if you have evidence that shows the Earth's climate system did not continue to accumulate energy in 2013, I would love to see it.
The point, as we've seen before here, is that the evidence is nowhere near robust enough, owing to the limitations of current measurement technology (and funds maybe?). So it could well be warming. Or cooling. Or neither.
Furthermore, since the initial impact of AGW is warming of the troposphere, which hasn't happened for 17 years now, any warming of the oceans which may possibly still be happening while ocean temperatures adjust to the current 17 year atmospheric temperature plateau, will come to an end,
Unless the atmosphere starts warming again. Any predictions on this one?
Happy New Year Gail. You said:
"The point, as we've seen before here, is that the evidence is nowhere near robust enough, owing to the limitations of current measurement technology (and funds maybe?). So it could well be warming. Or cooling. Or neither."
Actually, the evidence is robust and tells us Earth's climate system continues to warm. You know that the proxy measurement of sensible surface temperatures is a very poor proxy for energy being accumulated in the climate system as. It is a poor proxy because it represents such a tiny fraction of that energy and the atmosphere's thermal inertia is so low, and thus it is a very noisy climate signal. Better proxies are the total ice mass being lost (long term continental ice) from both Greenland and Antarctica, with that loss accelerating over the past 10 years, and of course the closely related ocean heat content rises over the past 10 years along with the closely associated sea level rise. All of these measurements combined represent a very good proxy for total energy in the climate system as they represent much more energy than the troposphere even could contain.
So now, if you have some evidence that the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are not losing net ice mass, that the sea level is not rising, or that the ocean heat content has not been going steadily upward, I'd love to see it as it would go against every bit of research and data I've read over the past 5 years. Please pass contrary research my way!
"Unless the atmosphere starts warming again. Any predictions on this one?"
Given that the temperatures in the atmosphere is highly dependent on the rate of sensible and latent heat flux from the ocean, and these fluxes can be highly variable on short-term and even multi-decadal time frames, predicting atmospheric warming over such time frames would necessitate predicting the various ocean cycles that alter sensible and latent heat flux. What we can say is that over long-term time frames, average global atmospheric temperatures will rise along with GH gases, as eventually they will reflect the additional energy the full climate system is retaining– the bulk of which is of course going into the ocean. 2013 will be the warmest non-El Nino year on record, so should we get modest El Niño in the middle of the otherwise cool PDO period, it is quite possible we could see a new instrument record set for tropospheric temperatures as we do see higher sensible and latent heat flux from the ocean during these El Niño periods.
For those who actually read the articles in Playboy:
Kiss the paws goodbye.
Stay tuned for the next update by January 9th to see where the MEI will be heading next. El Niño came and went during the summer of 2012, not unlike 1953. This was followed by our first ENSO-neutral winter since 2003-04 (2005-06 was an ENSO-neutral winter, but much closer to La Niña, and dipped into La Niña rankings during March-April). Over the last half-year, La Niña had its turn to come and go again, almost in a mirror-image of last year's sequence. While we have now reached the time of year when drastic transitions are much less common than in the first half of the calendar year, the upward jump of +0.7 standard deviations between July-August and September-October indicates unusual volatility. While ENSO-neutral conditions are the safest bet going forward into boreal winter, I would not be surprised if this status were to end in 2014.
The big kahuna in current climate is the cool V in the eastern Pacific – in the cool Pacific decadal mode. So hang in there – it is bound to change some decade or other.
The sun is currently at the peak of it's cycle – and not notably cool yet.
Net flux (positive warming) peaked in 2012 in the CERES record cooling through to June 2013. The latest available data.
There is no trend in net flux anomalies – which are relatively accurate – in CERES. In the overlapping ARGO period there is a moderate rise consistent with the ARGO data.
No pause if thermodynamic free energy factors are considered.
Never was a pause, , at t least since the start of the oil age.
Webby, more made up rubbish, unless you think you can get and then compare a temp based on the measurements of a few percent of the surface of the planet, and think it means something!
Keep chugging that koolaid.
Mi Cro,
Can't help you if you don't understand the notion of sampling statistics.
Oh, I understand, I also recognize when something is being made up because there isn't enough sample taken.
R. Gates,
HNY to you too.
Actually, the evidence is robust and tells us Earth's climate system continues to warm.
It isn't robust.
– OHC trends on a knife-edge" as someone commented, could go either way when/if more and better instruments become available.
– ditto the radiation budget
– sea ice isn't only the consequence of temperature – winds and currents are also important.
– is there really a sea-level hockey stick, or has it been rising for much longer?
So it could well be warming. Or cooling. Or neither.
I am aware that the oceans are a greater heat sink than the atmosphere, thank you. But that doesn't alter the point of mine you didn't address, namely that since the initial mechanism and driver of AGW is warming of the troposphere, which hasn't happened for 17 years now, any warming of the oceans which may possibly still be happening while ocean temperatures adjust to the current 17 year atmospheric temperature plateau, will come to an end. (You earlier claimed this catchup period is decades, but how do you know this? Others here have said it is months) .
R. Gates,
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
– you have very often argued a GHG-warmed troposphere drives ocean warming, by reducing the ocean-troposphere temperature gradient
– but now here, to explain the 17- year Plateau, you say ocean warming drive tropospheric warming (implying inter alia that GHGs act on the ocean, not the troposphere)
Not so Gail.
CERES anomalies are relatively accurate – ARGO has the coverage to to be credible. The rational position is to look at the data.
e.g. http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
Riddle me that.
Exactly right, Gail.
ARGO lacks credibility as it first showed cooling before it showed warming. ARGO measures less than 25% of the ocean's volume and it doesn't measure underneath ice or at the ocean bottom where the cold currents flow.
The greatest impeachment of its credibility is simply that data processing choices (sometimes call pencil whipping) can change a warming ocean to a cooling ocean. The so-called energy imbalance is simply and truthfully much closer to zero than our instruments are able to measure.
ARGO coverage to 1800m is 80%. Reasonable coverage was achieved in 2005 by most reasonable reckonings.
Which is why ARGO is reported from 2005 by Karina von Schuckmann prominently.
Although you will notice – if you actually read the paper (unlike Jabberwock) you will find that Loeb et al use a number of sources for ocean heat.
The top 1800 or 2000 metres is important as ocean heat distribution is a dynamic balance between turbulent transport downward and buoyant rising of warm water. So Jabberwock pretends that he can credibly dismiss important data on the basis of specious arguments. It is utter nonsense of the skeptical variety.
Interestingly though – Lyman and Johnson (2013) do show a dip in 2003/05.
Could Willis possibly be wrong? Again? Possibly – but that has little relevance to the latter data.
I see you feel the need to call me Jabberwock in order to buttress your argument. That speaks for itself. Come back when you feel your arguments can stand on their merits absent the ad homs. Thanks in advance.
The fact of the matter remains that ARGO dives to a maximum of 2000 meters and the average depth of the ocean is twice that. That means ARGO only samples a maximum of 25% of the ocean's volume. Given they don't dive underneath ice it's something less than 25%. Maybe Chief Hydrologist thinks the ocean underneath sea ice isn't important nor is most of the ocean's volume, especially the bottom where the cold currents flow and the underwater volcanoes called the ring of fire are active. Maybe the Chief thinks calling me names will distract attention from these facts? See if you can respond to the facts I've presented Chief and leave the name calling in Australia.
The fact of the matter remains that ARGO dives to a maximum of 2000 meters and the average depth of the ocean is twice that. That means ARGO only samples a maximum of 25% of the ocean's volume.
er, you may want to give that a re-think
Spencer has a pretty picture of an Atlantic Ocean transect.
'The average temperature distribution represents a balance between 3 major processes:
(1) surface heating by the sun (mitigated by surface evaporation and infrared radiative loss) which warms the relatively shallow ocean mixed layer;
(2) cold deepwater formation at high latitudes, which slowly sinks and fills up the oceans on time scales of centuries to millennia, and
(3) vertical mixing from wind-driven waves, the thermohaline circulation, and turbulence generated by flow over ocean bottom topography (the latter being partly driven by tidal forces).
The key thing to understand is that while processes (1) and (2) continuously act to INCREASE the temperature difference between the warm mixed layer and the cold deep ocean, the vertical mixing processes in (3) continuously act to DECREASE the temperature difference, that is, make the ocean more vertically uniform in temperature.'
There is one other process that is moderately important – convection – http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/oceans/AtlanticOceanWeb/NACurrents/Causes.htm Thus warm water rises towards the surface.
"Spencer has a pretty picture of an Atlantic Ocean transect.
Unfortunately, Dr. Spencers "pretty picture" of the Atlantic Ocean ciriculation has certain inaccuracies that lead to very wrong conclusions. In the Atlantic we actually see warm water headed toward the equator in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a critical dynamic not shown in Dr. Spencer's simplified and erroneous "pretty picture". A better source to understand circulation in the Atlantic would be:
But then again in the context of heat transport in the deeper oceans – the warm surface currents are captured in the near surface temperature profile. This is a transect in the Atlantic showing temperature with depth.
You would do well to reflect just a little before jumping in with irrelevant, simplistic and incorrect observations that assume that I – or indeed Spencer – don't know a great deal more about surface currents and deep water formation than you.
"R. Gates,
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
– you have very often argued a GHG-warmed troposphere drives ocean warming, by reducing the ocean-troposphere temperature gradient
– but now here, to explain the 17- year Plateau, you say ocean warming drive tropospheric warming (implying inter alia that GHGs act on the ocean, not the troposphere)
You are confusing a control knob for the thing being controlled. The net effect of increasing GH gases in the troposphere it to alter the thermal gradient between Ocean and Space. It is the atmosphere that controls the rate of flow out of the ocean. Thus, a little warming (extra energy) in the atmosphere controls much more energy in the main energy reservoir of the ocean. This is no different than how a simple amplfiying transitor works– using a little energy to control even greater energy.
On short-term and even decadal time frames the flow of sensible and latent heat from the ocean to the atmosphere does indeed drive the fluctuations in tropospheric temperatures– hence why ENSO, the PDO, AMO are so critical to tropospheric temperatures. On longer-term timeframes, GH gas concentrations will dictate the average flux from ocean to space, and as GH gas concentrations increase, that flux will, on average, slow down.
"This is a transect in the Atlantic showing temperature with depth."
Yep, it was, but it also had arrows showing direction of flow which are inaccurate and misleading to understand what is happening in the Atlantic. I shall not refrain from pointing out when arrows indicate direction of flows in major ocean currents that are opposite to what occurs…but thanks for your admonishment.
R Gates:
In the Atlantic we actually see warm water headed toward the equator in the Southern Hemisphere.
Warm water flowing toward the equator? From where?
The only South Atlantic current flowing toward the equator is the Benguela current – which I can assure you, from first-hand experience, is anything but warm.
"OHC trends on a knife-edge" as someone commented, could go either way when/if more and better instruments become available."
You don't really believe this do you? Is all the sea level data wrong to, for ocean heat content and sea level rise go hand in hand as only part of the sea level rise is from melting continental ice. Of course, some skeptics would like to deny that glaciers are melting or that ocean heat content is increasing, and then they have no physical basis to explain sea level rise– other than the old favorite of "conspiracy" or doctored data, or a "miracle". What's your pick, Gail? How do you explain sea level rising, if not partially by ocean heat content increases, which would be quite robust, and clearly not on a "knife-edge."
R-Gates – I find your phrasing "It is the atmosphere that controls the rate of flow out of the ocean " to be less than satisfying. I think the ocean itself controls some part of the outbound rate.
"R Gates:
In the Atlantic we actually see warm water headed toward the equator in the Southern Hemisphere."
Yep, amazing isn't it phatboy. That old THC bringing warmer water all the way around the southern tip of Africa:
"Agulhas leakage[edit]It is estimated that as much as 15 Sv of Indian Ocean water is leaked directly into the South Atlantic. 10 Sv of this is relatively warm, salty thermocline water, with the remaining 5 Sv being cold, low salinity Antarctic Intermediate Water. Since Indian Ocean water is significantly warmer (24-26°C) and saltier than South Atlantic water, the Agulhas Leakage is a significant source of salt and heat for the South Atlantic Gyre. This heat flux is believed to contribute to the high rate of evaporation in the South Atlantic, a key mechanism in the Meridional Overturning Circulation. It should be noted that a small amount of the Agulhas Leakage joins the North Brazil Current, carrying Indian Ocean water into the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre.[3]
This current leakage around the southern tip of Africa has been found to influence the global climate:
You didn't see that in Dr. Spencer's "pretty" drawing.
"-Gates – I find your phrasing "It is the atmosphere that controls the rate of flow out of the ocean " to be less than satisfying. I think the ocean itself controls some part of the outbound rate."
Agree completely. I really am talking long-term versus short-term fluctuations, which I did explain at length to Gail. Shorter term we know that ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux is follows the internal variability of ocean cycles such as ENSO especially, but PDO and AMO as well. But on the longer-term times scales, the average flux of energy from ocean to space will be controlled by the GH gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and specifically by the non-condensing GH gases of CO2, methane, and N2O.
Mi Cro | January 1, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
Oh, I understand, I also recognize when something is being made up because there isn't enough sample taken.
Plenty of samples have been taken to characterize the earth's surface temperature properly.
It seems that Mi Cro has a superiority complex where he believes that peer-reviewed science not involving him has to be wrong.
"Plenty of samples have been taken to characterize the earth's surface temperature properly.
It seems that Mi Cro has a superiority complex where he believes that peer-reviewed science not involving him has to be wrong."
Doesn't have to be, but it is. So they are either incompetent or they are lying.
No. What it showed was deep water formation at both poles – and turbulent eddies from the processes described.
It is a hugely simplified schematic – but not incorrect in principle.
And now you ludicrously insist on defending your nonsense misinterpretation – despite the crystal clarity of the context – in service of a stereotypical assumption of moral and intellectual superiority. Your habit of pontificating on simplistic notions as if they are a great mystery solved says it all. It gets old very fast. Assume instead that everyone knows something about ocean circulation – although I might add that your link is grossly oversimplified as well.
The deep ocean currents are equally turbulent – separated from the surface only by density differences. These turbulent deep ocean currents rise in a few places on Earth where the warm surface layer is displaced. The western margins of continents – prominently the eastern Pacific. Although as the Pacific cold tongue propagates – in the central Pacific.
It is a matter of putting together concepts to build a comprehensive visualisation of Earth processes. Deep water formation and surface currents are just 2 elements in the picture.
R Gates,
There's a big difference between "warm" and "warmer than it would have been", or, in this case, "not quite as cold as it could have been".
Only a few hardy individuals take to the seas on the west side of the Cape Peninsula.
Wow. By the time I framed a reply the sh!t hit the fan with the usual talking points. Get a new song and dance guys.
BTW – you can see the Agulhas Current in the NASA animation.
My comments on the song and dance don't apply to Pekka – who commented while I was composing a comment.
Here's the dominant global surface currents – hugely simplified – to put things in context. They are driven by a variety of processes – winds and Coriolis forces prominently – but interacting with deep ocean currents – with feedbacks – and modulated by geomorphology. The latter being prominent in deep time changes in currents and therefore Earth climate. The separation of South America and Antarctica – and the closure of the Isthmus of Panama – being important examples.
Happy new year.
Please, please, please put up your article on the the Antarctic kerfuffle.
Climate scientist ship on expedition to show warming antarctic now deliciously, ironically, futilely and fatuously stuck in summer ice build up to record levels in the antarctic. Ship of fools . Only thing better would be if the Passenger list included Mann, Cook, and Captain Ahab.
[Suggestions welcome for other passengers please].
Hope this doesn't need moderation
Pierre Gosselin and Joanne Nova are good reads to start the New Year. Polar Star a week away. Can Ospreys do this?
I take it that the Polar Star is not named after the Walter Cruz Smith novel of that name?
Woof! Re-activated a year ago and in operations, well, now.
kim says "Pierre Gosselin and Joanne Nova are good reads."
Reading Nova makes me want to puke. Reading Gosselin makes me want to laugh. Can you recommend anyone who would make me want to sleep?
Try reading the Max_OK posts. You'll nod off in a hurry.
jim2, I thought my posts made you want to puke. I am disappointed to find out they just make you sleepy.
….deliciously, ironically, futilely and fatuously…
I especially admire the "fatuously." Nothing more enjoyable than a series of well chosen words.
Yes, Tony, I'm happy to oblige.
Nova's writing makes me feel ill.
Photos of her scare me too.
Gosselin makes me laugh because he thinks the world can never have enough CO2.
BTW, Tony, I was just joshing when I recommend you wear warming clothing, walk more, and go to bed earlier. You known better than I what's best for you.
climatereason, do you agree with Gosselin that 400 ppm is dangerously low and that 1000 ppm is better, or do you put that in the laughable category?
"I suspect that the logarithmic limit of co2 warming has about been reached."
Please supply your references for this conjecture Tony. Your "suspicions" would fly in the face of paleoclimate data and global climate models, both of which now seem to be telling us that we are somewhere north of a 3C rise in global temperature when we double CO2 from 280 ppm. It would seem we've got quite a bit of warming ahead.
Even if the troposphere warms by 3°, clouds regulate surface temps. Do you not think more water vapor wouldn't increase clouds and rain both of which cool the surface?
As for the models, they do not model clouds correctly, so climate model results are meaningless.
I think Gosselin is not being serious with this kind of statement, and just saying it for the sake of contrariness or politics, but there are people reading it that think he knows what he is talking about rather than just using a debating tactic.
Tony, what turns my stomach and what makes me laugh is not necessarily the same as what makes you puke or laugh.
I would not insist you think something is funny because I think it's funny, nor should you expect me to justify my amusement.
BTW, 8 C is a good sleeping temperature for me (goose down comforter), but not a comfortable sitting temperature unless I use gloves. I haven't found gloves I like to use with the keyboard, but I haven't tried all kinds.
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 1, 2014 at 9:27 am |
"Reading Nova makes me want to puke. Reading Gosselin makes me want to laugh. Can you recommend anyone who would make me want to sleep?"
It's a crying shame she can't make you sleep and puke at the same time.
I wish our hostess Judith Curry and all the regulars here at Climate Etc. a Happy New Year.
I wish you nothing but ill will. Lots of it.
Schadenfreude anyone?
That icebound Russian ship reached out to the US Coast Guard for some accurate weather forecasting. They in turn reached out to skeptical forecasters for reliable data for the next few days.
The read the Coast Guard reached out to the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in San Diego, but I didn't
know Scripps was the home of skeptical forecasters.
Scripps isn't the home of skeptical forecasters. Evidently they have no forecasters. Using good judgment they passed the info on to a skeptical TV forecaster and from there several others in the skeptic community got involved.
Scripps got the call for an Antarctic weather forecast then did a lateral to meteorologists which is a reasonable thing to do because Scripps doesn't make weather forecasts. A few well known weather forecast providers including Tony Watts then became involved. Is that chain of events somehow too complicated for y0u to follow Max_OK?
Bob, so the Coast Guard did not as you originally reported "reach out to skeptical forecasters." The Coast Guard reached out to the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. Do you agree?
I'll agree the CG reached out to Scripps to get the best possible forecast confident Scripps would be able to fill that request even though Scripps main area of expertise is oceans.
Do you agree Scripps did their best to fulfill that request?
Sure, as far as I know.
All of the banter aside, I want the CAGW and even AGW supporters to list ANY real supporting evidence for their position. The claim that temperature has risen 0.7C or so in the last 150 years is not a valid piece of evidence for anything but natural variation for two reasons, and by itself cannot be used for this purpose. 1) it has stopped rising (17 years so far) and is expected to drop for a significant period, during the highest and most rapid increase of CO2, and 2) long term records over the Holocene show ups and downs as large and even larger than the last 150 years. I especially want Mosh to respond. Mosh, how many more years of flat to cooling temperature are needed to convince you that they were wrong?
Here you go. From 1880 to the present time, the agreement between an energy balance climate model and the GISS data record.
This is natural variation explained by free-energy terms which compensate the temperature fluctuations.
GISS is the output of a model of surface temperatures based on some of the available measurements.
So in reality you are using one model compared to another model and then trying to explain them with a third model, and you then wonder why we're hesitant to turn the world's economy over to the people who are selling this snake oil.
And the only definitive measurement is of Co2 in the lab, every other measurement's error bars is large enough to include the very effect you're basing it on.
OK, Mi Cro believes that (a) climate scientists that he does not approve of are snake oil salesman and (b) there is a huge conspiracy to make up global temperature records centered at NASA.
This is the stuff for movies, how about a variation of Capricorn One? Mi Cro can be the character originally played by OJ Simpson.
Looks like it will be only 32 days, from where he sits…what is your best number?
Have Australian voters been suckered?
"Experts have rejected claims by the federal government that household expenses would be significantly smaller after a repeal of the carbon tax."
Hugh Saddler, a principal consultant for energy analysts Pitt & Sherry, said it had been "almost impossible" to see the carbon price footprint when it was introduced, and it would be no easier if it was removed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics agreed."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/lower-bills-wont-happen-say-experts-20131016-2vn3r.html#ixzz2p9qAP2Ky
From the article:
The Daily Caller
Report: Carbon tax drags Australian economy down under
Michael Bastasch
In addition to potentially costing the "democratic socialist" Labor government its seat of power, Australia's efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions also damaged the country's economy through higher energy prices and fewer jobs, according to a new report.
"Poor policy processes tend to lead to poor policy outcomes, writes Dr. Alex Robson, economist at Australia's University of Brisbane, for the Institute for Energy Research, which opposes a carbon tax. "Australia's carbon tax experience provides a number of important lessons in how not to go about implementing sensible climate change policy."
According to Robson, Australia's one-year old carbon tax increased taxes on 2.2 million people in the country and has not actually decreased the country's carbon emissions — which won't fall below current levels until 2043.
The tax is the highest in the world, set at about $24 per metric tons of carbon, and applies directly to about 370 businesses in the country. Robson found that a year after the tax was enacted electricity prices had risen 15 percent, including the biggest quarterly price increase in the country's history.
Furthermore, 19 percent of the typical Australian household's electricity bill is due to the tax and other "green" programs in the country. Taxing carbon may have also impacted the job market, as unemployment shot up by 10 percent after its implementation.
Australia's carbon tax has become a political hot potato and even the Labor government –which enacted it — is looking to appease those impacted by the tax. The government announced in July that the country would move swiftly from a tax to an emissions-trading system in an effort to bolster support for Labor.
The push to move to an emission trading scheme ahead of 2015 came after reports came out that businesses and hospitals were being burdened with high power costs.
News Limited Network reported in March that the carbon tax was contributing to a record 10,632 businesses that faced insolvency in 2012 — up from 10,481 for 2011.
The Herald Sun reports that Victoria provincial hospitals forked over an extra $6.1 million for energy costs in only six months due to the carbon tax — payments to which ranged from 8 percent of hospitals' total energy costs to 22 percent.
"The debate over a carbon tax is now not just one of theoretical speculation; proponents need to explain why the U.S. outcome would be different from what actually happened in Australia," Murphy added.
I laughed when I read this.
"When Tony Abbott introduced legislation aimed at repealing the carbon tax in October, he said the abolition of the tax would lead to power prices falling by about 9 per cent, lowering the average electricity bill by $200 a year.
But power companies cast doubt on the Prime Minister's promised price cuts, warning it was difficult to specify how much electricity prices would fall once the carbon price was repealed and that it may take months for any change to flow through.
The AER report points out that while carbon pricing was responsible for pushing up the cost of power in 2012-13, it represents a relatively minor component of the average electricity bill."
As a capitalist I admire how Australian power companies know how to take advantage of a situation. If consumers are paying their power bills, why reduce the bills just because a tax is eliminated. Oh I know the government is supposed to see that consumers get the benefit when the tax is removed, but power companies should be slick enough to work their way around that.
Have Australian voters been suckered?
"Experts have rejected claims by the federal government that household expenses would be significantly smaller after a repeal of the carbon tax."
So the tax was at levels too small to have any effect on bills and hence also CO2. It was just a money-making ruse by the previous government, flying the false flag of The Public Good.
So yes, they were suckered.
Best wishes for 2014 being the 18th year in a row without global warming!
China is at the tip of the spear on nuclear technology. Instead of pursuing the unreliable wind and solar, and saying we don't want China to get ahead of us there, we need to be keeping up with them on nuclear technology. There is a lot more than just the snip below.
From the article:
A 10 MWt high-temperature gas-cooled demonstration reactor (HTR-10), having fuel particles compacted with graphite moderator into 60mm diameter spherical balls (pebble bed) was commissioned in 2000 by the Institute of Nuclear Energy Technology (INET) at Tsinghua University near Beijing. It reached full power in 2003 and has an outlet temperature of 700-950°C for the helium coolant and may be used as a source of process heat for heavy oil recovery or coal gasification. It is similar to the South African PBMR (pebble bed modular reactor) intended for electricity generation.
In 2004, the reactor was subject to an extreme test of its safety when the helium circulator was deliberately shut off without the reactor being shut down. The temperature increased steadily, but the physics of the fuel meant that the reaction progressively diminished and eventually died away over three hours. At this stage a balance between decay heat in the core and heat dissipation through the steel reactor wall was achieved, the temperature never exceeded 1600°C, and there was no fuel failure. This was one of six safety demonstration tests conducted then.
Initially the HTR-10 has been coupled to a steam turbine power generation unit, but second phase plans are for it to operate at 950°C and drive a gas turbine, as well as enabling R&D in heat application technologies. This phase will involve an international partnership with Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), focused particularly on hydrogen production.
Shidaowan HTR-PM
A key R&D project is the demonstration Shidaowan HTR-PM of 210 MWe (two reactor modules, each of 250 MWt) which is being built at Shidaowan in Shandong province, driving a single steam turbine at about 40% thermal efficiency. The size was reduced to 250 MWt from earlier 458 MWt modules in order to retain the same core configuration as the prototype HTR-10 and avoid moving to an annular design like South Africa's PBMR.
China Huaneng Group, one of China's major generators, is the lead organization in the consortium with China Nuclear Engineering & Construction Group (CNEC) and Tsinghua University's INET, which is the R&D leader. Chinergy Co. is the main contractor for the nuclear island. Projected cost is US$ 430 million, with the aim for later units being US$ 1500/kWe. The licensing process is under way with NNSA, the EPC contract was let in October 2008 and construction started in December 2012, with completion expected in 2017. The engineering of the key structures, systems, and components is based on Chinese capabilities, though they include completely new technical features.
The HTR-PM will pave the way for a planned multi-module commercial plant at the same site in Weihai city – possibly total 3800 MWe – also with steam cycle. INET is in charge of R&D, and is aiming to increase the size of the 250 MWt module and also utilise thorium in the fuel. The HTR program aims at exploring co-generation options in the near-term and producing hydrogen longer term. Eventually it is intended that a series of HTRs, possibly using Brayton cycle with helium directly driving the gas turbines, will be factory-built and widely installed throughout China.
Excuse me, jim2, but The World Nuclear Association may not be an objective source of information on nuclear power.
Nuclear power has two things going against it : (1) it's not cost competitive, and (2) the public is afraid of it. I really don't think it has much of a future.
We can check if 1 C per 100 ppm fits, and sure enough it does. GISTEMP and HADCRUT4 along with CO2/100. This is a sensitivity near 2.5 C per doubling. Nice round numbers too. Easy to remember and calculate impacts from.
Senior sends his best wishes for 2014:
This new Nature paper is behind a paywall. The write-ups I've found don't explain what actual data was used to determine the convective mixing it mentions as the reason for the higher climate sensitivity number. Anyone know what they actually measured (in the real world, not of a computer model).
Well, Pekka, if you give the authors of the "reanalysis" paper some slack, you can give Willis' effort some slack also. Maybe Willis can be persuaded to publish code and data. We can try the same with the authors of the paper if they haven't published code and data already.
Guess what? It's worse than we thought.
From the article:
The study comes amid a controversy in Australia over claims by Maurice Newman, Prime Minister Tony Abbott's top business adviser, who said the world had been taken "hostage to climate change madness".
Mr Newman said the climate change establishment, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, remained "intent on exploiting the masses and extracting more money".
"The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling," he wrote in The Australian. "Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years… If the IPCC were your financial adviser, you would have sacked it long ago."
"The debate comes as Australia in 2013 marked its hottest year since reliable recordings began in 1910. The world's driest continent also recorded its hottest day, hottest month, hottest winter's day and hottest summer."
Yet the Aussies lead the chorus in "the Globe is Cooling" sing along.
Hey, this is far more important than a ship stuck in shifting sea ice:
But it doesn't get the "skeptical" troops all fired up, except to find a reason why we should discount it.
"Australia has experienced just one cooler-than-average year in the last decade – 2011."
Yep. And warmer and warmer we go. Can't escape basic thermodynamics. More net energy arriving than leaving globally with ocean cycles dictating when and where it makes its way out to the troposphere…but make no mistake, it will make it's way out.
Tony's disdain for the colonials is misplaced. But science in Australia started early and strongly – more a happy accident of the oppression of the Scot's than anything deliberate coming out of England.
Posted this yesterday.
Cant find a global update – but the Australian BOM is loudly announcing the hottest Australian year on record. Yea team warmer.
And it has been dry for a couple of years – and very dry still with a late onset wet season – again. This is related to temperature through the lack of evaporation and the resultant reduced environmental lapse rate in the troposphere. This results in increased surface temperature – i.e. at 2m in the standard weather station – but not the total heat in the troposphere.
Looking forward – it looks very dry and very warm.
Great beach weather. I very nearly took a picture this morning to share of Keppel Bay from Wreck Point as I was passing on my way to the pool for some laps.
Absolutely gorgeous. Too cruel.
But the data still shows that net radiant energy in at TOA peaked late last century. Hard to get around this – except by ignoring or denying the data.
"This results in increased surface temperature – i.e. at 2m in the standard weather station – but not the total heat in the troposphere."
This is Pielke Sr.'s main argument why moist enthalpy would be a better metric for changes in energy content of the atmosphere. Tropospheric sensible heat in general is an exceptionally poor proxy for energy content of the climate system, but at least moist enthalpy is a step closer. Of course ocean heat content is the best single metric, and as ARGO expands to more floats going deeper (down to 6000m regularly) we will have a very good proxy for energy in the climate system in coming years.
"But the data still shows that net radiant energy in at TOA peaked late last century."
Total net in has indeed declined but total net out of the oceans declined even faster (with the onset of the cool phase of the PDO). If you get less into the oceans, but even less out, your overall energy content still rises, as it has. Both sea level and Argo since 2004 confirm that energy content of the oceans has had a net incease.
Argo since 2004 confirm that energy content of the oceans has had a net incease.
So has the irradiance,
The amount of warming or cooling is the difference between energy in and energy out in a period. Regardless of where the energy ends up.
d(W&H)/dt = energy in/Δt – energy out/Δt
W&H is work and heat – and the question is when d(W&H)/dt turned negative.
Work it out – I will even give you a clue.
'Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.'
"Argo since 2004 confirm that energy content of the oceans has had a net incease.
So has the irradiance,
Big error. The correlation between ocean heat content and sunspot number is not solid. Slightly higher TSI might give the potential for slightly higher energy input to the ocean (all things being equal) but of course all things are not equal, and TSI arriving at the ocean surface as solar SW is actually lower now than 15 years ago, mainly due to the a slightly less active sun as well as more aerosols in the stratosphere increasing optical depth. These two factor have given a net decrease to energy arriving to the ocean. On the other hand, a cool phase of the PDO combined with continued rises in CO2, methane, and N2O mean even less net energy out of the oceans. So less in, but even less out means ocean heat content rises, sea level rises, and tropospheric temperatures stay relatively flat.
RGates is in the bargaining stage.
Naw – Gatesy is still in denial. It is all just energy balance at TOA. Waffling abou PDO's and whatever means not a fig in this context. .
You can look at shorter periods when ARGO data is available – showing the major contribution to warming being decreased cloud cover. You can look at all of the available and there is negligible trend in either SW or LW.
The TSI plot speaks for itself – and the Sun will be cooling – but not yet – both in the Schwabe Cycle and much longer term.
Rising ocean heat content corresponds well with rising sea level. All of Chief's quibbling won't get around these two basic indicators of more net energy in the climate system.
Did sea level drop during the cold late 60's to early 80's?
TSI arriving at the ocean surface as solar SW is actually lower now than 15 years ago, mainly due to the a slightly less active sun as well as more aerosols in the stratosphere increasing optical depth
surface sw is greater at solar minimum then max,due to decreased O3 production and CR (enhanced polar vortices occur at solar minima in both the nh/sh) so we would expect to see arise in sst eg
the amplitude of change in TSI min/max in PMOD is slightly larger then the previous cycle eg Froelich.(there are also instrument problems,which if adjustments are made will be to the previous cycle and an increase in the amplitude of sc23 by 0.2 wm^2)
It is not as simple as TSI vs t SSI is also important and often counter intuitive in expectations .we can use NZ as an example as it has a well defined asymmetry such as a 40% change in surface SW in comparison with similar latitudes in the NH.
as we are close to perihelion,we can see some interesting observations.The scale range of surface UV increases south to north 10-14 which is around a change of 40 dobson units ie Stratospheric O3 is greater at the higher latitudes here, then the lower,and Stratospheric T is higher in the gradient here around 2.5c ( anthropogenic aerosols being minimal in sh mid latitudes)
The OHC record in ARGO is so short it is hard to place it in a proper context.
What's happened since 2010? Don't know. The warming in the period is moderate – as is sea level rise calculated from ARGO data. The latter is some 0.69 mm/yr – minus some freshwater loss in the period. Considerably less than the altimeter estimates. Why? Don't know – but they can't both be right.
ARGO says that the oceans warmed in this short period – but cannot say why. We know it is consistent with net CERES from Loeb et al – e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/
And importantly we know the makeup of net CERES.
Just the facts maam.
"What's happened since 2010? Don't know. The warming in the period is moderate – as is sea level rise calculated from ARGO data."
Nope, TOPEX and Jason have measured sea level directly, and thus we have two other corroborating pieces of evidence that the oceans are gaining energy. We do in fact know pretty nicely what happened since 2010, both in terms of energy input to the oceans and latent and sensible flow of energy from the ocean. Overall, the oceans have continued to gain energy, reaching their highest levels on instrument record in 2013. Jason and ARGO are independent but confirmatory sources. The oceans could not continue to rise the way they have only from the transfer of water from glacial land ice. Some of that rise is from thermal expansion of the oceans. Jason and ARGO give us a high degree of confidence the oceans are gaining net energy. Looking into the future, our knowledge ocean heat content is only going to increase with planned expansions of the Argo program, adding more floats and having them consistently go to 6000m.
'Miley Cyrus was a baby and Bill Clinton had just been inaugurated the last time this happened: For the first time in 20 years, the USA saw more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures in 2013, according to statistics from the National Climatic Data Center.
"For the first year since 1993, there were more daily record lows than daily highs that were either tied or set in 2013," reported Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, who keeps track of the data from the climate center.'
Extreme series are not complete for 2013 – and seem quite as irrelevant as US temperatures.
Clutching at straws?
I'll take a look at that Pekka. But it won't change the data, will it? You haven't come up with any criticism of substance of Willis' work.
@Pekka Pirilä | January 2, 2014 at 3:19 am | said:
"Willis tells that he uses old methodology (but gives no information on what he means by that). He seems to be using also data similar to that used about 10 years ago by others. He has got different results, but does not explain the reason for that. "
Willis has made his code and data available, so we can see exactly what he did. Why don't you see if the authors of the paper(s) to which you have referred to in connection to this will or have published theirs. Kudos to Willis!
Willis says:
"The code is here … but it is a snarled tangle that is not only not user-friendly, it is actively user-aggressive, has the table manners of a wolverine, and needs to be beaten severely about the head and shoulders.
It has been used to produce maybe five posts at this point. Yeah, I know, I should do proper revision control … but I'm only one guy. I need minions. Or at least grad students. I do all of the computer programming, and all of the research, and all of the wandering around the property gazing at the sky and thinking about the theoretical underpinnings of the work. Plus I work at a day job remodeling houses, and I like to spend time with the gorgeous ex-fiancee …
In any case, there it is. As to the data, it's here in R format, 168 megabytes of the variables as arrays …
Regarding how I analyzed it, well, it's just a scatterplot. Take the CERES dataset called "cre_sw" (shortwave cloud radiative effect), it's in the data listed above, and do a scatterplot with the CERES dataset called "cre_lw" (longwave cloud radiative effect) … you'll need to mask out the areas you're not interested in."
Here is the link to the comment and the links to the code and data.
OK, Pekka, I looked at the brochure. Willis averaged many months of data for his chart. The brochure shows only one. Again, you haven't been able to come up with one shortcoming of Willis' work. He is using more data and it gives a more accurate picture of what is happening. He has supplied his code and data. Where is the code and data for some of the published papers? Please, Pekka, no more handwaving.
I have a thought experiment.
Imagine 35 years ago the world's oil companies announced that they have grown scared that their product was irreparably changing the world's climate, and that to limit this damage and fund new non – fossil fuel energy that were going to increase the cost of their products by 500%.
What do you think the response would be?
Mi Cro | January 3, 2014 at 9:36 am
Imagine 35 years ago the world's oil companies announced that they have grown scared that their product was irreparably changing the world's climate, and that to limit this damage and fund new non – fossil fuel energy that were going to increase the cost of their products by 500%.
What do you think the response would be?
About the same as would happen if current Consensus wisdom makes it to global political policy. A dramatic increase in world poverty / reduction in wealth, in view of much higher energy costs.
Ah yes, I was thinking along the lines of what would the warmists say, good the the climate or evil oil company killing millions of the poor.
Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 94.38 -1.06 -1.11% Feb 14 12:25:58
R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | January 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
– you have very often argued a GHG-warmed troposphere drives ocean warming, by reducing the ocean-troposphere temperature gradient
– but now here, to explain the 17- year Plateau, you say ocean warming drive tropospheric warming (implying inter alia that GHGs act on the ocean, not the troposphere)
You are confusing a control knob for the thing being controlled.
No, you are, in your attempt to have your cake and eat it – ie claim both that the atmosphere controls the oceans, and that the oceans control the atmosphere. You've given yourself two control knobs and two things being
controlled, with each thing being controlled also a control knob.
Gates 1
The net effect of increasing GH gases in the troposphere it to alter the thermal gradient between Ocean and Space. It is the atmosphere that controls the rate of flow out of the ocean
Gates 2
On short-term and even decadal time frames the flow of sensible and latent heat from the ocean to the atmosphere does indeed drive the fluctuations in tropospheric temperatures.
The wriggle-out you proffer for this contradiction, is short- v long-term, based on an apparently bald claim that short dominates long.
"both that the atmosphere controls the oceans, and that the oceans control the atmosphere."
A few things that would be very useful to understand in the context of ocean-atmosphere energy flux is that there are in fact some feedbacks between the two. More importantly though, is understanding the scale and nature of energy flux between the two. At any given time, at least 50% of the energy in the atmosphere came from sensible and latent heat flux out of the ocean. The net flux of of energy between ocean and atmosphere is always strongly in the direction of ocean to atmosphere, as the natural thermodynamic flow of energy is from ocean to atmosphere to space, with the composition of the atmosphere the determining factor of how fast that energy will flow over longer-term time frames. Specifically, the GH gas concentration of the atmosphere, and more specifically, the non-condensing GH gas concentration will determine the longer-term rate of flow between ocean (as source) and space (as sink). In this way, the non-condensing GH gas concentration of the atmosphere can be thought of as the "control knob" for this rate of flow between ocean and space. Certainly, on shorter-term time frames, there is a natural variability in the rate of sensible and latent heat flux between ocean and space. On the shorter end of time scales is the ENSO cycle, which dominates the short-term variability in the rate of sensible and latent heat flux. On a bit longer time frames will be ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO. On top of these shorter-term natural ocean cycles will be the longer-term forcing or "control knob" function of changes in GH gas concentrations.
Against the background of these short and long-term fluctuation is the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere to space, it is also useful the understand the source of energy for the ocean, which is of course SW solar, and the factors that control the rate of flow of energy into the ocean, which are aerosols, clouds, and natural variability of solar output. We can therefore have periods where there is a net decrease of input to the ocean from one or more of these factors. Ocean heat content changes will always be the net result of changes to input balanced by changes to output.
Gates, this is wrong. Non – condensing GH gas set the limits, clouds are the control knob.
That "setting the limits" is exactly the the long-term control that I am referring to. As non-condensing GH gases increase, the upper limit goes higher and the lower limit goes higher, so the mean changes as well. Ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux is the variability within this range, and we see that expressed through ENSO on the shorter-term, and PDO, AMO, etc. on the longer-term. Take away the non-condensing GH gases completely and we go back to Ice Planet Earth, as the "control knob" would be broke, there would be no lower bound, cooling would lead to more cooling, and most of the planet would look like Antarctica as it did several times in Earth's past.
On a 20° day the sky was close to -60°, while the bottom of the clouds are near 20°, even with a 3° increase to -57°, the 20° clouds are more in control of surface temps. That's ignoring the lack of change in troposphere temps.
There is no looming catastrophic warming anytime soon, if we allow nuclear and biotechnology to work the problem they will have a solution before it is needed without destroying modern society.
People seem to forget the technological advancements of the last 100 years.
"There is no looming catastrophic warming anytime soon."
Well, that depends on how you define "catastrophic" and what you mean by "soon". Soon in human terms or geological terms? Given that the bulk of anthropogenic warming has thus far gone into the oceans, we would expect the oceans to get the brunt of the catastrophic change. If you believe the studies done by hundreds of experts, catastrophic change is a real possibility for the oceans, and from a geological perspective, it could come "soon":
But that's just it, I don't believe them. Not enough historical data, and too much interpretation and adjustments to current data, while it too easy to show the data doesn't show anything.
"But that's just it, I don't believe them."
Well, that is a common way that humans use to filter out data that does not fit into their memeplex– simply don't allow it in. Very handy and quick way to keep cognitive dissonance to a minumum!
Wrong answer, I got the actual measurements and looked to see what exactly it did say, and what I found was it didn't match what they tell you it says.
"But that's just it, I don't believe them."
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm |Well, that is a common way that humans use to filter out data that does not fit into their memeplex– simply don't allow it in.
Nowhere near as common as credulously believing whatever fits into their memplex – simply never questioning, no matter how much 'adjusting' is needed to keep the data on message. Very handy and quick way to keep cognitive dissonance to a minumum!
The anthro warming signal since 1880 is …
I'm still waiting to hear how this can possibly be known, without first pinning down robust measurements of the non-anthro factors. Not just physics-ignorant curve-fitting I hope.
R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | January 3, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
More net energy arriving than leaving globally
So what are the measured figures for absolute energy per unit time entering and leaving the planet ?
All we have are proxy measurements, but they are from multiple sources and point toward the same general figure. Current TOA imbalance is somewhere around .7 w/m^2. with the bulk of this imbalance going into the oceans, which we know have both warmed and risen (thermal expansion and added mass from glacial melt). The added mass from glacial melt by the way is also a measure of energy in the climate system, and is confirmed by both Jason and Grace satellite measurements. The latent heat this conversion of ice to water represents is certainly part of the climate system energy, but the confirmation of that water added to sea level gives another way to confirm. There is course the approximately 0.5 x 10 ^22 joules per year the ocean has been adding down to 2000m, and this would account for the bulk of the TOA imbalance.
All we have is proxies????
It just gets crazier.
R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | January 3, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
Tropospheric sensible heat in general is an exceptionally poor proxy for energy content of the climate system
But is, nevertheless, as you often remind us, the control valve of global temperatures. And for 17 years now it's been turned off.
"But is, nevertheless, as you often remind us, the control valve of global temperatures. And for 17 years now it's been turned off."
Off? There is no energy flowing from ocean to space? Oh my, now that would make things warm!
Ah yes, thanks, my mistake with the analogy.
The 17- year Plateau means the global temperature control valve is no longer being turned, not that it's been turned off.
As you pointed out Gail, there is an interesting feedback between oceans warming the atmosphere and the GH gas concentration determining the rate of flow from ocean to space. Flat tropospheric temperatures (flat at the highest levels on instrument record) mean the valve has not be been open or shut over this period, but we know that the reason for this flattening is not that suddenly GH gases have stopped altering the thermal gradient between ocean and space, but rather, that natural ocean cycles have meant a little less net latent and sensible heat has been coming from the ocean, mainly due to a cool phase of the PDO and reduced El Niño activity.