by Judith Curry
The IPCC AR6 WGI report has been released [link]
I’m reading it now. So far I’ve read the Summary for Policy Makers, the Technical Summary and Chapter 1.
Detailed comments will be forthcoming later in the week. But there are some new approaches that represent a marked break with the AR5. Some are good.
Roger Pielke Jr has a thread of comments, that is well worth reading
A summary of key findings from Zeke [link]
Lots of breathless alarm in the media.
More soon.
I was a reviewer of the first and second drafts of this report. My reviews can be read at
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2019: A Review of the AR6 First Draft of IPCC Working Group I (WG1) report, May 2019. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-wg-final-3.pdf
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2020: Comment on the AR6 Second Draft of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) report. February 2020
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-letter-1.pdf
In my initial read of the final WG1 report, they did not respond (either to refute or to include) relevant peer reviewed papers which I included in the reviews.
Thank you Roger, much appreciated.
Roger Pielke Sr. thank you for your comment and the links to your comments on the 1st and 2nd drafts of the IPCC AR6 Working Group 1 (WG1) report.
I suggest the ECS and TCR estimates published in IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch. 7, Section 7.5.4.3 Table 7.12 and Section 7.5.5 Tables 7.13 and 7.14 (pages 7-110, 7-112 and 7-113) alone are sufficient to discredit the IPCC WR6 report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf
Correction: “alone are sufficient to discredit the IPCC AR6 WG1 report.”
A less than honest modeler reviewing climate models. Definitely trust him.
Please explain how Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. is a “less than honest modeler.” Are you a UN IPCC CliSciFi modeler? If not, please explain any expertise you may have such that you could second-guess Dr. Pielke.
Roger spent his entire career on mesoscale models without any
discussion of the impact of boundary errors due to the generation
of gravity waves from the interior mesoscale storms conflicting with
boundary data provided by large scale exterior models or the impact of errors in parameterizations on the instantaneous errors in the vertical velocity of a storm or the error due to the excessive dissipation needed to keep discontinuities in the physics from destabilizing the model and destroying the numerical accuracy. Need I elaborate further?
Jerry
I am a student of Professor Heinz
Kreiss and trained in Partial Differential
Equations and Numerical Analysis.
I suggest you read the extensive literature
on systems with multiple time scales by Heinz
and our collaborative work using that theory in JAS.
FYI all global weather and climate models are based on the wrong
dynamical system of equations, a system that is ill posed for
Initial and initial boundary value problems. The correct mathematical system is called the reduced system and is well posed for both the initial and initial boundary value problems. It is derived using the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory.
Jerry
These don’t sound like they would be problems modelers weren’t aware of already. If you don’t have a fix for the problems that everyone is already aware of then is not talking about that dishonesty or merely not wasting people’s time? I guess what I’m asking is there some reason to believe these were problems unique to his models where it would be his personal responsibility to point them out or are they as they sound to me common problems?
My last comment hasn’t appeared yet but I think you answered my question already. I wonder how many other problems are common throughout the models that haven’t been fixed yet. My guess is quite a few.
Steven,
To be aware of the problems and then claim the models can be used as if predicting reality is as dishonest as it gets. They use the pseudo spectral numerical method and then destroy its accuracy using discontinuous forcing. Then claim they are accurately approximating the continuum dynamical system that is in fact the wrong one. These are people sweeping the errors under the rug, not addressing or discussing them.
Jerry
I replied to you and the comment was redacted. It is one thing to be aware of problems and another to sweep them under the rug and then pass them off as having something to do with reality.
Jerry
Judith,
You stated that you are reading or have read the report. Do the climate modelers document the changes they have made since the last report?
I would especially be interested in changes to the amount of dissipation or damping with increased resolution. And of course any justification for changes in the physics.
Jerry
Why don’t you read the report yourself, Gerald?
It’s in the literature or you wouldn’t know what the models were doing so now it is just a matter of if using tuned and parameterized models is dishonest. I’ll just disagree with your characterization and say that mine with be a suboptimal situation and leave it at that.
Dave, why don’t you read the mathematical theory of differential equations with multiple time scales and the requirements for a numerical method to accurately approximate a well posed system of time dependent equations . Then you would know that climate models are junk. I asked Judith a relevant scientific question and if she does not want to answer that is her choice. I was hinting at what any good scientist should be asking about the IPCC climate model results. If they have nothing to hide then they should have no problem documenting
the tuning they are doing.
Jerry
Gerald Browning wrote: If they have nothing to hide then they should have no problem documenting the tuning they are doing.
What tuning are they doing?
David,
Surely you can’t be that naive. If the models are converging to the continuum solution of the incorrect dynamical system, all should provide the same answer as the mesh size becomes smaller. Yet different models provide different results because the physics in each is
tuned using slightly different parameterizations and/or parameters.
Global weather models go off the rails in a few days because the boundary layer approximation destroys the dynamical approximation
(Gravel et al.). Only by inserting new observational data ever 6 to 12 hours do they remain on track. How is this accomplished for climate models? It is not and the errors accumulate in time (Pat Frank).
Jerry
> the errors accumulate in time
Pat surely knows how to propagate nonsense:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
Gerald Browning wrote: Yet different models provide different results because the physics in each is tuned using slightly different parameterizations and/or parameters.
Climate models aren’t all built with the same parametrizations or parameters. That allows different choices to be made to compare their results to observations. In this sense they’re used as a kind of experiment.
All,
A numerical model is not a proof of anything unless
1. It numerically approximates a well posed dynamical system that has a differentiable solution. ( Neither is the case for climate and weather models.)
2. The numerical method is accurate and stable. ( One cannot prove accuracy for discontinuous solutions.)
3. As the mesh is refined the numerical solution converges to the continuum solution. ( Note that there are multiple reasons the climate models are not converging. One is that the modelers are continually changing parameterizations and thus the continuum solutions. If the equations they are using are ill posed, as the mesh size is reduced the numerical solution will grow exponentially unbounded quicker and quicker unless the dissipation is increase more and more meaning a larger continuum error.)
Clearly these are the reasons I asked about the amount and type of dissipation and parameterization differences between the previous and current climate models used in the IPCC.
Climate modelers used to run their models over centuries until caught with discrepancies between obs and model solutions. Now they have only run them over decades where there are better obs and the results have gotten worse (see new thread). This is no surprise given the above
problems and the accumulation of errors pointed out by Pat Frank.
Jerry
Willard,
Pat had trouble with publication because modelers want the truth buried. If he is wrong why don’t you or the people you refer to publish a mathematical manuscript in a mathematical journal proving so.
It is well known in numerical analysis that truncation errors can and do grow over time. Orbital computations had this problem and so higher order numerical methods were developed to reduce the truncation errors so the numerical solution would be accurate for longer periods of time.
If the error in the forcing of a hyperbolic system is wrong, then the error can grow linearly. Then if the solution is restarted at a later time that error will be present in the initial conditions, i.e., it will not go away and can continue to grow.
Note that adding dissipation can keep the numerical solution stable, but
at the expense of numerical accuracy plus the addition of a continuum error. That is what the climate modelers have done (Browning, Hack, and Swarztrauber)
Jerry
David Appell,
An experiment is one thing, claiming it has something to do with reality is another. The very fact that there are different parameterizations states clearly that the climate modelers do not yet understand the true physical processes or how to accurately approximate them if they did. Thus there are errors in the physical forcing (in addition to truncation and nonlinear cascade) that don’t just disappear as time goes on.
Jerry
Gerald downing wrote:
The very fact that there are different parameterizations states clearly that the climate modelers do not yet understand the true physical processes or how to accurately approximate them if they did. Thus there are errors in the physical forcing (in addition to truncation and nonlinear cascade) that don’t just disappear as time goes on.
News for you, Gerald: All models are approximations. Modeling microscopic processes especially is difficult, which is why climate modelers spend a lot of time trying different parametrizations and trying to improve them. Are you really so arrogant that you’re going to fault scientists for doing science and trying to improve the science they’re doing? Or do you think everyone gets to live in a mathematician’s world where perfection is necessary and attainable?
David,
These are not scientists but trial and error tuners.. I am not opposed to numerical models when they satisfy the requirements that are required by theory.
I am opposed to models that abuse all those requirements and then claim they represent reality.
Jerry
Jerry,
Here’s a very simple explanation as to why Pat Frank’s pet theory is nonsense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmTuPumcYkI
Have you considered that he had problems publishing it because he’d be propagating nonsense?
If you could also spare the “Gravel & al” schtick, that’d be great. That’s your own paper.
Willard,
Are the Gravel results wrong? They were computed using a real weather model compared to the best obs over the U.S. The error progation is due to the discontinuity betweent the ad hoc boundary layer parameterization
and the interior dynamical equations. The vertical integral used in the hydrostatic equations spreads the error vertically instantaneously. Note that Kreiss was also a coauthor and he fully agreed with the results.
We wrote that manuscript to determine which parameterizations are the most important in the early stages of a global forecast and to our surprise the boundary layer error is the most dominant. That is a completely arbitrary fix to slow down the unrealistic growth of the velocity at the surface/ It clearly illustrates how arbitrary parameterizations can lead to serious problems very quickly.
And in case you claim the Canadian model is different from other weather models, there are graphs showing it does just as well forecasting as other global weather models including the ECMWF model.
Note that the well posed reduced system based on the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory does not have such a vertical integral. In fact that system exponential decreases small scale surface errors (Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 2020 manuscript dedicated to Heinz).
Jerry
Jerry,
Not “the Gravel results.”
Your results.
As for your leading question: have you posted your data and your code somewhere?
Willard,
A talk at a conference is not the same as a peer reviewed article in a math journal . I await for that article to appear in a reputable journal.
BTW when comparing three different numerical models for computations of the swe on the sphere, the error grew
linearly in time due to the truncation error as predicted by numerical analysis (Browning, Hack and Swarztrauber) anfd Pat Frank.
And when the dissipation used in current weather models was added, the spectral accuracy was destroyed because of the large continuum error due to the artificial term.
Jerry
Jerry,
Pat’s argument is the same, if only because Pat’s argument is always the same. A bit like you, but at least Pat tries to publish it, even if it’s in a predatory journal. Front. Earth Sci. isn’t a mathematical journal, btw.
You seem to prefer to spam climate blogs instead. I started at the Auditor’s, where I could enjoy you derailing thread after thread.
You might like the second part:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
As a fair warning, please don’t try to thread bomb AT’s.
David Appell,
You seem to have forgotten all of the contributions mathematicains have made to numerical analysis, e.g. the CFL criterion that helped to explain the failures of early models. And eigenvalue problems, higher accurate methods for ode’s, and on and on. It is mathematical analysis
that has explained the problems with the ill posedness of the hydrostatic equations and has produced a well posed accurate replacement for that system.
It is the modelers that ignore the mathematics and then make serious mistakes by misapplying the basic tenets of partial differential equation and numerical analysis theory that I find disturbing. The climate modelers are just one example of this.
Jerry
Well Willard all our work is published in peer reviewed math and atmospheric science journals. In fact my latest manuscript was reviewed by two rather prominent atmospheric scientists. The manuscript introduces the correct well posed reduced system alternative to the hydrostatic equations. I used to work at NCAR so I know all the skeletons in the met models as do a number of other programmers that worked there.
When I added the nonluinear terms to the hydrostatic equations for Dave Williamson’s normal mode initialization technique, there were complex eigenvalues, i.e. the hydrostatic system is ill posed for the initial value problem. Of course they immediately removed those terms so assumed the mean state of the atmospheric has no velocity. Obviously this is not the case and a subsequent analysis by Heinz and me showed the ill posedness thru continuum mathematics.
Have you produced any mathematics to dispute our work? I would love to see it.
Jerry
Gerry, I guess I don’t understand how it is possible for the Naiver-Stokes equations (or any system claiming to capture the same conservation laws) to be well posed as a time dependent simulation in the presence of chaos. Even a simple computation of the evolution of a vortex filament in 2D with some simple forcing leads to chaotic multiplication of vortex filaments.
Jerry,
Here’s what I think is the paper you constantly self-cite without really providing a citation:
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/browning.pdf
I don’t see where it has been published. Your abstract contains no provocative thesis. I can’t quote from the PDF because it’s an image. Need I go on?
So as I see it you’re challenging me to dispute your results for pure machismo’s sake. Nobody could! Your results simply fail reproducibility.
dpy,
Scientists thought the turbulence equations were chaotic. But Heinz mathematically proved that all derivetives exist for the full nonlinear 2d and 3d turbulence equations. As you might guess he had considerable difficulty publishing the manuscript as it upset the apple cart. But in the end it was published because the theory could not be disproved.
The theory indicates how much resolution is required to accurately compute the solution. When that resolutuon or more was used, the solutions converged. Anything less would blow up. See manuscripts by Henshaw, Reyna and Kreiss.
Jerry
I’m not so sure that existence of derivatives imply a well-posed problem. In any case, even massively resolved Euler and RANS simulations show the hallmarks of ill-posedness such as multiple solutions, nearly singular linearized systems, etc. That’s really a pretty universal finding to my knowledge.
It is hard for me to believe that transition to turbulence is well-posed given the tremendous effort expended and the continuing uncertainty in the results. Likewise vortex sheet evolution is a notoriously difficult problem even when resolution is very high and it appears to be chaotic in most simulations that are not under resolved.
dpy,
The 3d atmospheric equations are very different than the 2d ones.
Simplifications can lead to erroneous results. For example in 3D the horizontal divergence cancels to one order of magnitude with the remainder in balance with some vertical velocity terms. In 2d there is only one horizontal term so that same balance is not possible.
The HKR theory is for the turbulence equations without forcing. Once forcing is added one can obtain any result one wants. Thus the choice of doing the estimates for the spin down case.
Note that the Lorenz equations are a vastly over simplified version of the atmospheric equations involving only a few spectral modes. There is no assurance that those chaotic equations are anyhwere close to the real atmospheric equations. Amusing mathematically but not necessarily an indication of the real atmosphere.
For the 3d atmospheric equations, the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory
shows that if the initial conditions are chosen properly, the solution will evolve slowly and deterministically for a given period of time. Of course eventually the fast modes will be excited and then the motion can become much more complex.
Jerry
Willard,
I have an original version and had Kinkos copy it so I could post it.
Unfortunately they didn’t do a very good job. As with Pat, the modelers did not want to publish the result. But the results speak speak for them selves. Sylvie did give a seminar on the manuscript at CSU. Sylvie worked at the Canadian met office so was as surprised as we were.
Please post something other than denounciation of known facts.
The reviewer agreed with the findings, he just didn’tr want to publish them
because he was a modeler.
Jerry
Gerald, suddenly you went from complaining about parametrizations to instead complaining about numerical analysis of modelers in general. I think you just want to complain, in language you realize no one here will understand or grasp. You’re seriously in the wrong forum. You’re like the mathematicians who complain that quantum field theory has infinities all over the place and then physicists subtract them out with brutal, mathematically unjustified means, yet get the right answers anyway. Climate modelers are doing the best they can with the most difficult calculation humans have ever attempted. Maybe someday some group will build the perfect model and you will be happy. Maybe you’ll be a part of that group! That will be a very nice day and you’ll get pats on the back and maybe even a medal. Until then you can continue to act arrogant and huffy and modelers will ignore you just because of that alone. Meanwhile the world keeps warming and it’s very important that models help us understand by about how much that might be, given all kinds of uncertainties and imperfections. So far they’ve done a good enough job. Not perfect, unlike your work, but good enough to know we have a serious problem on our hands.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
Willard,
The only results that are not reproducible are those from climate models.
Our publications are in the most prestigious mathematical and atmospheric journals. Where are yours (if any)? In climate journals?
And you have not stated that Sylvie’s results are wrong. A rather damming
statement of the state of weather models.
Jerry
David Appell,
Your claim about the accuracy directly conflicts with the previous thread.
Did you read it. The two manuscripts were accepted for publication
and support Sylvie Grave’s manuscript results.
So you are a climate modeler defending the indefensible. Have at it.
Jerry
dpy,
Did I answer all of your questions adequately?
Jerry
> The only results that are not reproducible are those from climate models.
That diversion won’t float, Jerry.
You yourself appealed to your paper.
Where’s your data and code, pretty please with sugar on it?
Gerald Browning wrote:
I am opposed to models that abuse all those requirements and then claim they represent reality.
Their results speak for themselves:
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
–
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
My reply to David Appell:
Please answer each of my points with yes or no
Gerald, suddenly you went from complaining about parametrizations to instead complaining about numerical analysis of modelers in general.
1. Are climate models using discontinuous forcings?
2. Can a numerical approximation be shown to be accurate when a discontinuous forcing is approximated by a numerical method?
3. Is excessive dissipation used to prevent the discontinuous forcing causing the model to become unstable?
4. Does the excessive dissipation result in a large continuum error?
5. Are the hydrostatic equations ill posed?
I think you just want to complain, in language you realize no one here will understand or grasp.
6. If an answer to any of the above questions is yes, is it appropriate to apply numerical methods to a system of PDE’s?
Climate modelers are doing the best they can with the most difficult calculation humans have ever attempted.
7. Is a major part of the conclusions of the IPCC based on climate
models?
8. Because the models are complicated does that mean they are realistic?
Until then you can continue to act arrogant and huffy and modelers will ignore you just because of that alone.
9. Do the modelers ignore the mathematics because they know that it does not support the game they are playing?
Meanwhile the world keeps warming and it’s very important that models help us understand by about how much that might be, given all kinds of uncertainties and imperfections.
10. So given all the flaws in the models, you still claim they represent reality?
So far they’ve done a good enough job. Not perfect, unlike your work, but good enough to know we have a serious problem on our hands.
11. When a volcano alters the climate as some have done in the past,
is that eruption represented in the model?
12. Does the model know when that erruption occured?
Jerry
Willard,
Where’s your data and code, pretty please with sugar on it?
1. The continuum equations that we use are listed in every one of our manuscripts along with mathematical proofs of their accuracy for different scales of motion.
2. The numerical results are used to demonstrate the mathematical results, not to prove them.
3. The numerical methods used to demonstrate the mathematical proofs are explained in detail, especially in our earlier manuscripts and one need only use those descriptions to reproduce the results.
4. Note that no dissipation is required when the initial conditions are chosen according to the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory for short term forecasts (unlike the hydrostatic case).
Jerry
The paper I cited contains no proof, Jerry.
Thanks for playing.
Willard,
Good try. Neither Heinz or I was first author on the unpublished manuscript. Please cite one of our published manuscripts.
Clearly an effort to side step the facts. Now Ross has two threads on this site both showing the climate model nonsensical claims.
Jerry
Willard,
Dishnesty becomes you. Mathematical proofs stand as stated forever.
You forgot to mention I just published a manuscript in 2020 reviewed by two prominent atmospheric scientists. It specifically shows why the hydrostatic equations are the wrong dynamical system and that system is used in all global climate and weather models.
I haven’t forgotten my math but evidently you have lost your integrity.
Please cite any manuscript you or others have written that disproves any of our work.
Oh and BTW please provide your last name so I can look up some of your publications and credentials. I suspect you will not do so because you
are afraid of what people could find out.
Jerry
“Lots of breathless alarm in the media.” – curryja
Unfortunately it’s this level of information which politicians seem to listen to.
IPCC scientists are being featured on MSM alarmist youtube clips giving the ‘doomsday rhetoric’.
It is a red flag – for the UN. What a useless bunch of parasites!
From Chapter 3 of new IPCC WG1 report
“Since AR5, the accumulation of energy in the Earth system, quantified by changes in the global energy inventory for all components of the climate system, has become established as a robust measure of the rate of global climate change on interannual-to-decadal timescales. Compared to changes in global surface air temperature (GSAT), the global energy inventory exhibits less variability, which can mask underlying climate trends.”
Yup. Originally recommended in
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
I concluded
“ The earth’s heat budget observations, within the limits of their representativeness and accuracy, provide an observational constraint on the radiative forcing imposed in retrospective climate modeling.
• A snapshot at any time documents the accumulated heat content and its change since the last assessment. Unlike temperature, at some specific level of the ocean, land, or the atmosphere, in which there is a time lag in its response to radiative forcing, there are no time lags associated with heat changes.
• Since the surface temperature is a two-dimensional global field, while heat content involves volume integrals, as shown by Eq. (1), the utilization of sur- face temperature as a monitor of the earth system climate change is not particularly useful in evaluating the heat storage changes to the earth system. The heat storage changes, rather than surface tem- peratures, should be used to determine what frac- tion of the radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere are in radiative equilibrium.
One thing that caught my eye:
“the Gulf Stream [is] projected to weaken [in the 21st century] (medium confidence)”
but
“The Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in September at least once before 2050 under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report”.
and
“practically ice-free Arctic in September by the end of the 21st century under high CO2 emissions scenarios (high confidence)”.
That seems a bit contradicting, unless the reasoning is that an ice free Arctic will weaken the Gulf Stream (and the Sun is moving around the Earth).
On a general note, the SPM seems to focus more on extreme weather events this time. Since “living memory” is about 5 years when it comes to weather, maybe that’s more catchy.
The two “ice free” statements are not contradictory. The first refers to a single event. The second is a projection that the Arctic will be ice free during September in most years. An event must happen “at least once” before it happens regularly.
Where did the report make a link between weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Arctic ice?
The contradiction isn’t between the two “ice free” statements, but the weakening of the Gulf Stream and the “ice free” statements. If the inflow of warm water from the Atlantic side of the arctic weakens, ice melt should decrease, not increase, since water temperature has the greatest influence on sea ice.
I don’t agree with that deduction. If ice melts then water become colder hence Gulf Stream weakens…
We need more detail and timely analyses to ward off the anticipated misdirection and hype in the media. Thank you.
Too late for that. Google news search on “IPCC Report” full of “Code red for humanity” headlines. Does the IPCC actually say that or is it from the UN Sec Gen?
Here is CLINTEL’s statement on the new AR6 WG1 SPM, including a link:
https://clintel.org/statement-clintel-new-ipcc-report-provides-little-objective-basis-for-policymaking/
Seems the IPCC ignored the ScienceMag critique of the CMIP 6 models and opted instead for “insanely scary and wrong” forecasts.
Here is a truly extreme prediction: “Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once in 100 years could happen every year by the end of this century.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/08/IPCC_WGI-AR6-Press-Release_en.pdf
Every year!
How do you know it’s truly extreme, David?
Last I checked there was no sea level acceleration globally, based on direct readings of tidal gages. Further, these predictions are a bit over 6 inches per century rise, albeit other sources say it’s closer to 12 inches. One might want to check NOAA’s tide map for details.
With these numbers how can anyone claim something extreme, especially since the ocean is a huge mass and temperature sink. Looks like an alarmist contest for the craziest prediction.
Last I checked the claim wasn’t supported by direct readings of tidal gages, whatever that means.
Call me a simpleton, Willard, but how more accurate can one get than dipping one’s finger in the water, so to speak. That’s what tidal gages do. Unless you prefer convoluted, corrected, simulated, indirect and model derived predictions. Satellite readings fall under this category.
Willard: A 100 year event every year is extremely extreme, which is even more extreme than truly extreme.
Your incredulity is duly noted, David.
***
> call me a simpleton
Which part of “Climate change is intensifying the water cycle” you do not get, simpleton?
Wow, Willard, it does not get more non-descriptive than the ‘climate change intensifying the water cycle’. What part of climate change, the wind, the ocean level, the ocean temperature, the sun intensity, the cloud coverage, the aerosol influences, etc. Are you including the results or just the causes of climate change? What water cycle? Clouds, rain, wind, ice, snow, water circulation in the ocean? Fresh water influx? What intensifies what? Add a little pixie dust and it all becomes clear.
It’s a press release, simpleton.
Dietrich: Tide gauges do show an acceleration in global average sea level change:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
As usual David, you don’t give the full picture. Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data.
“Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data”
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png
David, I don’t know the origins of your graph. Here is NOAA’s map of global sea level trends. Lots of green arrows for 0 to 1 ft per century, and some yellow ones for 2 to 3 ft/c. The rest is sprinkling. Only the color blind can’t see.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Dietrich, you can’t possibly discern acceleration from such a map. You need a analyze a time series.
Here is the entry page to AVISO’s time series for global average sea level, given usually every 10 days, starting in 1993. Fitting a second-order polynomial to it, I find an acceleration of 0.069 mm/yr2 and a current sea-level rise of 4.4 mm/yr.
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/home.html
Certainly the NOAA map shows broad trends, but applying numbers like yours of 0.069 mm/yr2 makes them disappear in the coarseness.
When perusing the Aviso site I find satellite data (which you used) requiring quite a few corrections for drift and propagation. Especially drift is a significant error to be compensated for. Topex-A’s was 1.6 +/- 1.2 mm/yr, and generally for all such satellites from -0.35 to +0.45 mm/yr. The altimeter radar wave is perturbed during atmosphere crossing for ionospheric, wet and dry tropospheric and ocean surface. Calibration is done via tidal gage data from the CLOS-Clivar network. This leads me back to the physical gage readings.
A quick search revealed seven graphs that are spread worldwide. Isostatically influenced data were excluded, like those from the Mississippi delta and Alaska. From my study days I remember the number of five samples being statistically significant. Here are data from seven random tidal gage graphs.
Brest, France 1815 – 2017 4.25 in/century no acceleration
Hawaii 1905 – 2015 5.8 in/century deceleration by 1.05 in/century
Battery NY 1840 – 2015 11.2 in/century no acceleration
Sidney AU 1885 – 2011 2.55 in/century no acceleration
Newlyn U.K. 1915 – 2016 1.2 in/century no acceleration
Charleston SC 1921 – 2000 12 in/century no acceleration
San Francisco 1855 – 2010 5.33 in/century no acceleration
Acceleration should be clearly discernible. It is not.
Note that worldwide past sea level rise was 6.3 inches per century, with a corresponding 1.34 degree C global air temperature increase.
Dietrich, we went through this before. I downloaded the data for The Battery, NY — I find an acceleration of 0.010 mm/yr2.
Are you doing calculations, or just eyeballing data? You have to actually do calculations.
Chris Morris wrote: Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data.
See the just published IPCC 6AR WG1 Ch2 Fig 2.28c p 2-200.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
It shows very clear and obvious acceleration in sea level rise.
Here’s what I found. Nothing to see. Most such graphs actually state the numbers for acceleration and deceleration, if there are any.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bettery+NY+tidal+gage+graph&t=osx&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/the-clever-ruse-of-sea-level-alarm.jpg
Tony Banton | August 10, 2021 at 3:47 am |
wrote
“”
“Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data”
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png
“”
>> sorry, I am having trouble with the reply option..
But you are aware that the residuals between the data and the model have systematics, high in the middle, low at the edges (that probably the reason why they are not shown in your diagram), which is a strong indication that this is a wrong model
> they are not shown in your diagram
Where are they?
Well, David, it takes some digging to go through the new IPCC document, and I dare not pick details within this short time lapse. Since I had dissected the previous version I have not much confidence in its veracity, assuming the same alarmist slant is repeated. Tidal gages still rule.
GWPF State of the Climate 2020 p32 has the required curve “Holgate 9” https://www.thegwpf.org/state-of-the-climate-2020/
@David Appell
“I find an acceleration of 0.010 mm/yr2.
Are you doing calculations, or just eyeballing data? You have to actually do calculations.”
Downloaded the data… second order coefficient of the fit is 4.88E-6 m/yr^2… which makes a difference of ~ 12 cm in 2100 compared to the extrapolation of the linear fit they give on NOAA’s website, 2.88 mm/yr.
Compare this with the doomsday scenarios of the IPCC AR6!…
@Tony Banton
““Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data”
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png”
Sorry, but you can’t compare piece-wise reconstructions which overwhelmingly measure the area of the ocean far from the coasts where the thermosteric component of the water column dominates with the real acceleration AT THE COAST, measured by tide gauges.
Those give a MUCH smaller acceleration component, basically ZERO (one-few 10 cm) at end of the century.
Ex.: The Battery, NY… just fitted the data: acceleration coefficient of the fit is 0.00488 mm/yr^2, compared to your 0.097… which is ~ 20x bigger.
Plus, 2021-1993=28 year interval… at the limit of the 30 yr minimum as per WMO guidelines to establish a “climate trend”.
And how do you do any kind of trend analysis with piecemeal gauge measurements, Roberto?
robertok06 wrote:Compare this with the doomsday scenarios of the IPCC AR6!…
OK, go ahead and compare….
@David Appell
“Dietrich: Tide gauges do show an acceleration in global average sea level change:”
NOT!
Not even close to reality!
Do find ONE graph in this series of tide gauge data from NOAA which shows acceleration:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.html
The acceleration of the tide gauges’ data is fake science at its worst.
The upcoming La Niña may be weak, but that means a longer pause as the subsurface western Pacific will not be warmed enough for an El Niño to form.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202108.gif
The graphic is updated every four days.
The upcoming La Niña may be weak, but that means a longer pause as the subsurface western Pacific will not be warmed enough for an El Niño to form.
The Earth’s Climate at Minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles
Ruzmaikin, A. ; Feynman, J.
Abstract
The recent extended and deep minimum of solar variability and the extended minima in the 19th and 20th centuries (1810-1830 and 1900-1920) are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC), a 90-100 year variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle observed on the Sun, solar wind, and at the Earth. The CGC has been identified in the Total Solar Irradiance reconstructed for over three centuries. The Earth’s climate response to the prolonged low solar irradiance involves heat transfer to the deep ocean with a time lag longer than a decade. The CGC minima, sometimes coincidently in combination with volcanic forcing, are associated with severe weather extremes. Thus the 19th century CGC minimum, coexisted with volcanic eruptions, led to especially cold conditions in United States, Canada and Western Europe (“a year without summer”). Using the reconstructed solar forcing and modeled and reconstructed Earth’s temperature data we identify the timing and spatial pattern of the Earth’s climate response that allows distinguishing the solar forcing from other climate forcings.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMSH43D2593R/abstract
Javier:
August 9, 2021 7:29 am
“One factor that Pierre Gosselin did not take into account is that the QBO just turned Eastward in June, and solar activity is still low. Low solar activity during QBOe years has a devastating effect on the winter Polar Vortex in the Northern Hemisphere. We can expect a disorganized polar vortex, with meandering Jet Stream, cold air masses intrusions into mid-latitudes, higher snow fall. As more warm air goes to the Arctic and escapes to space, the Earth cools down.”
https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/qbo_wind.jpg
There is even some QBO anomaly visible in the middle stratosphere, perhaps related to the decrease in UV radiation.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2021.png
What extreme events are occurring in the Southern Hemisphere and what impact does human activity have on them?
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/smos/curent_SIT.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
Pingback: Fil de discussion sur le nouveau rapport du GIEC | Mythes, Mancies & Mathématiques
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from/to
A laundry list of scenarios with no likelihood attached is the sort of maybe, could be, possibly, might, may kind of ‘science’ that gave wings to the anti-vaccine, fear-mongering catastrophists of the covid-19 pandemic.
If there are six, with none more likely than the others, then none is likely. In fact each is highly unlikely, so there is no rational basis for action on any.
Progress in Climate Science:
Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity:
1979 ECS = 3 ± 1.5C Charney Report
1990 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC FAR
1995 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC SAR
2001 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC TAR
2007 ECS = 2.0 – 4.2C – IPCC AR4
2013 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC AR5
2021 ECS = >1.5C – <4.5C – IPCC AR6
All those increases in resolution do not appear to have increased knowledge.
Have these forty years of models and tens of billions of dollars spent been a waste of time, effort and money?
That Charney Report entry was simply a mean of Manabe’s (low) and Hansen’s (high) estimates.
In 1983, Manabe wrote a report in this book:
https://www.elsevier.com/books/advances-in-geophysics/saltzman/978-0-12-018825-3
He made eight significant predictions, some of which clearly occurred, others which are ambiguous, not yet testable, or partially contradicted.
Our state of knowledge would appear to have ended in 1983.
Manabe said as much in this interview:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-syukuro-manabe
He wrote about resolutions increasing, but increased resolution does not change the non-linearity of the parameterizations. He wrote that his early models necessarily had simple parameterizations, necessitated by limited compute resources. But the advantage was, especially since he wrote the whole thing, was that he understood what was in them.
Manabe on the parameterizations:
“Back then you had to make the parameterisation as simple as possible, otherwise you could never complete a computation as it took too long. My main job was to make parameterisation as simple as possible. Now they can make those parameterisations very, very complicated and include just about every factor you can see from your window.
…
That means that qualitatively they are more sophisticated and complicated. However, there is no guarantee that the parameterisations are quantitatively realistic. You can never compete with nature in complexities.”
Why would Figure TS.10 compare zonal wind speed trends from ERA5 for the satellite era (1979 through 2019),
but choose to use Radio Occultation data for a much shorter period ( 2002 through 2019 ) when comparing temperature trends?
Is it because the ERA5 for this period does not indicate a Hot Spot?
Also, wrt to this Figure, contrary to the weakened jet idea, the modeled zonal wind speed trend appears to increase, not decrease with global warming.
Summary for Policy Makers A.1.5
“” There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability.”
Not likely to get much play.
More from A.1.5
“ It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades, but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss.”
Limited evidence.
I’m curious if they even mention geothermal activity on WAIS.
“The Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller than at present during the Last Interglacial period (roughly 125,000
years ago) and the mid-Holocene (roughly 6,000 years ago) (high confidence). After reaching a recent
maximum ice mass at some point between 1450 and 1850, the ice sheet retreated overall, with some decades
likely close to equilibrium (i.e., mass loss approximately equalling mass gained).”
TS 43
How do you figure all of that? Some of it makes sense and some of it is just wrong. There was less ice on Greenland during parts of the warm period (roughly 125,000 years ago) I agree, data is consistent with that.
and the mid-Holocene (roughly 6,000 years ago) (high confidence)
You have no proof of that, Greenland ice core records show more ice accumulation leading up to that. That is not consistent with actual data. I classify that as just alarmist BS.
Alex
I’ve simply quoted from the Technical Section. In all my comments I am providing quotes from the IPCC6. The entire report is over 3900 pages.
“ In some regions of western North America and the Mediterranean,
paleoclimate evidence suggests that recent warming has resulted in droughts that are of similar or greater
intensity than those reconstructed over the last millennium (medium confidence).”
Chapter 8 page 42
Are we to believe these are the only locations where this is true?
“ Under the higher CO2 emissions scenarios, there is deep uncertainty in sea level projections for 2100 and beyond associated with the ice-sheet responses to warming.”
“deep uncertainty “
TS44
“deep uncertainty “
Uncertainty goes both ways. Do you feel lucky?
I’m going to the casino right after breakfast.
“ Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover has decreased since at least 1978 (very high confidence), and there
is high confidence that trends in snow cover loss extend back to 1950. It is very likely that human influence
contributed to these reductions.”
Meanwhile, Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
“With a heat capacity about 1000 times greater than that of the atmosphere, Earth’s ocean stores the vast
majority of energy retained by the planet. Ocean currents transport the stored heat around the globe and, over decades to centuries, from the surface to its greatest depths. The ocean’s thermal inertia moderates faster
changes in radiative forcing on land and in the atmosphere, reaching full equilibrium with the atmosphere
only after hundreds to thousands of years (Yang and Zhu, 2011).”
Chapter 1 Page 38
“ Overall, there is medium confidence that past projections of global temperature are consistent with
subsequent observations, especially when accounting for the difference in radiative forcings used and those
which actually occurred (limited evidence, high agreement). FAR regional projections are broadly consistent
with subsequent observations, allowing for regional-scale climate variability and differences in projected and
actual forcings. There is medium confidence that the spatial warming pattern has been reliably projected in
past IPCC reports (limited evidence, high agreement).”
Chapter 1 Page 50
“ Changes in several components of the global hydrological cycle provide evidence for overall
strengthening since at least 1980 (high confidence). However, there is low confidence in comparing
recent changes with past variations due to limitations in paleoclimate records at continental and global
scales.”
Low confidence
Chapter 2 Page 6
“ In summary, biophysical effects from historical changes in land use have an overall negative ERF (medium
confidence). The best-estimate ERF from the increase in global albedo is -0.15 W m–2 since 1700 and -0.12
W m–2 since 1850 (medium confidence; Section 7.3.4.1). Biophysical effects of land-use change likely
resulted in a net global cooling of about 0.1°C since 1750 (medium confidence;”
Land use changes net global cooling
Chapter 2 page 28
“ In summary, proxy-based reconstructions suggested that the AMOC was relatively stable during the past 8
kyr (medium confidence), with a weakening beginning since the late 19th century (medium confidence), but
due to a lack of direct observations, confidence in an overall decline of AMOC during the 20th century is
low. From mid-2000s to mid-2010s, the directly observed weakening in AMOC (high confidence) cannot be
distinguished between decadal-scale variability or a long-term trend (high confidence).”
Chapter 2 Page 80
“ In summary, there is low confidence that an observed decrease in the frequency of NH summertime
extratropical cyclones is linked to anthropogenic influence “
Chapter 3 page 46
“However, expert opinion differs as to whether recent Antarctic ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been driven primarily by external forcing or by internal variability, and there is
no consensus (Bamber et al., 2019).”
Chapter 3 page 54
“ Hence, we assess with
medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper
tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an
overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”
3-24
“ Furthermore, Williams et al. (2020) used
a combination of hydrological modelling and tree-ring reconstructions to show that the period from 2000 to
2018 was the driest 19-year span in southwestern North America since the late 1500s. Nonetheless, tree rings
also indicate the presence of prolonged megadroughts in western North America throughout the last
millennium that were more severe than 20th and 21st century events (high confidence) (Cook et al., 2004,
2010, 2015). These were associated with internal variability (Coats et al., 2016; Cook et al., 2016b) and
indicate that large-magnitude changes in the water cycle may occur irrespective of anthropogenic influence
(see also McKitrick and Christy, 2019).
“ In summary, there is medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models can reproduce broad aspects of
53 precipitation changes during paleo reference periods, but large discrepancies remain.”
Chapter 3 page 30
“ Dunn et al. (2017) confirmed earlier findings that global mean surface relative humidity increased during
1973-2000, followed by a steep decline (also reported in Willet et al., 2014) until 2013, and specific
humidity correspondingly increased and then remained approximately constant (see also Section 2.3.1.3.2),
with none of the CMIP5 models capturing this behaviour. They noted biases in the mean state of the CMIP5
models’ surface relative humidity (and ascribe the failure to the representation of land surface processes and
their response to CO2 forcing), concluding that these biases preclude any detection and attribution
assessment.”
Chapter 3 page 32
“ Based on these results we assess that despite some improvements, CMIP6
50 models still have deficiencies in simulating precipitation patterns, particularly over the tropical ocean (high confidence)”
Chapter 3 page 33
“ Owing to
observational uncertainties and inconsistent results between studies, we conclude that there is low confidence
in the attribution of changes in the seasonality of precipitation.”
Chapter 3 page 36
“ Global land precipitation has likely increased since the middle of the 20th century (medium confidence) while
there is low confidence in trends in land data prior to 1950 and over the ocean during the satellite era due to
disagreement between datasets (Section 2.3.1.3.4).”
Chapter 3 page 35
“ In summary, an anthropogenic influence on the frequency or other aspects of SSWs (Sudden Stratospheric Warmings)has not yet been robustly
detected. There is low confidence in the ability of models to simulate any such trends over the historical period because of large natural interannual variability and also due to common substantial biases in the
simulated mean state affecting the simulated frequency of SSWs.”
Chapter 3 page 47
“ A fingerprint analysis using the CESM large ensemble suggests that this internal variability accounts for 40-50% of the observed September Arctic sea ice decline (Ding et al., 2019; England et al., 2019).
Internally-generated decadal tropical variability and associated atmospheric teleconnections were suggested
to have contributed to the changing atmospheric circulation in the Arctic and the associated rapid sea ice
decline from 2000 to 2014 (Meehl et al., 2018).
“Despite large differences in the mean sea ice state in the Arctic, Arctic sea ice loss is captured by all CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Nonetheless, large inter-model differences in the Arctic sea ice decline remain, limiting our ability to quantify forced changes and internal variability contributions.”
Chapter 3 page 49
“ In summary, considering together the SROCC assessment that atmospheric warming was very likely the primary driver of glacier recession, the results of Roe et al. (2017, 2020) and our assessment of the dominant role of anthropogenic influence in driving atmospheric warming (Section 3.3.1), we conclude that human influence is very likely the main driver of the near-universal retreat of glaciers globally since the 1990s.”
Chapter 3 page 53
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AlpineGlaciersDisappearing_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-01-01044917_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-11-08182715_shadow.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_10_05_38_50-down.gif
“ In summary, there is now medium confidence in many ice sheet processes in ice sheet models, including
grounding line evolution. However, there remains low confidence in the ocean forcing affecting the basal
melt rates and low confidence in simulating mechanisms that have the potential to cause widespread,
sustained and very rapid ice loss from Antarctica through MICI.”
Chapter 9 page 69
“Overall, although there is high confidence that the dynamic
response of Greenland outlet glaciers is controlled by bedrock topography, there is low confidence in
quantification of future mass loss from Greenland triggered by warming ocean conditions due to limitations
in current understanding of ice-ocean interactions, its implementation in ice sheet models, and knowledge of
bedrock topography.”
Chapter 9 page 57
“A remaining challenge is low confidence in reproducing historical mass changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet”
They have low confidence in reproducing mass changes of the past and yet they seem to know it’s outside of natural variability. Strange logic.
Chapter 9 page 57
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Image1824_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image525_shadow.png
CKid
When you have irregular melting moments, and then it stops and returns to mean, there is very strong indication that it is an intruder, not a local event.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_daily_melt_plot.png
In Chapter 9, page 64 it says the Antarctic contribution to GMSLR for the period 1992-2020 is 7.4mm, which averages 0.264 mm/yr.
That is lower than the 0.27 mm/yr in IPCC5.
The good thing is no more jokes about how the total contribution to GMSLR from that huge continent is equal to precisely 1/5 the thickness of a US dime. A brand new dime, at that.
“High geothermal heat flux areas underneath glaciers and high
energy dissipation in the flow of water and ice causes additional mass loss of the glaciers in Iceland
(Jóhannesson et al., 2020), accounting for 20% of the mass loss since 1994.”
Chapter 9 page 82
So, let me get this straight. In Iceland geothermal activity causes mass loss in Iceland but not a single mention of the dozens of studies showing evidence of geothermal activity underneath the Ice Sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. To be continued.
The following is from Johanessonn et al 2020 which is cited in Chapter 9 page 82 regarding basal melt in Iceland. It makes a case for including a discussion of geothermal activity in Greenland and Antarctica.
“ Geodetic mass-balance studies in recent years have shown that traditional mass-balance measurements are often biased by several tens of cm water equivalent per year (Zemp and others, 2013; Andreassen and others, 2016). The reported biases are on the same order as the annual non-surface mass balance in many cases. Therefore, it is important to consider the non-surface mass balance explicitly in order to correctly assess the glacier mass balance. The geodetic mass balance differs from surface mass balance, typically measured by in-situ measurements, in that it refers to a direct measurement of the change in the total volume or mass of the glacier (Cogley and others, 2011). This type of measurement includes mass-loss processes that take place at the glacier terminus (calving), the glacier bed (geothermal melting and energy dissipation due to sliding and flow of water along the bed) and internally within the glacier (dissipation in the flow of ice and water).
Apart from its importance for the mass balance, subglacial geothermal heat flux and associated basal melting has attracted increasing attention in recent years as an important component in the dynamics of glaciers, in particular for the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. The magnitude of localized geothermal heat flux under the Greenland ice sheet has been inferred to be 15–30 times the continental background at the onset of the NEGIS ice stream in northeastern Greenland, and subglacial melting at this location exerts a strong influence on the ice flow (Fahnestock and others, 2001; Smith-Johnsen and others, 2020). Furthermore, the geothermal heat flux under the Greenland ice sheet shows substantial spatial variations (Greve, 2019), which influence ice flow via the temperature of the ice and the thermal conditions at the base. Localized high geothermal heat flux has also been measured and inferred below the ice sheet in Antarctica and is believed to be an important parameter in ice stream dynamics and the formation of subglacial lakes, in particular for West Antarctica (Fischer and others, 2015; Schroeder and others, 2014; Loose and others, 2018)”
CKid wrote:
The following is from Johanessonn et al 2020 which is cited in Chapter 9 page 82 regarding basal melt in Iceland. It makes a case for including a discussion of geothermal activity in Greenland and Antarctica.
Cited in the AR6. I guess there’s no way the experts could be aware of this paper then, or of the issue. Surely CKid knows what they do not. Good thing he’s here to tell the professionals climbing all over the ice and writing the reports how to do their job.
David
This should be an obvious question. Apparently not for you. Why am I constantly explaining science to you?
The issue is not whether there is a significant impact on ice discharge and thus GMSLR. It’s simply this. Geothermal is a part of the system. All parts of the system should be analyzed. If it is insignificant, so be it.
They obviously found cause for including it in the discussion of Iceland. The least they should do, if this is a true scientific document, is to explain how Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets differ. All of it is self evident and a no brainer.
More reason to view the IPCC report for what it is….a political propaganda document.
CKid wrote: They obviously found cause for including it in the discussion of Iceland. The least they should do, if this is a true scientific document, is to explain how Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets differ.
Explain why there are vast amounts of geothermal activity under Yellowstone National Park but not New Hampshire or Madagascar.
David
What absurd logic. This has nothing to do with that. Is it really so difficult to understand the issue?
CKid, why should geothermal under Iceland imply geothermal thousands of miles away?
Hottest known geothermal regions:
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/renewable-energy-resources/world/sources_world/geothermalregions_files/img015.jpeg
I had to do a quick google search to remind myself:
….
Newly Discovered Volcanic Heat Source Under Antarctic Glacier Is Half As Hot As Iceland’s Most Active Volcano
….
https://oceanleadership.org/newly-discovered-volcanic-heat-source-under-antarctic-glacier-is-half-as-hot-as-icelands-most-active-volcano/
David
“ CKid, why should geothermal under Iceland imply geothermal thousands of miles away?”
I’m thinking “Cool Hand Luke, what we have here is a failure to communicate.”
I think I know your problem. You are not aware of the dozens of studies finding geothermal activity under the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets. It never occurred to me that you weren’t aware of that.
My basic point wasn’t the substance of how much or where.
It was logic and reason. If the IPCC felt geothermal activity in Iceland was worthy of being in IPCC6, why wasn’t it worthy enough to mention it when it’s known to be under Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets.
How much geothermal heat is under Greenland? Is it enough to make a substantial difference? Has it increased in recent decades — because the melting of the Greenland ice sheet sure has. Temperatures have increased in Greenland too. Surface melting is easily observed. So is increased iceberg calving. How does the heat increase from global warming and downward IR compare to basal geothermal heating? Did the geothermal studies of Greenland come out before or after the AR6’s deadline for the inclusion of studies? Why isn’t Greenland on the geothermal hot spot map I showed you but Iceland is? Greenland is *huge* — are the geothermal hot spots under it as huge, per unit area, as those under Iceland?
Instead of acting like you’re some kind of expert who’s easily picking apart a report that real experts spent 2-3 years carefully putting together, why don’t you write to one or two of them and politely ask them about geothermal under Greenland. Ask if they thought about it. See what they say. I suggest you start with Jason Box of Ohio State University. He’s probably out on the Greenland Ice Sheet right now, but he seems to also be often on the Internet and Twitter, so I suspect he’ll eventually get back t you. Or write the Lead Authors from that AR6 chapter, or for that subsection. But be polite about it.
Please let us know what you find — I’m definitely interested.
“ Non-surface mass balance is more important for Icelandic glaciers than for most other glacier regions. There are, however, several glacier regions in other areas on Earth with volcanism or high geothermal heat flux, for example in Alaska, Kamchatka, New Zealand, parts of Antarctica and northeastern Greenland. Moreover, dissipation melting will be important for glaciers with a wide elevation range and large mass turnover, such as in parts of the Himalayas, Alaska and southern Greenland. This indicates that non-surface glacier mass balance may be more important in the global context than most often assumed and warrants further analysis of this process in studies of the effect of glaciers on global sea level. The effect of geothermal heat flux and basal melting on ice-dynamics is also a subject that has recently been discovered to be of great importance, e.g. for northeastern Greenland (Smith-Johnsen and others, 2020), and may be essential in ice-flow modelling of this part of the Greenland Ice Sheet.”
The above is more from the Johannesson et al 2020 paper.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/nonsurface-mass-balance-of-glaciers-in-iceland/6A3EED05D023C9DA34874E98BBDAC8EB
Regarding changes in extreme events:
“Many climate extremes are projected to increase in frequency, intensity and duration over the course of the twenty-first century1,2,3. For instance, recent studies project a significant increase in extreme heat events over most continents even by the year 2035 4 and an increase in temperature-induced drought episodes over roughly half of the global land surface for the period 2071–2100 5. These projected changes in climate extremes are consistent with observed trends. In particular, heatwaves and heavy precipitation events have already increased over the past decades6,7,8,9. In addition, increasing occurrences of synchronous hot and dry extremes10, hotter droughts11,12 and a temperature-induced intensification of dry seasons13 were observed over the course of the last century. In this regard, rising temperatures have led to a substantial increase in the occurrence of compound warm season droughts over Europe during recent years14.”
Citations here:
“Increasing impact of warm droughts on northern ecosystem productivity over recent decades,” David Gampe et al, Nature Climate Change (2021).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01112-8
Even Gavin Schmidt admitted the UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs run unreasonably “hot.” So, do we take the “cool” Russian model with the intermediate scenarios? Or do we take wildly hot models with the idiotic high scenarios.
Dave Fair wrote: Even Gavin Schmidt admitted the UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs run unreasonably “hot.” So, do we take the “cool” Russian model with the intermediate scenarios?
Dave, you’re replying to a comment that was about observed events and trends, not about models.
“ In summary, there is low confidence in overall changes in extremes derived from paleo-archives. The most robust evidence is high confidence that high-duration and severe drought events occurred at many locations
during the last 2000 years. There is also high confidence that high-magnitude flood events occurred at some
locations during the last 2000 years, but overall changes in infrastructure and human water management
make the comparison with present-day records difficult. But these isolated paleo-drought and paleo-flood
events are not evidence of a change, or lack of a change, in the magnitude or the likelihood of relevant
extremes.”
Chapter 11 page 31
Translation: In spite of what the climate zealots want to believe they don’t know how much has changed in extreme events.
“ Identifying past trends in TC metrics remains a challenge due to the heterogeneous character of the historical
instrumental data, which are known as “best-track” data (Schreck et al., 2014). There is low confidence in
most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics due
to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data. This should not be interpreted as implying
that no physical (real) trends exist, but rather as indicating that either the quality or the temporal length of the
data is not adequate to provide robust trend detection statements, particularly in the presence of multidecadal variability.”
Chapter 11 page 88
“… This should not be interpreted as implying
that no physical (real) [declining TC] trends exist, but rather as indicating that either the quality or the temporal length of the
data is not adequate to provide robust trend detection statements, particularly in the presence of multidecadal variability.”” Again, another UN IPCC CliSciFi sales job rather than simply writing a factual report. And people wonder why governmental institutions are losing credibility and support.
I noticed that they still pretend to have (+/-)0.1C error bars on temperatures from 1850. This is statistical garbage. You can’t know the global temperature anomaly to (+/-)0.1C since 1850 with (a) a spatially incomplete data set (b) thermometer that can only detect (+/-)0.5C and (c) noise functions in temperature stations that are not proven to cancel. This is fake science.
When you have 12% SH coverage and 50% NH coverage in 1880, you call it magic. In 3,949 pages they have hid a lot of magic.
Is the IPCC just moving the goal posts back to 1850, to accomplish the 1.5 degree celsius increase it predicted in IPCC3?
IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.
But this is the IPCC’s argument in the 6th report: “The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
So because they now start the clock 140 years sooner, not only can they achieve the 1.5 degree increase predicted, but they can even achieve it in 20 years, much sooner than initially predicted!
So exactly when were these “pre-industrial” temperature levels recorded, or are they a theoretical construct?
I’m not a scientist, so I don’t feel qualified to comment on the proxy data they use to arrive at the conclusion that there has been “1.1 degree C of warming since 1850-1900.” But needless to say, I share your concern.
This is based on measurements. Berkley and HadCRUT date back to 1850, NOAA and GISS back to 1870.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
But as I write in another post, there is no temperature trend from 1850 to 1920. Virtually all heating has occurd after 1920.
Climate Skeptic wrote: IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.
How so? Numbers?
Please see either of the graphs John Christy put together, both labeled “5 Year Running Mean . . . .”
https://clintel.org/new-presentation-by-john-christy-models-for-ar6-still-fail-to-reproduce-trends-in-tropical-troposphere/
Climate Skeptic wrote: Please see either of the graphs John Christy put together, both labeled “5 Year Running Mean . . . .”
Nope, those aren’t for the global surface temperature, they’re for the tropical temperature in a small slice of the troposphere.
What numbers do you have for the global surface temperature, which is what your IPCC quote was about?
Please see the graph on page two, entitled “Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature, Surface to 50K Feet.”
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/testimonials/ChristyJR_Written_160202.pdf
Let me guess: Cue the bogus arguments “discrediting” it published by Skeptical Science?
If it helps, you can read Gavin Schmidt’s comments in Science, in the article titled “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”
“Already scientific papers are appearing using CMIP’s unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100, adding fire to what are already well-justified fears. But that practice needs to change, Schmidt says. ‘You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong.'”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
Climate Skeptic wrote: Please see the graph on page two, entitled “Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature, Surface to 50K Feet.”
Nope again — that’s a chart about the mid-troposphere, not the surface, and you quotes the IPCC about the surface.
Besides no one believes that unpublished, unpeer-reviewed Christy graph.
Climate Skeptic: Quoting Gavin Schmidt from Science is irrelevant. You quoted the IPCC making a specific statement, and said “actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.”
So give a number for “actual warming” for the surface since 1990 and show it’s “falling short” of “predictions.”
“Climate Skeptic wrote: Please see the graph on page two, entitled “Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature, Surface to 50K Feet.”
Nope again — that’s a chart about the mid-troposphere, not the surface, and you quotes the IPCC about the surface.”
Are you saying mid-troposphere and surface temperatures don’t correlate?
If you are not, the what’s wrong with using it show projections have failed?
If you are, can you explain why you think they do not?
agnostic wrote: Are you saying mid-troposphere and surface temperatures don’t correlate?
Why would they? One’s on the surface and the other is way up there. What’s the data say?
“Why would they? One’s on the surface and the other is way up there. What’s the data say?”
Well, the data suggests they correlate very well, with perhaps with a very slightly greater upwards trend at the surface. So the question really is; why wouldn’t they?
And given that they do, why would it not be appropriate to use that to show that IPCC3 predictions way over-estimated warming?
agnostic2015 wrote: Well, the data suggests they correlate very well, with perhaps with a very slightly greater upwards trend at the surface
Do they?
Let’s see the numbers.
“Lets see the numbers”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1980/to:2020/plot/uah6-land/from:1980/to:2020/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1980/to:2020/trend/plot/uah6-land/from:1980/to:2020/trend
agnostic2015: That’s UAH lower troposphere, not mid-troposphere.
‘agnostic2015: That’s UAH lower troposphere, not mid-troposphere.”
So? The question was regarding surface temperatures and IPCC 3 predictions failing for surface temperatures. The correlation is the same for the entire of the troposphere incorporating the mid-troposphere.
What evidence do you have that the mid-troposphere will be in any way significantly different?
agnostic wrote:
What evidence do you have that the mid-troposphere will be in any way significantly different?
What evidence do you have that it won’t?
What does the data say?
Anyway who cares. The first statement here was about the surface temperature. In response to that we got a graph about the “Bulk atmosphere,” then yours was about the “mid-troposphere.”
Where’s a graph or data about the surface temperature??
“Dunno but ask yourself why ENSO years of each variety — La Nina, neutral, El Nino — keep getting warmer and warmer over time:”
Except they didn’t though. That was the whole thing about the “hiatus”. Prior to 2015 – or 2012 according to the IPCC – the world WASN’T getting (significantly) warmer. The recent years were all El Nino conditions, and only since last year have we seen La Nina.
But that is beside the point. The point that you appeared to be contesting was that someone posted mid-troposphere temperature to show that IPCC TAR had failed it’s predictions for surface temperatures. I showed that they correlate and thus substantiated the claim that the predictions had failed.
Also, it’s not contested that the world has warmed, but the issue is that there has been a LACK of warming, much less warming than there should have been to justify the level of alarm, and shows that model predictions which encapsulate our understanding of the climate system produce too much warming and in fact too much variability as well. The claim has always been that natural processes are not fully understood or accounted for the standard climate model.
Can you assert with evidence that ALL natural processes have been fully accounted for and understood and that the IPCC TAR predictions have been validated?
“In response to that we got a graph about the “Bulk atmosphere,” then yours was about the “mid-troposphere.”
Other way around. Mine was not about mid-troposphere. Given the level pedanticism here, that surely is germaine.
“Where’s a graph or data about the surface temperature??”
It is on both graphs I posted….CRUTEM is for surface temps. They correlate closely with both UAH lower troposphere (close to the surface) and RSS (bulk). Therefore the fact that mid-troposphere was used in showing that surface temps had failed prediction is an irrelevant quibble.
Are you standing by the IPCC TAR predictions of over 1.5C?
agnostic2015 wrote: That was the whole thing about the “hiatus”. Prior to 2015 – or 2012 according to the IPCC – the world WASN’T getting (significantly) warmer.
That’s just false. Look at any graph — warming resumed strongly around 1975:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2021
agnostic2015 wrote:
The point that you appeared to be contesting was that someone posted mid-troposphere temperature to show that IPCC TAR had failed it’s predictions for surface temperatures.
My point was that someone made a claim about surface temperatures and then posted (a) bulk atmospheric temperatures and then (b) mid-tropospheric temperatures.
Just analyze the surface temperature, since that’s what the claim was about!
agnostic2015 wrote: Can you assert with evidence that ALL natural processes have been fully accounted for and understood and that the IPCC TAR predictions have been validated?
Which natural processes are missing?
—
PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.
“Which natural processes are missing?”
The ones that aren’t accounted for:
– Solar indirect effects
– Centennial and Millennial scale ocean current changes.
—
“PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.”
Yes they did. This why we are having this discussion.
agnostic2015 wrote:
“Which natural processes are missing?”
The ones that aren’t accounted for:
– Solar indirect effects
– Centennial and Millennial scale ocean current changes.
Examples of the first?
The second aren’t forcings.
“PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.”
Yes they did. This why we are having this discussion.
Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.
“Examples of the first?”
There are plenty of discussion of solar indirect effects on this blog. These may or may not be involved in recent climate change, but the point is they are not understood well enough for conclusions about anthropogenic effects to be so certain.
This is why understanding past climate change is so important; clearly the climate has changed both gradually and rapidly over short and long time periods all on its own. Understanding how the climate changed naturally will lead us to disentangle how we might be affecting it.
“The second aren’t forcings.”
So what?
“PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.”
Yes they did. This why we are having this discussion.
Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.”
Which are used as predictions.
Like it or not those “projections” are the basis for alarm. The climate has not followed those projections, or even the predictions that follow those projections.
agnostic2015 commented: There are plenty of discussion of solar indirect effects on this blog.
I haven’t always followed this blog. So what are these solar indirect effects? Just list some.
agnostic2015 commented:
“The second aren’t forcings.”
So what?
Because forcings are what drive long-term climate change.
Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.”
Which are used as predictions.
Not by anyone who knows the difference.
The climate has not followed those projections, or even the predictions that follow those projections.
Prove this.
“Because forcings are what drive long-term climate change.”
Not necessarily. Changes to ocean circulation can have the same effect, by redistributing heat flux (ENSO is a short term example) and by affecting cloud formation which in turn can increase or decrease albedo. An example is the hypothesis that AMOC was disrupted by a melting glacier that gave us the younger dryas: https://www.pnas.org/content/109/49/19928
“Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.”
Which are used as predictions.
Not by anyone who knows the difference.”
Tell that to the IPCC.
“The climate has not followed those projections, or even the predictions that follow those projections.
Prove this.”
We already have. This is what this entire thread is about.
The IPCC has not moved any goal posts. Whether You begin in 1850 or early in the 20th century – around 1915 – 20, does not matter. All series show that the temperature trend from 1950 to1920 was almost completely flat. Take a look at SPM – 7 in the report.
That’s some fine proxy data in SPM – 7. Pardon me if I don’t think that the same people that developed 102 incorrect climate models used in IPCC3 can “reconstruct” temperature data with enough precision to conclude that 1 degree celsius, as actually measured, is considered to be an anomaly. Also, is it appropriate for their reconstructed data not to show the medieval warming period or the little ice age?
To Climate Sceptic: I value scientific skepticism, but often “skepticism” is confused with ignorance. It is not “the same people” who are behind the PAGES 2K consortium that has developed the climate models. MBH98 is now part of the history of science and paleoclimatology has evolved over the last 25 years. And PAGES 2K has not erased the LIA, take a look at SPM -7. There was a global colder period from approx. AD 1200 to 1850 compared to earlier. But the hypothesis of the so-called MWP seems to have been weakened. There was hardly any global peak in temperature around the AD 1000, it was warmer in parts of the world, i.a. around the North Atlantic, but the MWP was hardly global. This boils down to pure logic, if it was significantly warmer 1000 years ago this would have been reflected in GMSL, and we have reasonably good proxy data which states that the variation in GMSL over the last couple of thousand years is in the order of a couple of decimetres. It is a distinctly “skeptical” myth that GMSL has risen more or less continuously over the last 10,000 years.
Rune Valaker- “reasonably good proxy data.” Is one degree celsius within its margin of error? Because if we are going to say that current temperatures are a statistically significant anomaly, it can’t be, correct?
And how exactly to we calculate the margin of error for tree rings?
To Climate Sceptic: What You really are asking is how much the global temperature has varied over the last two to three thousand years. And if you use available science as a basis, the answer is approx. +/- 0.3 C. Then I mean the long-term development, not single years or shorter periods (decades) which can be both colder and warmer. There is also no known physical cause that should give a different answer. We even have a good physical explanation for why global temperatures have evolved over the last hundred years as they have.
So if you are of the opinion that the last hundred years of temperature development does not represent an anomaly, I would like an explanation, I’m all ears.
Climate Skeptic wrote: And how exactly to we calculate the margin of error for tree rings?
There is a long and vast scientific literature on tree rings. Books too. Don’t act like no one knows how to do this or it can’t be done scientifically just because you don’t know. Go read it instead of suggesting the science must be wrong. There are people who devote their entire careers to this — they might know a little more than you do.
And the people compiling tree ring data assert they are poor proxies for temperature, especially Bristlecone Pines. Too many confounding inputs.
To Climate Sceptik; I forgot to answer your question about the quality of the proxy data. The proxy data I referred to concerned sea level. There we have several older port facilities and the fishtanks outside Rome that are at about the same level in relation to the sea level now as when they were built. In my hometown, archaeologists have excavated an old port facility from around AD 1000, and this is pretty much as high above today’s sea level as the land has risen in the past 1000 years.
Had it been 1C warmer globally for a long period 1000 years ago, these instalations would not have been located where they are. An annual increase in GMLS of 4 mm may sound like a trifle, but it amounts to 4 meters in 1000 years.
Rune Valaker, no, i’m not asking how variable the historical climate was.
I am asking how confident people should be in the precision of historical temperature calculated using proxy data instead of actual measurements. In other words, the precision of what you call “the available science.”
Because if someone is going to make the claim that it is 1 degree hotter than it was 1000 years ago, there had better be high confidence in the precision of temperature measurements made using proxy data. If they are potentially off by even 2 degrees, then the comparison is useless.
Climate Skeptic wrote:
Because if someone is going to make the claim that it is 1 degree hotter than it was 1000 years ago, there had better be high confidence in the precision of temperature measurements made using proxy data. If they are potentially off by even 2 degrees, then the comparison is useless.
Why?
What difference does it make to the current situation what the temperature was a thousand years ago?
PS: Paleoclimatologists think a lot about uncertainties and confidence levels, and publish them in their graphs, too.
“Why?
What difference does it make to the current situation what the temperature was a thousand years ago?”
Because understanding past climate change is vital to understanding the current context.
If the temperatures were hotter than they were now, then the climactic effects that are supposedly catastrophic should have been apparent then. For example, much hand-wringing goes on over permafrost melt and release of methane as a substantial positive feedback. That should occur regardless of what caused the warming – whether it was CO2 forcing or some other natural phenomenon we have yet to explain.
And given that it might have been as warm or warmer, understanding WHY it was and the processes that cause intermittent centennial scale variability such as the MWP, LIA, Roman Warming, Dark Ages Cooling, Minoan Warming etc, is important to place current warming in that context. Could the same processes that caused those climactic shifts be occurring now? Because the IPCC clearly don’t think they are.
Criticism is that these processes are not well understood, and are not accounted for in the standard climate model.
agnostic2015 wrote:
“Why?
“What difference does it make to the current situation what the temperature was a thousand years ago?”
If the temperatures were hotter than they were now, then the climactic effects that are supposedly catastrophic should have been apparent then. For example, much hand-wringing goes on over permafrost melt and release of methane as a substantial positive feedback. That should occur regardless of what caused the warming – whether it was CO2 forcing or some other natural phenomenon we have yet to explain.
OK, you make a good point, thanks.
But people have looked at past temperatures with the best available science, and found that the MWP, LIA, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period etc weren’t global. The world is the warmest now that it’s been since the Eemian 125,000 years ago.
“But people have looked at past temperatures with the best available science, and found that the MWP, LIA, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period etc weren’t global. The world is the warmest now that it’s been since the Eemian 125,000 years ago.”
Well the IPCC restricted itself to “the last 2000 years”. Since the end of the younger Dryas temperatures were higher than they are today and the temperature declined. The best available science cannot say with certainty that the MWP, LIA etc were not global. The argument that they WERE, more-or-less is the way they correlate to temperature changes today. A good example is the CET which correlates to global UAH…not perfectly…and I do acknowledge that global climate change is anything but global.
Ice core data does not suggest that we are warmer now than we were prior to MWP let alone the Eemian. Can you support that assertion? It’s the first I’ve heard of it.
agnostic2015 wrote:
Since the end of the younger Dryas temperatures were higher than they are today and the temperature declined.
a) Citation needed.
b) So what?
The best available science cannot say with certainty that the MWP, LIA etc were not global.
Science never says anything with “certainty.”
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Rune
Presumably you mean 1850 to 1920? Clearly GISS shows a temperature rise. As does CET.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure2.jpg
However here we have an instance where historical context is important as the temperature rise since 1800 is very noticeable in the graphic referenced and even more so from 1700 in CET although it is not a linear increase.
The growing warmth of the early part of the 18th Century was noted here by Hubert Lamb on page 12 and 13 of this study;
http://tinyurl.com/5vvvp9r
“The remarkable turn of the climate of Europe towards greater warmth from soon after the beginning of the eighteenth century and affecting all seasons of the year in the 1730’s seems to have produced little comment at the time, though by then the temperatures were being observed with thermometers and entered into regularly maintained observation books in a number of places.”
Our modern bouts of amnesia regarding previous climatic conditions can be seen to be nothing new by reading the comments from the annals of Dumfermline Scotland from 1733/4, when it recorded that wheat was first grown in the district in 1733. Lamb wryly observes that was not correct, as enough wheat had been grown further north in the early 1500’s to sustain an export trade (before the 1560’s downturn).
From America we have this contemporary comment;
“The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Webster’s dictionary)
This intriguing comment also enables us to see prior to 1880 which was a staging post and not the starting post of rising temperatures (and sea level and glacier melt)
From the records of the Canadian Horticulturist monthly of 1880 (page 7).
“I do not know whether or not the climate of Ontario is really becoming permanently milder than formerly, but I do know that for the past 18 years or 20 years we have not experienced the same degree of cold as the seven years preceding.”
So it is useful to look at the historical context and that not everything should be measured from 1880.
tonyb
Interesting that the Brits are now running about two tenths of a degree C less than the consensus of the Americans.
Something a lot of people that argue the previous warmings weren’t global don’t seem to catch is that global or not there are many things that can be learned from those warming periods. For instance the methane in the Arctic permafrost isn’t going to behave differently just because the Antarctic wasn’t also warming and the polar bear couldn’t have cared less about what is happening in the Antarctic either.
“a) Citation needed.”
– GISP2
– Vostok
“b) So what?
The best available science cannot say with certainty that the MWP, LIA etc were not global.
Science never says anything with “certainty.””
Yes it does. It is “unequivocal” that recent warming is entirely anthropogenic. From the AR6 SPM “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”
I agree with you though, it shouldn’t.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
“…but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000″.
You should really finish the quote.
It’s a quibble to say that naturally forced variability does not happen all at the same time. The fact that they happen on their own – ie understanding what causes the warm and cold periods is what is at issue. Global warming even now is not entirely global with some parts of the world not warming relative to others.
agnostic2015 commented:
“Science never says anything with “certainty.””
Yes it does. It is “unequivocal” that recent warming is entirely anthropogenic. From the AR6 SPM “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”
No, science doesn’t.
The word “unequivocal” is from the Summary for Policymakers. If you read just above the first use of that word, you’ll see
“This SPM provides a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate.”
“Based on scientific understanding, key findings can be formulated as statements of fact or associated with an assessed level of confidence indicated using the IPCC calibrated language.”
(emphasis mine)
Viz, they’re writing for policymakers, not scientists.
.
And they are lying to policymakers, David. Show me anything in the scientific portions of WG1 that supports Mannian hockeysticks of any provenance.
Dave Fair wrote: Show me anything in the scientific portions of WG1 that supports Mannian hockeysticks of any provenance.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/a-tale-of-two-hockey-sticks/
Oh, Gawde! Mann quoting Mann and Mannians? Tell me that paleoclimate practitioners trust bristlecone pines as accurate representatives of temperatures. Really; tell me.
Dave, do they trust bristlecone pine proxies? How would you know? Should they? Should they not? Again, how would you know? You’re an expert? Because you read something on some blog? Is the blog writer an expert? Compared to dendrologists who get PhDs in the subject and spend their careers studying proxies, doing research, writing papers, going to conferences, presenting papers, discussing with colleagues, refereeing papers, reading the scientific journals? And you think some bitter blog writer compares to the professionals just because he tells you what you want to hear? They don’t know what they’re doing but McIntyre does? Yet he’s afraid to publish in the scientific literature, or even write letters to the journal editors, letters that will get peer reviewed? Instead he writes his blog that doesn’t get peer reviewed, that no scientists will read, complaining all the while that no one will pay attention to him while he takes no risk to play in the big league. Oh yeah sure he’s Mike Trout he says, except he won’t leave the Pony League.
That isn’t science. It’s more of your sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Hi TonyB,
The mentioned time “1850 or early in the 20th century – around 1915 – 20” is of particular significance in climate research. Since the end of the LIA around 1850 the overall Northern Hemisphere temperatures were fairly even https://1ocean-1climate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/3a.jpg but suddenly increased dramatically since summer 1918, causing a pronounced warming of the NH; in N-America until 1933, in Europe until 1939. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that naval war around Great Britain up to the North Cape caused or contributed to the significantly the so called Early Arctic Warming, see https://oceansgovernclimate.com/1885-2/
The air pressure from England to Svalbard was extraordinary during WWI, see Fig. 4 in a paper by A. F. More et al. ; in ‘agupubs’ in September 2020 titled: “The Impact of a Six‐Year Climate Anomaly on the “Spanish Flu” Pandemic and WWI”, and discussed at: https://oceansgovernclimate.com/the-great-climate-anomaly-in-world-war-i-is-still-not-understood/
It seems the IPCC again has failed to address the issue. How important it would be to address human activities at sea and its impact on climate has been recently discussed here. https://1ocean-1climate.com/if-the-ipcc-cant-answer-it-well-do-it/ or to explain why the North and Baltic Seas show the highest levels of warming worldwide, which cannot be due to higher CO2 values; discussed at https://1ocean-1climate.com/the-influence-of-the-baltic-sea-climate-reinforced-by-humans/
All the best,
ab
Climate Skeptic wrote:
IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.
Let’s do some simple analysis.
Here’s the latest Copernicus Climate Service monthly global mean temperature anomalies:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/ftp-data/temperature/2021/07/ERA5_1991-2020/ts_12month_anomaly_Global_ERA5_2T_202107_1991-2020_v01.csv
From Jan 1990 to July 2021 the linear trend is 0.22 C/decade.
That’s an interval of 378 months (=3.15 decades), so the change over that time period is approximately 0.70 C.
If we were to extrapolate that to 2100 (=11 decades), it’d imply a change of 2.4 C.
So in fact the IPCC’s prediction is NOT falling “well short” of those predictions. Climate Skeptic was wrong.
==
In fact, as I showed here, warming is actually accelerating according to the Copernicus data, and by that trendline warming just by 2050 would be 2 C. By 2100 it’d be 5.5 C. Of course, this is not how you calculate warming to 2100 — you’d use a climate model. But it does show that global warming is accelerating lately.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/08/more-on-acceleration-of-global-warming.html
The 30-year linear trend is increasing:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/08/global-warming-is-accelerating.html
Climate Skeptic wrote:
IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.
Let’s do some simple analysis.
Here’s the latest Copernicus Climate Service monthly global mean temperature anomalies:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/ftp-data/temperature/2021/07/ERA5_1991-2020/ts_12month_anomaly_Global_ERA5_2T_202107_1991-2020_v01.csv
From Jan 1990 to July 2021 the linear trend is 0.22 C/decade.
That’s an interval of 378 months (=3.15 decades), so the change over that time period is approximately 0.70 C.
If we were to extrapolate that to 2100 (=11 decades), it’d imply a change of 2.4 C.
So in face the IPCC’s prediction is NOT falling “well short” of those predictions. Climate Skeptic was wrong.
Actually you are right: I don’t think you could characterise temperature rise as “falling well short”. It’s imprecise language but “well short” to me might be 0.1C/decade. According to UAH: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:2020/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:2020/trend
…the rise is 0.133 C/decade…near enough to 1.5C to qualify your objection.
I am skeptical that the rise is a forced acceleration – it is increasing, because the rate of temperature increase for the whole period is 0.11 C/decade. But the reason for the recent increase is because of the very large and long El Nino from 2015. We were in El Nino conditions then, and usually these are followed by La Nina conditions. We got La Nina conditions last winter, things are neutral now but 2nd year La Nina is forecast. After these La Nina’s are done and we have a period of relative neutrality we might have better gauge of how much genuine increase in average temperatures occurred during that period that was not because of ENSO.
The IPCC has become an extreme alarmist organisation, like Greta Thunberg.
Empirical evidence clearly shows that global warming is beneficial for the global economy and ecosystems, not harmful. Therefore, there is no valid justification for actions to attempt to reduce global warming. Such actions are costing and enormous amount and are doing substantial harm to the world economy and human well-being.
Climate alarmism is a new religion, not honest, objective science.
The money and time being wasted in this global warming bs is just beyond belief….I’m so sick of the whole crock.
AGREE !!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Lang wrote: Empirical evidence clearly shows that global warming is beneficial for the global economy and ecosystems, not harmful.
What about your ridiculous finding that a temperature increase of 3 C will cause a GDP change of only -0.2% due to sea level rise, when it will swamp most of the coastal cities of the world and much of Florida?
That shows why people think climate economists are a silly joke who can’t think their way out of a paper bag.
I made no such finding re sea level rise. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about, as usual.
Peter, awhile back you posted a graph from your research that showed GDP losses/gains (pct change) as a function of temperature change, for various climate factors. Sea level change was in a bright blue. How about posting it again?
All the solid lines plotted in that chart are FUIND projections of impacts up to + 3C GMST from 2000, plus two dashed lines that are our projections from empirical data of the economic impact of energy consumption. Read the paper and try to understand it!
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
I wonder if the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 will include Nobel economic prize winner William Nordhaus’ calculations showing optima temperature increase by 2100 is 3.5 C?
Does even Nordhaus still believe that?
He said, in 1991: “Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just 3% of national output”.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5025/1206
So there is an increase in heat waves, but no increase in droughts
Then it is not surprising, there is an increase in concurrent heatwaves and droughts.
But there may also be an increase in concurrent heatwaves and no droughts. So what?
” ….. but no increase in droughts”
Tell that to Californians ……
https://weatherwest.com/archives/1797
https://i1.wp.com/weatherwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ca_ca_pmdi.png?w=750&ssl=1
Of course, Californian opinions, like most, are probably not informed.
They would not guess that statewide precipitation, while characteristically variable, has been unchanged for more than a century:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/4/pcp/all/12/1895-2020?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2021
This is not entirely inconsistent with what Manabe considered, that precipitation would broadly increase, or remain unchanged, but that evaporation would increase. This is plausible, but unfortunately, no particularly reliable global assessments of evaporation are available. And while evaporation is understood to be a function of temperature, it is also a function of wind speed, solar irradiation, and humidity.
McGee, are you sure that page works? I found it returns a trend of “0.00 in/decade” for California for every month from October to March (then I gave up), which seems very suspect….
McGee, the other issue is that California is a huge state with a few different climate zones, so looking at the state as a whole isn’t very informative. Northern California and the Mohave Desert have nothing in common, for example.
“They would not guess that statewide precipitation, while characteristically variable, has been unchanged for more than a century:”
Again
https://i1.wp.com/weatherwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ca_ca_pmdi.png?w=750&ssl=1
“In northern high latitudes, the report concludes – with high confidence – that there has already been a “detectable” increase in rainfall..”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science
This concurs with the UK official data of an 8% increase in precipitation over the last 30 years.
It’s consistent with the gravitational forcing hypothesis as an alternative to Milankovitch insolation theory which can account for climate change upto the glacial cycle, with extra warm equatorial waters being pushed to higher latitudes, which falls as snow in polar regions & accumulates until the extra tidal energy decreases.
How about the warm AMO phase?
Bill McKibben “….smokescreen thrown up by the fossil fuel industry” ….
Wrong Bill, your own flatulence is clouding your view of reality.
The 3rd IPCC report had the very scary (and fraudulent) hockey-stick. The 4th report talked a lot about 3 degrees C of warming. The 5th report talked about 2 degrees of warming, and now in the 6th report the headline number is down to 1.5 degrees.
It looks to me like we can relax and continue to enjoy the benefits of global warming for another two or three IPCC reports, by which time the predicted warming will have gone down to zero.
Have you considered reading some of the report before commenting on it?
First, the report shows the most pronounced hockey stick I have ever seen, see SPM 7. The blade is almost as long as the shaft.
And the IPCC has long since abandoned an ECS of 1.5 C. The ECS is now estimated at:
“..the AR6 report says, resulting in a central estimate of 3.0C, with a likely range of 2.5 – 4C and a very likely range of 2 – 5C.This is much narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5 – 4.5C and very likely range of 1 – 6C. ”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science
Rune Valaker – your quote is about ECS, not the global temperature.
The “3 degrees C of warming” you complain about is related to sensitivity, Mike.
Steve McIntyre rips this “new” hockey stick to shreds.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
You might have missed:
“Curiously, this leading diagram of the Summary of Policy-Makers does not appear in the Report itself.”
It’s not curious when we observe that the Auditor has mainly be interested by curiosities.
No, its just that the politician lying liars got ahead of the CliSciFi “scientist” lying liars. Incompetent liars get caught out before the practiced liars. Therefore, the CliSciFi “scientist” lying liars were behind the politician lying liars in the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6.
Lying liars also lie when confronted by what they consider (in derogative terms) to be “Auditors.” Lying liars fear Auditors.
[Recognize yourself, Willard?]
You’re a crank, Charlie.
Calm down.
Mike Jonas. The Holy Grail to the climate issue for at least 40 years has been linked to the ECS, or “” Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.”And we have discussed that at Climate etc. for a long time.
Since we do not know anything about the future emissions, “somebody” has agreed or decided that the scale of global warming should be measured after the CO2 level has doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
During times of low solar wind magnetic activity, a weakening of the jet current (slowing of the zonal circulation) is observed. Why does this happen? When the solar wind is weak there is an increase in galactic radiation (primary and secondary) at high latitudes. The distribution of this radiation depends closely on the geomagnetic field. Similarly, the distribution of ozone, as a diamagnetic, is highly dependent on the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field over the Arctic changes very rapidly. There are two geomagnetic field maxima at the moment, one over northern Canada (weakening rapidly), the other over Siberia (strengthening). Where the geomagnetic field is weaker the concentration of both GCR and ozone increases.
“A map of cutoff energies as calculated in real time at the University of Bern is shown in this Figure. Red shading at the borders of the map is for regions where protons with energy below 125 MeV can penetrate to the atmosphere (20 km above the ground), while energies above 15 GeV (green colour within the closed contour) are required in equatorial regions above southern Asia. The contours of equal cutoff energy are curved, because the axis of the terrestrial magnetic field is inclined with respect to the rotation axis. Overall one notes that the closer one approaches the magnetic equator, the higher the minimum energy required for cosmic rays to reach the atmosphere. The cutoff energies are higher within the closed contour above southern Asia, because the Earth’s dipole is located somewhat outside the centre of the Earth, closer to southern Asia than to the region on the opposite side of the Earth above the western Atlantic Ocean.”
https://www.nmdb.eu/public_outreach/Bern_cutoff.jpg
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
The concentration of ozone and GCR in regions of weaker geomagnetic field in high latitudes is responsible for blocking circulation in the lower stratosphere, which is especially important during the winter season.
The IPCC is an agency of the UN reporting to and taking orders from the bureaucrat in chief Antonio Guterres
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/10/links-to-ipcc6-posts/
Deja Moo, the feeling that you’ve heard this bs before.
What else is a panel on Climate Change, unspecified expected to find?
The Climate is not changing and we do not have a reason for existing?
They have no choice and no insight.
–
It’s like what other reason for existing does a climate alarmist have for existing [Willard, Zeke]] other than to promote climate alarmism.?
–
The two pertinent questions the IPCC does not consider and has never answered are
What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?
.
–
These basic questions and their answers should be front and centre of the IPCC manifesto.
–
Perhaps Judith could expand on this point with another post dedicated to these two questions.
Please.
–
After all, is the optimum temperature some time in 1850 when we first determined the capacity to determine and record temperatures around the globe. Why is it the best temperature rather than 2 or 3 degrees warmer which led to the most prolific times for expansion of life on earth.?
–
What makes the 1900 level of CO2 and the preceding millennia so special?
Does having a low level of CO2 brought about by the burial of immeasurable amounts of CO2and the lack of building up of levels due to repeated ice ages stunting growth really determine what an adequate amount of CO2 for both animal and vegetative lives need?
–
Should we really be back at higher levels to encourage growth and food production and evolution?
What is the right level of CO2.
– Optimum Temperature.
– Optimum CO2
Why does the IPCC insist that change is dangerous without specifying exactly where we should be and why we should be there?
Good questions all. Of course the IPCC is going to find many reasons for alarm; finding cause for alarm is the reason the organization exists. Of course they will always ignore data which suggests warming has not been and will not be especially harmful. And heaven forbid anyone suggest warming to date has actually been net beneficial, though plainly it has. Of course the IPCC will focus on the most extreme scenarios, just as they have since their first report. Just as they always will. The IPCC is an advocacy organization, created by the UN to advance specific policy outcomes favored by those inclined to have a ‘world governing’ organization that is superior to national governments and the voters that elect those governments. The IPCC does not and never will present any kind of balanced representation of ‘the science’. Public policies will be set based on a wide range of inputs, all of which are tilted by the political preferences of individuals. It really has little to do with science, and much to do with politics.
Steve Fitzpatrick wrote: And heaven forbid anyone suggest warming to date has actually been net beneficial, though plainly it has.
How has warming obviously been beneficial?
McGee commented: More people suffer cold related deaths than do suffer heat related deaths.
Presumably, global warming is a net benefit by reducing cold deaths
Is this in fact true? I’m skeptical.
Who dies from the cold?
Do you think it’s a good idea to warm up the entire world to prevent those deaths — thereby changing the climate, acidifying the ocean, increasing wildfires, threatening crops, changing ecosystems — or do you think it’s better to find out why people are dying from the cold and address their needs — stopping homelessness, giving the poor better furnaces and better home insulation?
Do you heat your own home by warming up your entire neighborhood or your entire country? I’m curious….
The local DA: “How has warming obviously been beneficial?”
A couple quickies:
Fewer deaths from extreme climate.
A roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over the last 40 years; probably more than this today, post 2016 scientific audit.
Of course you know these things, DA. Willful ignorance doesn’t defend your case, you’ll need to dig a little deeper in those dog eared assets within your briefcase if you want to impress denizens.
jungletrunks wrote: Fewer deaths from extreme climate.
How do you know?
> Fewer deaths from extreme climate.
Citation needed.
David Appell | August 10, 2021 at 11:03 am |
jungletrunks wrote: Fewer deaths from extreme climate.
How do you know?
Willard | August 10, 2021 at 11:04 am |
> Fewer deaths from extreme climate.
Citation needed
Willard & Appellman
Do you two really need a citation for that?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf
What is “that,” Joe?
Specifically for the US, heat is responsible for more deaths; though deaths from heat has been in decline since 1995
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203755/fatalities-caused-by-extreme-weather-in-the-us/
From the National Center for Health Statistics: “During 2006–2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning.”
Cold related deaths are twice heat related in the U.S. It is my understanding that the worldwide data is similar if not worse for cold.
Lying liars just got to lie by using obscure statistics. In this case it was using EXTREME cold and heat events that are not representative of the general climate people live in. Mark Twain said it all.
Nice try, Trunks, but no cookies. Search for “the findings cannot be interpreted as globally representative.”
So in return here’s something more recent and relevant:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Unless you believe that there will be less people in 2050, I suggest you modify your claim that there will be “fewer deaths from extreme climate.”
Will, I’ll take that last sugar cookie.
You should read your own citations. The citation you post states 74 deaths per 110k from cold, and 7 deaths per 100k from heat:
“The large sample size and its representativeness improved the generalisability of our results. We found that 5 083 173 deaths were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% of all deaths and equating to 74 excess deaths per 100 000 residents. Most of these excess deaths were explainable by cold temperatures.”
“Average excess deaths related to non-optimal temperatures accounted for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of global deaths (74 deaths per 100 000 residents), with 8·52% of deaths explainable by cold temperatures (67 deaths per 100 000 residents) and 0·91% explainable by hot temperatures (seven deaths per 100 000 residents; table 2”
> You should read your own citations.
Not only did I read my citation without an s, Trunks, but I already read yours. None extrapolate the way you do about future deaths.
Now, try to read your own words:
You’re not mentioning a ratio, but an absolute number.
Unless the world population grows by less than a third of a percent, I suggest once again that you revise your claim.
Will, always attempting to obfuscate. I didn’t extrapolate about future deaths, it’s an unknown, the models are your playground, not mine.
angech starts this particular discussion by questioning what the optimum temperature should be, Steve supplemented this by stating that warming has not been harmful, and in fact warming has been beneficial. My statement “Fewer deaths from extreme climate” implictly follows this linear logic, that warming has not caused more deaths. The statistics prove it.
The relative magnitudes of two quantities; what is it you can’t see here? Globally 67 deaths per 100k residents die from cold, versus 7 per 100k residents who die from heat.
I’ll extrapolate that the ratio between cold and heat deaths has continued to narrow since post little ice age; we know it has gotten warmer, humanity has demonstrably benefited from this.
jungletrunks wrote:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
Nope. Only looked at well-off countries. Only one in the tropics. None in Africa. Seriously incomplete.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf
Nope — a snapshot.
You claimed “Fewer deaths from extreme climate.” That means you need to make a comparison — one point in time compared to and earlier point in time when it wasn’t as warm. Neither of these studies does that.
BTW, I meant to mention that I used the phrase extreme climate to as a reference to todays commonplace media narrative, the belief that we’re already living in an extreme climate. I mock it as nonsense, cold kills many more.
For the local DA: Willards 2021 citation is better than mine, it uses recent global statistics. He didn’t read it, or he wouldn’t have posted statistics that prove cold is a bigger killer than heat around the globe.
Willard,
If you think your citation suggests cold doesn’t cause more deaths than heat, then you need to sharpen your reading skills. The conclusions are very clear: cold kills far more than heat.
Here, Trunks:
The only way for your “fewer deaths from extreme climate” to answer “how has warming obviously been beneficial” is to attribute a (very small) reduction in the ratio of deaths by cold to the temperatures themselves, and not (say) our level of preparedness. Think of Junior’s trick of normalizing hurricane damage.
A few degrees won’t eliminate the need to heat yourself, and do consider that most deaths from cold are in Africa.
> If you think your citation suggests cold doesn’t cause more deaths than heat, then you need to sharpen your reading skills.
Since I’ve said nothing of the sort, Steve, I duly submit that you should go first.
But I’m willing to commit to the claim that cars kill more than cold, if you’re interested.
“A few degrees won’t eliminate the need to heat yourself”
Lovely. But a cooler planet means the need to heat yourself ever more, right? It’s a diminishing return for dung and tree burning in Africa.
What’s the ideal temp anyway, Will? There’s significant greening of the planet from elevated CO2 levels, this is obviously beneficial.
Let’s turn the table: how would cooling obviously be beneficial?
> But a cooler planet means the need to heat yourself ever more, right?
I thought you were not into the business of extrapolating, Trunks.
Do you think the Earth’s temperature exist for real?
Will: “I thought you were not into the business of extrapolating, Trunks.”
Common sense logic isn’t that difficult, Will, you should try it.
Alternatively, you’re big into extrapolating, so I’m sure you have plenty to share with denizens about how a cooling planet will benefit humanity. I doubt we’ll hear a peep from you on this subject.
Not sure about your common sense, Trunks, but mine tells me that my central heating thermostat does not mind much if it’s -10 or -15 outside.
Which suggests to me that energy poverty appears to be a confounding variable in what you won’t even spell out.
“Not sure about your common sense, Trunks, but mine tells me that my central heating thermostat does not mind much if it’s -10 or -15 outside.”
I’m sure you believe that your central heat runs the same amount, whether -10, or -15. I wouldn’t suggest dung burners rely on your logic though.
Funny you mention dung, Trunks:
https://ourworldindata.org/indoor-air-pollution#annual-deaths-from-indoor-air-pollution-have-declined-globally-by-more-than-1-million-since-1990
Ain’t that a coincidence, or what?
jungletrunks wrote: What’s the ideal temp anyway, Will?
The ideal temperature/climate is the one to which a species has adapted.
Deviations cause stress. Occasionally extinction.
“Funny you mention dung, Trunks”
What’s the relevant coincidence in the broader context of benefiting the planet?
Okay, maybe some common sense extrapolation wouldn’t hurt here either. We burn more clean plentiful natural gas than our grandparents, or great grandparents did. In historical context all people lived by burning wood fired stoves to stay warm, and for cooking. Wood stoves and bad ventilation creates bad indoor air pollution. While Africans today are vulnerable to cold, I’m sure they burn less dung than they did 100 years ago when it was cooler; so their lungs are better off. Though surely we wish they still had it better. But I guess in this way a warmer climate and technology have both improved indoor air pollution, and outdoor pollution in smaller context since natural gas is cleaner than historical methods for staying warm; coal, wood, dung. Good reasoning this time, Will.
Have you thought about the benefits of a cooling planet? There’s a cookie in it for you if you can deliver anything to make humanity wish such an outcome.
> What’s the relevant coincidence in the broader context of benefiting the planet?
Columbo was likeable, Trunks. You’re not.
The point you’re trying to dodge is that the reason people die from cold isn’t because the planet is cooling or warming, but because they can’t afford to warm themselves.
The local DA had a lightbulb moment.
“The ideal temperature/climate is the one to which a species has adapted.”
Nobody is talking about just surviving, DA. Is the goldilocks climate cooler than todays climate? How is cooler better for the planet? Willard dodges, but I’m sure you have something in that briefcase of yours to opine about.
“The point you’re trying to dodge is that the reason people die from cold isn’t because the planet is cooling or warming, but because they can’t afford to warm themselves”
I’m not trying to dodge what you assert, Will.
As you say, because they can’t afford to warm themselves, they die from cold; I extrapolate the poor don’t die from heat as much because they can’t afford to cool themselves, though.
jtrunks wrote: How is cooler better for the planet?
The planet is a rock. There is no “better” or “worse” for a rock.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the ~10M species living on the planet. Each is adapted to its local climate. And, usually, dealing with the inhospitality of humans and the destruction of ecosystems. You can’t just dial the temperature down and expect it will all be back to normal. It’s too late for that — we’ve screwed too much of it up.
In any case the temperature’s not going down anyway.
DA: “The planet is a rock. There is no “better” or “worse” for a rock.”
There’s better for humans and all other species though.
I consider all living species valuable, I’m not saying humans haven’t done bad things to the planet, humans should be good stewards of the planet.
Let’s stick to the conceptual discussion, and make it much simpler. If humans were to disappear entirely; is a warmer climate better, or is a cooler planet better for the remaining ~10M species living on the planet?
> I extrapolate the poor don’t die from heat as much because they can’t afford to cool themselves
You might need to rewrite that one, Trunks.
Meanwhile, enjoy this tid bit:
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/61119_credeconomiclosses.pdf
I’m sure these folks will be happy to learn that they have a fraction of a percent less chance to die from cold.
jungletrunks commented:
If humans were to disappear entirely; is a warmer climate better, or is a cooler planet better for the remaining ~10M species living on the planet?
If humans were to disappear, warming would halt in about a decade, and aerosols would drop out of the sky bringing about a 0.5 C cooling.
What does “better” or “worse” even mean in this context? Better in what sense, according to what metric(s)? Or worse?
Is a warmer or cooler planet “better” for the 10M species? They’re adapted to the climate they’re living in. They have evolved to eat the plants (or animals) around them that exist in the ecosystem that exists in that climate. In some cases their reproductive systems are geared to the temperature they live in — altering it has been observed to change reproductive characteristics. Plants have evolved to certain ranges of temperature and rainfall and soil moisture etc. This is why extinctions have been associated with climate changes in the past.
It is consent that the warming from the 1850 was beneficial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-5DSgt2q9g
Richard Lindzen said, it’s not a sign of intelligence to assume the climate reached a kind of optimum in1850.
5 points all reject alarm:
1. Climate Optimum was significantly warmer and greener than today, see new reconstruction with marine proxies. Green deserts, forests in the Tundra = significantly larger habitable lands.
2. No tipping points observed during Climate Optimum, neither Gulf Stream shutdown, nor permafrost methane apocalypse nor whatever.
3. Climate sensitivity lower than thought. Temps may even pause until 2060 due to coming AMO/PDO cold phases.
4. Extreme weather damages normalized to GDP are small and decreasing,
5. Cost of precipitous action larger than modelled benefit.
“How has warming obviously been beneficial?”
More people suffer cold related deaths than do suffer heat related deaths.
Presumably, global warming is a net benefit by reducing cold deaths, even if there was increased extreme heat, which is not a given.
US combined heating & air conditioning requirement has decreased.
In controlled experiments, CO2 increases plant growth, crop yield and drought tolerance. Presumably, this partially explains the increased plant life on earth and would seem to have aided increased crop yields and decreased necessary agricultural water use.
Increased temperature also correlates with increased photosynthesis, presumably also explaining the satellite observed increased in plant life.
Since all life ultimately depends on photosynthesis, total biomass correlates with plant biomass, and given the increase in plant life, this broadest measure of all life on earth has probably increased.
Phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food pyramid, also photosynthesize carbon dioxide, meaning increased CO2 probably increases life in the oceans.
Increased precipitation presumably increases the availability of fresh water for humans.
Hypothetically, global warming decreases the meridional ( latitudinal ) temperature gradients which would tend to reduce extreme temperature events and extreme kinetic energy events. There’s no counterfactual to this, but violent tornadoes in the US have certainly decreased since 1950.
These are enough for now.
McGee,
It is almost pointless to offer facts to those like Appell who are convinced humanity is just a problem to be controlled and limited. It is much like whispering into a hurricane; no matter what you say, they will not hear tou.
McGee wrote: US combined heating & air conditioning requirement has decreased.
Do you have data on this?
What about for the globe?
Steve Fitzpatrick commented: It is almost pointless to offer facts to those like Appell who are convinced humanity is just a problem to be controlled and limited.
Stick to the science.
McGee, certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?
They do decrease the Earth’s albedo and so are a positive feedback on global warming.
As for crop yields…. Yes, CO2 increases photosynthesis, but it also increases temperature and changes precipitation patterns. These affect crop yields too.
“Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”
“Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
—
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
—
Let’s hear from someone for whom it really matters:
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press, 8/30/2015:
“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”
—
I could go on — the scientific literature if full of studies that cast doubt on the idea the more CO2 is good for agriculture.
McGee, certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?
They do decrease the Earth’s albedo and so are a positive feedback on global warming.
As for crop yields…. Yes, CO2 increases photosynthesis, but it also increases temperature and changes precipitation patterns. These affect crop yields too.
“Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”
“Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
Appell,
The ‘best’ public policies WRT global warming are mainly political questions, and like all political questions, they are based on personal values, goals, and priorities. To ‘stick to the science’ is to ignore political reality. You seem to me a very highly motivated advocate for “green policies”, and I rather suspect you are closer to AOC on virtually every public policy question than you are to Ron DeSantis. That is perfectly OK, but it means that your preferred public policies are not, and never will be, just based on ‘the science’: they are in large measure a reflection of your world view, your priorities, and your values. You look only at what you perceive as negatives of fossil fuel use, and seem always to ignore the obvious positives, like falling poverty, increasing lifespan, and greater material wealth… all of which have come about due to widespread fossil fuel use. Above angech raises provocative questions about what the ‘ideal’ world would be in terms of CO2 and temperature. You ignore those questions. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
—
Let’s hear from someone for whom it really matters:
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press, 8/30/2015:
“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”
—
I could go on — the scientific literature if full of studies that cast doubt on the idea the more CO2 is good for agriculture.
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
> they are in large measure a reflection of your world view, your priorities, and your values.
I value the human species, Steve.
What about you?
Oh no, Steve is calling me by my last name only! I must have really gotten through to him.
Steve, instead of addressing the science you’re determined to pigeonhole me based on your assumptions about my politics. Perhaps you aren’t able to debate the science so politics is your only entry point, but I’m not going to reciprocate. Make whatever assumptions you want, I really couldn’t care less.
Willard,
I like humanity quite a lot.
David Appell,
“I must have really gotten through to him.”
Thanks, that gave me a chuckle. Which is rare for climate blog wars.
The issues involved are primarily political. It is one thing to say “average temperature will increase by 1.5C by 2120”, but quite another to conclude that is “bad”. It seems to me are ducking what are primarily political questions with your “stick to the science” take on everything. It is not just science, it is mostly politics. In fact the only reason I ever paid any attention at all to climate science is that the entire field is highly political…. it is not like the physics of light emitting diodes. The science does not give value judgements and does not set public priorities or policies…. people provide those value judgements and determine public policies. Some are just a lot more honest about it than others.
> I like humanity quite a lot.
How about truth?
McGee,
“Phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food pyramid, also photosynthesize carbon dioxide, meaning increased CO2 probably increases life in the oceans.”
The CO2 content in the ocean is going up so it’s not surprising that ocean dead zones have increased dramatically, up over 400% in the last 50 years I think.
But the oceans may turn out to be the ultimate tool we have to manipulate the climate. I’m watching for a genetically engineered novel algae that could metabolize and sequester most all man made CO2.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/scientists-coax-cells-world-s-smallest-genomes-reproduce-normally
A Win-Win outcome!
Willard,
“How about truth?”
.
I like truth quite a lot as well.
Including the truth that global warming policies are very highly political, and the advocates on both sides are selective in their presentation of “the truth”. The biggest problem is that most people working in the field are also strong policy advocates for “green” policies. To ignore this is a bit like ignoring that ‘political science’ departments at most universities are dominated by people with strong left of center political views. In both cases, indeed in ANY politically charged field, the political inclinations of the individuals influence their ‘scholarship’.
Science has always been political, Steve:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/science-has-always-been-political/
It still is the best tool we got to tackle the AGW problem.
Willard,
“Science has always been political..”
I agree that *bad* science has always been political (eg Trofim Lysenko)…. and it still is. Climate science is political in the extreme. So is epidemiology in the time of covid-19. Seems to me a lot of really bad science arises from political motivations. Of course, for those who share the same political motivations, that bad science probably looks attractive.
I’m not saying that bad science is political, Steve.
That’s just self-serving crap by libertarians who forgot to grow out of their adolescence.
Willard,
“That’s just self-serving crap by libertarians who forgot to grow out of their adolescence.”
What a mature comment!
Sorry, that was a typo… correct is “What a manure comment!” Cio.
Only the people that Steve disagrees with politically are influenced by their politics. And his politics don’t influence his belief that’s the case.
So that means that his views on climate change and the pandemic are free from any political influence, of course, as are the views of any scientists on climate change and the pandemic.
As long as he agrees with them.
Joshua,
“Only the people that Steve disagrees with politically are influenced by their politics.”
Nah. Everyone is influenced by their politics when the subject is politically charged, even very nearly perfect people like you and me. A few less perfect people are even influenced by their politics when the subject is *not* politically charged… some say that requiring an engineering student to calculate the second derivative of a polynomial is inherently racists… but I digress.
Here’s an affair on which you might wish to ponder, Steve:
https://www.oliviacaramello.com/Unification/InitiativeOfClarificationResults.html
I don’t think category theory is of much political impact.
Never forget Sayre’s law.
Willard,
Maybe you could first contemplate and explain what *you* think is the lesson from this passage before suggesting others to do it. In any case, category theory is not motivating things like the ‘Green New Deal’, so it seems of little general import.
I already told you, Steveorino:
Science has always been political.
Willard,
Nah, just looks like grand poobahs defending their poobah fiefs. Not politics. Besides, without digging into the controversy at length, I can’t even say if the grand poobahs are right or wrong. But no matter, it is a hurricane that fits easily in a teacup.
Steve ->
> Nah. Everyone is influenced by their politics when the subject is politically charged,
Even Stevie Mac?
Well, anyways you and I do agree on that one. Let’s throw a party!
Why do you say “nah” when the rest of your comments confirms that science has always been political, Steve?
Everywhere there’s a scientific field, there’s a poobah. You don’t like it? Stick to engineering, where there’s has “never” been a poobah.
Willard,
Of course there are always grand poobahs (read the faculty list at any ivy to find a bunch), and they will almost always defend the status quo and their favored theories. Those are often the same theories that made them poobahs in the first place. That is true whatever the field… including art history and music. The other commonalities of grand poobahs is that they are often petty, often wrong, and often inhibit real progress in their fields. But grand poobahs of art history are not advocating enormous cultural and economic change for the entire world based on their analysis of 15th century painting styles. Climate scientists are. And that is political.
Steve,
If there are poobahs everywhere humans gather around to study something, chances are that asking that there be less poobahs amounts to an impossible demand.
As for your concerns regarding the change required, I think you’re protest too much, e.g.:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-would-it-really-cost-reduce-carbon-emissions
Even if we accept Morgan Stanley 50 trillion figure by 2050, it’s only twice what COVID costed in two years.
One thing is sure: the more we stall, the more it’ll cost.
So if contrarians are serious about costs, they should stop trying to stall.
Willard,
“One thing is sure: the more we stall, the more it’ll cost.”
Only if we are limited to the options you want considered. And therein lies a big part of the political disagreement. Forcing development of carbon capture via tax burden is one of your preferences, and maybe you also like wind and solar, but rapid approval and construction of a few hundred new nuclear plants would do more to reduce CO2 emissions, cost less, and not depend on wishful ‘then a miracle happens’ programs like carbon capture and storage. It would cost a relative pittance to put sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere and reduce solar intensity by 1%, should cooling the surface really be needed in the future. There are multiple options to reduce CO2 emissions, just not ones that are inexpensive and meet with broad public approval. Please feel free to become apoplectic about any options you disapprove of.
FWIW, I think the real long term dilemma humanity faces is not at all global warming, but rather a shortage of inexpensive energy, aggravated by long term depletion of key raw materials like reduced carbon (AKA fossil deposits). We can create reduced carbon to replace depleted fossil materials (and do the same for other depleted raw materials) of course, but it is going to take a huge amount of energy to do it. That is not going to be from solar power and windmills.
> Only if we are limited to the options you want considered.
No, Steve. That false claim won’t work as a bait and switch.
Go peddle elsewhere.
Willard,
“No, Steve. That false claim won’t work as a bait and switch.
Go peddle elsewhere.”
Did anyone ever tell your your comments sometimes are incomprehensible? I think I remember Lucia (The Blackboard) telling you exactly that years ago. Cio.
Steve,
Since your rhetorical question mentions Lucia’s, let me respond to you by using her favorite trick:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peddle
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/peddling
So far you peddled “but AOC,” “but the GND,” “but Lysenko,” “but renewables” or other Freedom Fighter talking points. They’re irrelevant, and most importantly boring.
Find another mark to con.
“What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?”
Two excellent questions.
In the last post a denizen, Joshua, excoriated me for mentioning left thinking.
The asking of the above questions is a perfect example of critical thinking, of testing ideas I personally see lacking in left dogma, but I am subject to bias and thus cannot know this. Ironically, climate change being seen as a problem for the sake of it being change seems like a classical rightwing type bias, that of the sanctity of conserving the status quo and originalism. This bias stems likely from a natural respect for the prior unknown knowledge from lessons embodied the evolution of the status quo stability. This has some logical validity for complex sociological order, but does it for complex physical systems like the hydrosphere? Real question.
Ron –
> In the last post a denizen, Joshua, excoriated me for mentioning left thinking.
Geeze. Don’t take my critique so personally.
First, I didn’t “excoriate” you. I criticized a vapid argument that you made.
2nd, it wasn’t for “mentioning” skmtbjng. It’s that you were arguing for some vague concept, not even defined, as a “left minset” even though you had zero evidence that your vague characteristic is any more characteristic of “the left” than it is of “the right” (regardless of rhwfhwr that difference is some generic characterisric or even just a cultural characterisric). And then amusingly gave an “example” proving this “left mjndset” merely by a circle argument by assertion.
Again, I have no idea why you think of a criticism of a vapid argument is a personal “excoriaton,” let alone an “excoriaton” for “mentioning” something.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Ron.
It’s always intersting to me when an interlocutor crosses over from an online convo with me to a convo about me or about what I said with some putative online audience. It’s intersting to note exactly when it happened on the other thread, and that you’re continuing on that manner in yet another thread.
It’s a curious pattern.
> Two excellent questions.
From a contrarian perspective, I agree.
Rhetorical questions are the best.
Two retorts to two excellent questions and their analysis, one ignores the questions altogether to make personal criticisms for taking things “too personally” while also establishing that he is personally offended by such and such….This person also is a self-claimed expert on circularity.
The other asserts two questions are rhetorical at best, and no response is necessary.
Restating Angech’s questions –
“The two pertinent questions the IPCC does not consider and has never answered are:
What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?”
Willard, subject to your correction, the leftist consensus answer is: “The level that is optimal is the one that would been if not for human habitation.”
If that’s it we can have an interesting discussion because many would say that is theologically based.
Of which theology would be an even more interesting discussion.
If they’re excellent questions, Ron, I’m sure you researched them.
Where’s your homework?
Willard, these are the first questions on any logical troubleshooting diagram: “What are the optimums?”
One must define if there is indeed a problem before all else. Just fifty years ago we still thought a warmer planet was optimal, back when some suspected we might be cooling it with smoke stack aerosols. For all the time before that a warmer world was seen as optimal as well.
Interestingly, the father of the Greenhouse Theory envisioned warming through industrial CO2 emissions as an enhancement to the planet, both in warmer habitat and in fostering food and vegetation. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/6995/
Arrhenius never predicted more severe weather or temperature extremes. We still have not seen this born out statistically, only politically. Sea level rise would be an issue regardless or CO2 unless we could hold the planet on the delicate precipice of re-glaciation in a perpetual Little Ice Age.
My advice for the sake of optimal global climate would to be focus technology on cooling the poles, or perhaps just the south pole, or increase precipitation there.
Also, if we could defuse tropical cyclones to eliminate the 100-year storm surge sea level ceases to be a problem as well as the cyclone force wind. Spending all of our technological might on sucking up the CO2 and harming crop yields and promoting re-glaciation is insane.
Ron,
Logic has usually two values. Trying to find an optimum is another kind of calculus altogether.
Please beware that the best is the enemy of the good, and that if you are making an impossible demand, it *will* be flipped against you.
So I will ask again: have you done any kind of homework regarding what you regard as excellent questions?
“Have you done any kind of homework on what you regard as excellent questions.”
Willard, why don’t you regard them as excellent questions? Why do you say they are rhetorical? Is it that you believe the answers are too obvious to deserve mention? Why not prove how obvious with an explanation? Angech, me and others would love to hear it.
Regarding homework, you and I have been part of a discussion on climate research for at least 7 years. What specific homework would qualify in your request? What have you found in your homework on these questions?
Doing a search on optimal global mean temperature the best NASA result was that a higher sea temperature skews the balance of female to male sea turtles. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/
Benefits of warmer GMST are clearly beyond NASA’s purview. Also, NASA does not answer if sea turtles experienced a population problem during the Holocene optimum 6000-8000 years ago.
Ron,
That you can’t show your homework regarding these questions speak louder than anything else you can mutter.
Grown ups take responsibility for their judgements.
You need to change. Denizens need to change.
As Doc said, change is hard.
I have faith in you.
Best.
Willard, you don’t seem to understand. The question of what is the optimal Earth mean surface temperature is a central and primary and overlooked question. The same is true for the optimal CO2 concentration. I realize there are different answers depending on different political values and geographic affinities. But that does not make them rhetorical.
Realizing your absurd error you then cover up by demanding some unspecified documentation. The whole point is that the questions are ignored by the climate industry because the answer is not beneficial to them. You should be the one doing homework to prove us all wrong.
But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674
So we have about another doubling from current CO2 concentration before we start to get to optimal fertilization effect on wheat according to the science.
Best,
Ron
Cool. At least wheat has posted its vote for optimal levels of CO2. Anybody else for optimum world average temperatures and CO2 levels? Personally, I’m OK with 17 C and 800 ppm.
Ron,
I’m afraid it is you who does not understand.
First, you can’t simply assert that some question Q is crucial. You got to argue for it. Where’s your argument?
Second, you can’t fish out some random link and pretend it’s your homework. You got to establish some kind of relevance. Where’s your framework?
It’s your itch, and you haven’t scratched it yet. This is suboptimal, to say the least. Next time, try not to peddle “but plant food.”
Good luck!
So higher CO2 improves crop yields and life overall on the planet surface by producing more fertile air and less harsh winters but you are all upset because I am citing actual science rather than a speech from Al Gore of John Kerry after they flew in on their private jet to get an award?
I realize that less harsh winters are not good for everyone. Ski resorts are important. Robert Way, of Cowtan and Way (2014), once complained his native Inuit community was having to rely more on slower boat transportation rather than the faster trucks and snowmobiles. Beside that disruption sea level rise is killing the beach front real estate markets around the world. Wait… That last claim is not true. The values are skyrocketing. And, every rich lefty politician, which is just about all of them, has a beach estate.
Did you ever see the Robin Williams movie “The Survivors (1983)” ? In the end the leader of the alarmist cult is found to have a briefcase filled, not with the plans for surviving the imminent apocalypse, but with bearer bonds not expiring until far into the future. Of course, you will never be let down because climate alarmism is not a cult, it’s mainstream.
Do we need to get off fossil fuel? Absolutely. Should we find ways to improve the planet rather than just fight a losing battle of preserving the way it was in the past? That’s a religious question. My feeling is yes.
> So higher CO2 improves crop yields and life overall
Slow down, cowboy.
That’s not what suggests the single 2015 study cited 20 times or so you fished out of a quick search. Start with the title:
The optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)
In fact, have you read past the abstract or are you stuck past the paywall?
Nevertheless, please consider:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
You’re not far from trolling, Ron.
Try to be serious for a change.
Ron Graf wrote:
But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674
That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
“Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.
[this last paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]
“Rising temperatures hit India’s wheat crop,” Climate News Network, 7/28/14.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/07/28/rising-temperatures-hit-indias-wheat-crop/
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
“Wheat farmers, experts look toward grim harvest as drought consumes Oregon”
By BRYCE DOLE East Oregonian Jun 24, 2021
https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/wheat-farmers-experts-look-toward-grim-harvest-as-drought-consumes-oregon/article_0d02b70a-d459-11eb-b8fd-37dcd07bd4b0.html
Ron Graf wrote:
But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674
That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
“Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.
[this last paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Ron Graf wrote:
But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674
That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
“Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.
[this last paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]
Ron Graf wrote:
But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674
That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
Here’s more of the real world for growing wheat:
“Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.
[this paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Here’s some wheat in a very real world:
“Rising temperatures hit India’s wheat crop,” Climate News Network, 7/28/14.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/07/28/rising-temperatures-hit-indias-wheat-crop/
“Wheat farmers, experts look toward grim harvest as drought consumes Oregon”
By BRYCE DOLE East Oregonian Jun 24, 2021
https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/wheat-farmers-experts-look-toward-grim-harvest-as-drought-consumes-oregon/article_0d02b70a-d459-11eb-b8fd-37dcd07bd4b0.html
Bad news for real world wheat:
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Wheat grown under higher CO2 is less nutritious:
“Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
Ron Graf commented: So higher CO2 improves crop yields and life overall on the planet surface by producing more fertile air and less harsh winters
The first claim is wrong…and what does warming do in the tropics, Ron? 40% of the world’s population lives in the tropics.
What do “less harsh winters” mean for communities that rely on snowpacks for their water supply, like all of the US west? What does it mean for wildfires in the following season if the forests are drier than usual?
What do higher temperatures mean for crops? For people? For ecosystems, plants and animals? What about your higher CO2 acidifying the ocean — what’s the effect there? What about the sea level rise from your higher temperatures — how much of the coastlines of the world are you prepared to sacrifice for your “less harsh winters?”
What about people and plants and animals who LIKE winter? You speak for them?
I don’t think you’re thinking this through, Ron.
Thank you for stepping on my toes, David.
If you ever wonder why I tell you why I don’t like you, please recall this episode.
I didn’t know people could own threads, Willard. I guess I’ll have to learn to live without your approval. Poor pitiful me.
Nobody’s asking you for room service, David.
You’re no better than Chief.
I’m not here for your personal opinion of me, Willard. And I won’t give you mine of you.
Oh, I do know that, dear David.
You’re here to make sure everybody hates you.
Willard wrote: You’re here to make sure everybody hates you.
I’m here to put some real science into the discussion. Like most blogs of this ilk, everyone hates it when anyone else comes in to their sandbox and kicks some sand around. You’re all freaked out merely because I responded to Ron without your permission.
That you use an expression like “the discussion” shows you have little social skills, David.
Are you on the spectrum by any chance?
You’re very tedious, Willard, and not just with me. Bye.
Let’s go with the basics, David:
https://cstacademy.com/articles/why-is-turn-taking-important-in-speech-and-language-development/
Willard, I hope you are coming to see that Angech’s basic questions: (What are the optimums for CO2 and Earth temperature?), are not trivial. They expose the media’s created fallacy that mankind is spoiling Eden when the truth is more complex.
It turns out that science experiments show that wheat, a global staple crop, thrives at double the CO2 than we have now. You pasted some technical text that shows plants are not limited only be CO2, but by nutrients, water, sunlight, competition and optimal temperature. The last one is the hardest for farmers to control, which brings us to question #2. What does CO2 do for temperature?
David points out that heat kills. He neglected to mention that cold kills more. Growing seasons are most often defined by winter’s length, not summer’s. In fact, the evidence is that CO2 is making winters shorter and less harsh rather than making summers much hotter. This is backed by the temperature records and explained in the Greenhouse Effect Theory. Longwave radiation emitted by night that cools the Earth is partially inhibited by greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 in the 13-18 micron wavelength band. This leaves less temperature drop by sunrise, starting at a higher temperature than otherwise would be the case. CO2 partially blocks shortwave sunlight but not nearly as much to make up for the head start. The tropics are least affected and the poles the most. The result is an expansion of the planet’s habitable zone.
Of course, there are some losers in any change. That’s unavoidable.
Before we decide to take away people’s hard earned money and liberties in order to save the planet remember we will have to someone in charge as supreme leader. Who do we want that personality to be? Give me an example of the person? David, would you want Willard to be supreme ruler? Willard, would you like to take your orders from David?
> I hope you are coming to see that Angech’s basic questions: (What are the optimums for CO2 and Earth temperature?), are not trivial.
I never said they’re trivial, Ron.
I’m saying that the whole ordeal is ridiculous.
Hope this helps.
Ron, don’t be so sure that warmer temperatures are better for plant growth or growing season:
“Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,”
— Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
Abstract:
Ongoing climate change can alter conditions for plant growth, in turn affecting ecological and social systems. While there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical aspects of climate change, comprehensive analyses integrating climate, biological, and social sciences are less common. Here we use climate projections under alternative mitigation scenarios to show how changes in environmental variables that limit plant growth could impact ecosystems and people. We show that although the global mean number of days above freezing will increase by up to 7% by 2100 under “business as usual” (representative concentration pathway [RCP] 8.5), suitable growing days will actually decrease globally by up to 11% when other climatic variables that limit plant growth are considered (i.e., temperature, water availability, and solar radiation). Areas in Russia, China, and Canada are projected to gain suitable plant growing days, but the rest of the world will experience losses. Notably, tropical areas could lose up to 200 suitable plant growing days per year. These changes will impact most of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems, potentially triggering climate feedbacks. Human populations will also be affected, with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world (~30% of the world’s population) highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services. These impacts will be spatially variable, indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary. Changes in suitable plant growing days are projected to be less severe under strong and moderate mitigation scenarios (i.e., RCP 2.6 and RCP 4.5), underscoring the importance of reducing emissions to avoid such disproportionate impacts on ecosystems and people.
David, as Willard has pointed out, one needs to read the entire paper, not just the abstract. The projections first assume that the most IPCC models will be accurate for 80 years when they are challenged to project even 5 years accurately. Their bias is even more evident in their highlighting of RCP 8.5 as their headline assumption when that level of emissions is not contemplated by any serious climate expert.
The paper itself acknowledges that their assumptions include no attempt at adaption by the crops or farmers for the likely overly pessimistic climate projection. Remember, the plants and farmers will have 80 years to adjust locations and crop types, even ignoring genetic engineering.
These type of papers are routine for academics as such predictions are a win win. It brings to mind such unenlightened futurists as Professor Paul R Ehrlich and his best selling book “The Population Bomb.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Ron,
Your “but RCPs,” “but Academia,” and “but Erhlich are duly noted.
The first meme leads you to your first conundrum:
If CO2 is plant food and more of it can only be beneficial, then you should welcome that we BURN ALL FOSSIL FUELS! Include coal and calthrate should be enough to lead us above 6C or more by 2100. If you feel luckwarm, add a decade. For more on this, cf.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
I’m not saying this is plausible. I’m saying that it’s what your meme compels you to accept if you let it dominate your thinking.
And curbing your enthusiasm regarding “but plant food” forces you to admit that yes, indeed, life sciences study complex systems.
Then you realize that uncertainty is not contrarians’ friend.
I don’t think you can get out of it with the Cornocupian way, but you can try!
Willard, we both agree that one should be self-skeptical of bias. It is all too easy to make rationalizations that are unfalsifiable. With this in mind let’s look at your last comment.
`Your “but RCPs,” “but Academia,” and “but Erhlich are duly noted.’
Basically, I hear you saying that you have heard all these points before and they did not persuade you then, so why start now? There are names for this thinking but I would like to keep your trust with my discretion.
You should try to get away from the thinking that you must be correct since you have invested so much time in your POV. I am sure you agree that being staked in positions is the opposite of keeping an open mind.
‘The first meme leads you to your first conundrum:
If CO2 is plant food and more of it can only be beneficial, then you should welcome that we BURN ALL FOSSIL FUELS! Include coal and calthrate should be enough to lead us above 6C or more by 2100. If you feel luckwarm, add a decade. For more on this, cf.’
You don’t have to guess on my opinions. I have openly stated that we must get off of fossil fuel. Simple logic tells us it is a limited resource and thus our time is limited to find alternatives. I favor nuclear fusion research while we also improve all of the other alternative energies, particularly storage. I am on your side.
‘And curbing your enthusiasm regarding “but plant food” forces you to admit that yes, indeed, life sciences study complex systems.
Then you realize that uncertainty is not contrarians’ friend.’
We both agree that life sciences (and atmospheric physics) are complex. We both agree that policy should not be influenced by memes and popular phrases. We need to dig deep, look at the science, use good logic and beware of money influences and bias. All agreed.
‘I don’t think you can get out of it with the Cornocupian way, but you can try!’
I am not trying to “get” anything over on you. I am just explaining my reasoning for my thoughts based on the research I have seen. There is no ulterior motive. I am not trying to take away your liberties or money. I am advocating for truth, transparency and freedom for you and your grand kids. (And also David’s)
Ron,
I’m glad we both agree that we need to get to Carbon Zero ASAP.
Once we agree on that, there is no need to pussyfoot about the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even Doc should be able to see that. Suppose he offers you to play Russian roulette. The only reason why you’d bother to calculate the odds would be if you’d accept. Once you refuse to play, no need to determine optimal strategy.
Same for CO2 levels.
Doc’s riddle only matters to those who feel lucky.
Those who, like you and me, want to get to Carbon Zero ASAP don’t need to answer it.
***
So to recap, here are the Bingo squares you played so far:
– “But Life”
– “But RCPs”
– “But Politics” (I need to add your jab toward academia)
– “But Predictions” (I need to add Erhlich’s name)
– “But Nuclear”
Here is how I parry your last one:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/
As you can see, you meandered quite a bit.
Thank you for helping me see how contrarians rope-a-dope in the squares!
Meandering is a natural consequence of discussion. You brought of the point of meandering which then presents a new point to discuss. See? If you take an inventory of how many of my points you addressed compared to the reverse you will find you have been controlling the direction more than I.
“I’m glad we both agree that we need to get to Carbon Zero ASAP.”
ASAP in my definition is to promote the best use of our research and engineering resources toward all alternative energy, including nuclear fission and fusion. And, this should be done without any federal or international emergency declarations that require the self-assignment of special powers and special authorities. I value the wisdom embodied in the USA’s founding as a sovereign constitutional republic.
I think we part ways on that. Also, you seem to be inclined to uncritically believe whomever sounds the loudest alarm, leaving your suspicions left only to those who dare to ask questions and investigate such claims.
One claim that I do not dispute is that there is some limit to fossil fuel and some limit to CO2 before it’s less optimal levels. I am believing at this time that the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere to bring levels from 280ppm to a more life-sustaining 420ppm was a happy accident. Further, I never said “Zero.” If we limit the use of fossil fuel an equilibrium will be reached where the oceans are absorbing as much CO2 as being newly added from fossil sources and we could keep the slope of the Keeling curve at zero.
I believe in good management of resources. A little sacrifice in prosperity now for prosperity of future generations is an investment. It used to be referred to as posterity. Liberty is also a resource but if we surrender it now it will never be returned to our future generations.
Ron Graf commented
I am believing at this time that the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere to bring levels from 280ppm to a more life-sustaining 420ppm was a happy accident
What’s the evidence 420 ppm is more “life-sustaining,” and what’s the definition of “life-sustaining” anyway?
Well, David, the greening of the earth might be one example. I’m not aware of any drawbacks. Do you have any?
Meandering is fine, Ron, but if you’re using the exchange to peddle the usual contrarian crap, I don’t think we can call it a conversation anymore.
It does not matter what ASAP means. That’s a similar trick to the one about the optimal CO2 level or temperature. We don’t need to know what it means to make us commit to a common goal.
Take COVID vaccines. We needed them ASAP. The timeline that we estimated at first has been shattered by some lucky bounces. Should we complain?
Same for the AGW problem.
As long as you get my point against Doc’s trick, my job is done here. Which means that you’ll have to find another spring board to peddle contrarian talking points.
Be well.
Contrary to what?
Every alternative energy source has unique down sides. There is no technology yet that is completely renewable. Wind mills are terrible for wildlife and landfills. Same with solar voltaics and they require scarce metals. Same with batteries. Nuclear fission is limited by fissile materials and produces terrible waste.
Nuclear fusion is the utopian energy source but is going to take huge investments and accelerated timetable. But lefties are not thrilled about it because it has nuclear in it. What is your opinion?
David, if you were presented if irrefutable evidence that 420ppm was more life sustaining than 280ppm, (overall after slight adaptations), would you change any of your feelings on the willingness to sacrifice liberty and treasure in exchange for a political promise to lower it?
If not, then you are experiencing religious ideals, not rational ones.
If so, then the question of what is the optimal CO2 level is perhaps an important un-analyzed question, and not a rhetorical one, Willard.
Ron Graf commented: David, if you were presented if irrefutable evidence that 420ppm was more life sustaining than 280ppm…
Do you have any evidence?
Do you have a definition?
Evidence? Uh, try increased prosperity and life expectancies.
Ron Graf commented: David, as Willard has pointed out, one needs to read the entire paper, not just the abstract….
That’s interesting, Ron, giving that all the evidence for wheat you’ve given is one paper about it being grown in an isolated GROWTH CHAMBER.
About as far from the real world as one can get.
Ron Graf commented: Every alternative energy source has unique down sides.
Of course. That’s obvious and everyone admits it.
Wind mills are terrible for wildlife and landfills.
Fossil fuels are far worse for wildlife.
And as for landfills…fossil fuels use the entire atmosphere and ocean as a landfill. Or rather, the companies that produce them do. And for FREE!!
Privatize profits, socialize costs.
Gee, there’s no benefits of fossil fuels and plastics to humanity.
> Every alternative energy source has unique down sides.
And now you’re into “But renewables,” Ron.
I already countered that one. The only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels. Your peddling is irrelevant.
I can also add that you posit a false dilemma: the AGW problem is so big that we’ll need all the weapons we got.
That’s it for me. I tag David.
Are you drinking, Willard? The above is nonsensical.
I could ask you the same question, Dave.
You seem to be looking for a fight.
Dave Fair wrote:Well, David, the greening of the earth might be one example.
Why is the greening of the Earth a “good” thing? Good by what measures?
The only rational response to your “Why is the greening of the Earth a “good” thing? Good by what measures?” is FU2.
Dave Fair wrote: The only rational response to your “Why is the greening of the Earth a “good” thing? Good by what measures?” is FU2
Dave, every time I ask you for the slightest bit of support for your claims you freak out and fold like a cheap chair on a trailer park patio. You clearly weren’t educated in science. LOL
OK, David, lets turn it around. Why is the greening of the Earth a “bad” thing? Bad by what measures? FU2^2.
David Fair, hello, and don’t worry, I welcome all to join in, especially since I have to come back to threads sporadically.
Boy’s you can be nice and answer some of David Fair’s questions. (Then at some point you could answer one of mine.) There are about a dozen or more hanging to choose from. Now it occurs to me It’s not really fair because if one doesn’t answer one of Willard’s questions, even if it is disingenuous and vague, he will repeat it like a lawyer badgering a witness until he get’s an answer or will make his own for you.
David A asked, “What’s the evidence 420 ppm is more “life-sustaining,” and what’s the definition of “life-sustaining” anyway?”
There is plenty of evidence as David Fair pointed out one obvious one, the greening of former deserts. But I don’t know the net gain or loss of land that supports robust ecosystems, not that desert animals aren’t important, (please don’t write me hate mail now.)
Another thought about 280ppm is that it would be reasonable to assume that the our current position on the 41-Ka Milankovitch cycle, placing us precariously on the edge of reglaciating, would leave mankind and countless other species vulnerable to sudden catastrophic cooling at any time, cooling that would start advance of glaciers that would not relent for another 120 Ka. Not everybody in NYC thinks about the fact that where they are sleeping was a mile beneath a glacier just 13 Ka ago.
If one thinks critically and lines up the potential global incidents that would suddenly warm the Earth versus the ones that would suddenly cool, Mr. Freeze wins, hands down. Super volcano, asteroid strike, nuclear exchange, grand solar minimum, the climate alarmists prediction of the imminent ceasing of the thermohaline global conveyor, they all lead to cooling and global famine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/11/27/global-ocean-circulation-keeps-slowing-down-heres-what-it-means/?sh=41c7d4c66720
Ron Graf wrote:
There is plenty of evidence as David Fair pointed out one obvious one, the greening of former deserts.
Why is that “good?”
The TD with the David Appell persona strikes again with a brilliant question.
Dave Fair wrote: OK, David, lets turn it around. Why is the greening of the Earth a “bad” thing? Bad by what measures? FU2^2.
So Dave, you said the greening of the Earth was a good thing, and now it’s clear YOU DIDN’T HAVE A SINGLE REASON FOR SAYING THAT.
lolz
The TD with the David Appell persona strikes again.
“There is plenty of evidence as David Fair pointed out one obvious one, the greening of former deserts. Why is that good?”
“Good” is highly subjective but taking the example of cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas, humanity has an affinity for green space and converting things toward that direction if given a choice. Green provides shade, evaporative cooling and generally is supportive to ecosystems. Green puts vapor into the air, which moderates daily high and nighttime low temperature, the same as CO2 does.
In summary, comparing 420ppm (2021) CO2 to 280ppm (1850) we see benefits of:
1) less extreme daily and annual temperatures, expanding habitability.
2) Global support to photosynthesis, making crops grow faster, longer and in less hospitable conditions, including dryer.
3) A mitigation against the risk of runaway reglaciation, as was possible just 150 years ago in the event of a super volcano, asteroid strike, solar minimum or slowing of the global conveyor, or other unknown cause of sudden cooling, like undersea disruption.
4)Overall increase in precipitation, increasing fresh water supplies.
Liabilities:
1) Increased tropical cyclones and intensity. — No statistical evidence as of yet.
2) Increased wild fires. — solved with better forest management.
3) Acceleration in sea level rise — No statistical evidence as of yet.
The last one is the only one I think deserves concern. But there are ways to mitigate this besides lowering CO2. And lowering CO2 doesn’t stop, let alone reverse, sea level rise. After all, it has been occurring at 280ppm since the last glacial maximum.
Sea level rise is mainly a problem by making tropical cyclones more damaging. Why not put a lot more research into studying tropical cyclones. Maybe there is a way to engineer their dampening by seeding precipitation in their paths, for example. That same technology could be used to seed precipitation on wild fires, Greenland glaciers and Antarctica.
*I forgot to cite the problem of less zinc in foods. Sorry.
With these two questions, You reveal yourself as a climate rookie:
“What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth? ”
There is no optimum temperature, there is no “ideal” CO2 level in the atmosphere. Humans and animals have for many hundreds of thousands of years – the animals for many billions of years – adapted to the climate they have been served at all times. What neither animals nor humans appreciate so much are changes over a period of time they do not feel in control of and can adapt to.
I feel completely convinced that both I and my family could live well within 980 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and seven meters higher sea level for the next eight hundred years.
But not so fast,
Let me repeat: Asking the questions;
“What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth? ”
Are so startlingly silly that we should establish a new Nobel Prize.
Rune Valaker |
“What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth? ”
Rune Valaker “There is no optimum temperature, there is no “ideal” CO2 level in the atmosphere.”
Others disagree
Willard > “Two excellent questions, I agree. I refuse to answer them as it would expose my biases.” {My} Science has always been political.
I value the human species, {but I never said} I like humanity”
Joshua “I’m with Willard’ I have lots of opinions but no opinion on these questions. They hurt too much “‘
Ron Graf “The asking of the above questions is an example of critical thinking”
Steve Fitzpatrick “The issues involved are primarily political. It is one thing to say “average temperature will increase by 1.5C by 2120”, but quite another to conclude that is “bad”.
Above questions are raised about what the ‘ideal’ world would be in terms of CO2 and temperature.
Soe people ignore those questions. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
It is almost pointless to offer facts to those who are convinced humanity is just a problem to be controlled and limited.””
jacksmith4tx “Phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food pyramid, also photosynthesize carbon dioxide, meaning increased CO2 probably increases life in the oceans”.
David Appell ” I’m scared of change”. “It can never be good”
” certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?”
“You can’t just dial the temperature down and expect it will all be back to normal” ????
“‘Deviations cause stress. Occasionally extinction.
How has warming obviously been beneficial?”
jungletrunks “a light-bulb moment.“The ideal temperature/climate is the one to which a species has adapted.”
Is the Goldilocks climate cooler than today’s climate? How is cooler better for the planet?
–
Fear of change seems to be the primary driver along with the refusal to put out an acceptable or optimal range.
angech wrote: David Appell ” I’m scared of change”.
I never wrote that — you’re a liar.
David Appell
angech wrote: David Appell ” I’m scared of change”.
–
I never wrote that — you’re a liar.
–
Fair enough.
I just did a summary of your comments in a short sentence.
–
If I apologise, and I do, and write it as my comment on your comments
–
David Appell is scared of change”.
because of these comments that he wrote.
–
viz
David Appell quotes
“It can never be good” [change]
” certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there.
Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?” [change]
“You can’t just dial the temperature down and expect it will all be back to normal” [change]
“‘Deviations cause stress. Occasionally extinction. [change]
How has warming obviously been beneficial? [bad change].
–
That would makes us both feel better?
–
I am bemused that someone with your history would suddenly get so stroppy about a little comment on the way that you feel about change?
Indigestion or a struck nerve?
Grammar?
–
By the way, Darwin put it as stress causes deviation [change] and that leads to evolution, [change].
Evolution or change has been happening forever and is usually considered a good thing.
Your emphasis on change only being dangerous, deviant,It can never be good etc is pathetic if you do not admit to the good things that change, even Climate change, could bring.
> Grammar?
Nah, Doc.
People tend to dislike being put words into their mouths and ideas into their mind.
But riddle me this. How can you say that AGW will be good if you don’t know what’s the ideal climate for humans?
To Ancech: “Others disagree.” Such a view must be based on a belief that humanity is capable of geoengineering the globe to “optimize” the climate to suit as many people, as possible. The funny thing is that it is the same people who think that we have so little understanding of the climate system that we should ignore the IPCC, which on the other hand claims that there is an optimal temperature or an ideal CO2 level. I agree that we understand relatively little of the climate system. We know that further warming will be beneficial for some parts of the world, but unfavorable for other parts. But we do not have the faintest idea where this would end up with x or y ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We are beginning to gain some insight into global temperature with x or y ppm CO2. But we know almost nothing about what this will entail in terms of changes in precipitation patterns and a number of other climate / weather phenomena of great importance to both humans and animals.
Rune: “Such a view must be based on a belief that humanity is capable of geoengineering the globe to “optimize” the climate to suit as many people, as possible.”
What are you saying that technology will not be capable of by 2100? Doesn’t it depend on what we prioritize? If so, don’t those priorities depend upon politics? If so, aren’t discussions like this how political priorities are developed? If not, how are political priorities supposed to be developed, by indoctrination of children and censorship?
Rune: “We are beginning to gain some insight into global temperature with x or y ppm CO2.”
What was the IPCC estimated range for warming per doubling of CO2?
1979 1.5-4.5C.
2021 1.5-4.5C. Where is the “gain” in insight?
Rune: “But we know almost nothing about what this will entail in terms of changes in precipitation patterns and a number of other climate / weather phenomena of great importance to both humans and animals.”
This does not stop every extreme weather event being blamed on CO2.
3:00 – the IPCC report admits that the world is greening with “Changes in vegetation productivity have also been observed, as well as longer growing seasons.”
The high priests have delivered their decisions. The earth will be destroyed by fire and flood. The analogy with faith or religion is not new but it is remarkably good. The believers insist that the models are true and meaningful even when it is perfectly obvious that they are wrong. Those who question them are branded heretics and are cast from society.
This has now gone on for too long. As Roger Pielke pointed out recently, the fundamental pillars of climate science have now drifted so far from reality that they are now false foundations for current and future development.
Empires built on shaky ground cannot be sustained indefinitely and I know that this one will soon be toppled. The basic science is wrong.
For decades, scientists have produced evidence aimed at backing up their belief system when they should have been finding out how our climate actually functions. We now have a highly complex belief system that is no help at all in predicting the real climate. Worse than that, by predicting false disasters it will lead us into real, self imposed ones.
When models were first used in science and engineering the advice was that failed models should be scrapped. It was unsafe to continue and better to start again, checking against reality as you go. That would be my advice for young scientists today. It is far too late for the high priests who are wedded to the wrong understanding and are unable to contemplate that reality.
Peter S wrote: When models were first used in science and engineering the advice was that failed models should be scrapped.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
David Appell | August 10, 2021 at 9:34 am | Reply
Peter S wrote: When models were first used in science and engineering the advice was that failed models should be scrapped.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
Personally, I dont find the claim that models have been skillful in predicting / matching observed warming to be very impressive. The world has been on a long term warming trend since the late 1800’s. Predicting continued warming reasonably consistent with the long term trend isnt something all that impressive. (similar with predicting any continued long term trend) . odds are always in favor of a continuing trend.
What would have been impressive is for scientists to have predicted the shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend (ie the emergence from the LIA).
Hi Peter,
You said: “The earth will be destroyed by fire and flood.”
It won’t be destroyed by flood but I would not rule out the fire scenario. Ever notice the IPCC never models the climate effects of a global nuclear war?
Looks to me like China, Russia, USA and N. Korea are ramping up their nuclear arsenals. The odds of a catastrophic man-made climate change event are rising.
The best thing I can say is it will be mercifully quick for most of the industrial world.
“we assess with medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”
From
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
If SSTs are overestimated, global sfc air T would be overestimated by this amount.
“..because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”
I couldn’t help but notice that the gravitational forcing hypothesis would account for warm tropical waters being pushed to higher latitudes creating an increase in upwelling of cooler water from beneath.
> If SSTs are overestimated, global sfc air T would be overestimated by this amount.
Unpacking that one might help improve what I call the meteorological fallacy.
Hello Roger!
My impression of this is that IPCC authors are rationalizing the lack hot spot response in the longer term data. They’re making the case that models predict a hot spot response to increased tropical SST, but that nature was not cooperating. They indicate that nature has begun cooperating by citing the radio occultation temperature estimate for 2002-2019 instead of the reanalysis, sonde data, or MSU data.
( see Figure TS.10 on page TS-117 of the Technical Summary ).
Of course, this could be the case.
However, it also could be confirmation bias, particularly on the choice of the much shorter time frame of the immature occultation data set which does not extend to lower levels.
Another factor may be the co-occuring increase of absorbed solar for this timeframe.
I’m working on a brief analysis of model response for the RAOB era, the MSU era, and the Twenty-First Century that I’ll ping here.
I suspect some portion of the warming was due to increased poleward ocean heat transport and that is going to keep SSTs in the tropics at a lower level than if it were all warming from direct forcing.
That appears plausible as observations of the Arctic temperature change are greater than modeled.
(see figures 5 at: https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change)
Roger, I have posted some data comparisons here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
It is surprising to find so many quotes of “warm Pliocene, Miocene & Eocene during periods of high pCO2” in the report and raised as possible future scenarios. Recent reviews of the Eocene (Hutchinson et al 2021) and Miocene (Steinthorsdottir et al 2020) are clear that TERRESTRIAL pCO2 was ~presnet for both warm eras & that no existing model can reproduce the observed conditions. This is a nuisance as it delays research on these periods.
Could you expand or clarify this comment? I don’t fully understand your point and I would like to.
These were probably periods of higher air density (based on several proxies) and thus via Henry’s Constant more CO2 is absorbed into the seas. The high latitude warmth was thus due to adiabatic effects.
What is the best way to deal with everyone else panicking around you, I wonder? I mean, other than avoiding the alarming news headlines?
Tell them that their tax dollars are used to manufacture lies.
Tell them that in 1983 the EPA said in several decades sea levels could rise by up to 10 feet in the next several decades. They’ve risen 3-4 inches.
Or you could quickly become over 70 and realize you have seen these doomsday scenarios from a variety of causes for decades. Being sanguine is easier that way.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
“Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t;
The anticlimate-science blogosphere’s trophy cabinet is bare.”
SCOTT K. JOHNSON – 8/6/2021
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/
AMO length has a range of 20 or more years. PDV is unpredictable. Don’t give up. Cooling is in your future.
CKid wrote: Tell them that in 1983 the EPA said in several decades sea levels could rise by up to 10 feet in the next several decades. They’ve risen 3-4 inches.
So their knowledge has gotten better in 38 years. Has yours?
What did they say about a coming megadrought in the US west? Did they get that one right?
Or the 2021 killer heat wave in the Pacific Northwest? Surely they foresaw that one, huh?
Their prediction on wildfires setting the west ablaze every year now must have been spot on, I’m sure. Why don’t you tell us.
Continuing the analogy with religion or a belief system, it is clear to all that challenges to the “settled science” are not always welcome. Some people have been driven from their jobs. There are sites dedicated to smearing or degrading their reputations. But such events have no place in science so I shall move on.
Scientists vigorously defend their beliefs. This is clearly true. Can scientists be vigorous and objective and scientific? Of course. But if scientists, cherry pick, conceal data or seek to mislead, then that is a matter of concern. We all know of high profile organisations on the public payroll who fail badly in this respect. Why are there so many temperature records recorded next to the Northern runway at Heathrow Airport, the busiest in the world? Why do adjustments to temperature records almost always have an outcome in one direction?
Government scientific Institutions need to be seen to be squeaky clean, not biased. How many associated with climate are seen to be biased, not clean?
The remit of the IPCC is to investigate the impact of CO2 on climate and report this to governments. I haven’t looked it up but that is what it used to be. It assumes that CO2 impacts on climate.
Perhaps that seems obvious to you. But it means that the rigorous study of the major factors that influence climate was never carried out. It wasn’t required. It also means that the effect of CO2 was a given. It was never questioned. I do not suggest that CO2 was wrongly implicated, but it was put in the frame at the start and the investigation focussed on finding incriminating evidence.
That set the scene and since then, thousands of scientists have been paid by governments to charge, convict and punish CO2 for crimes against climate. This has had many consequences. The most important ones are this. The science seems to be settled. In reality it has been specified and procured. Politicians have effectively funded evidence of global warming.
The second and more serious consequence is that the science is all wrong. Who is being funded to find alternative climate mechanisms? Who is being funded to understand alternative GHG theory? Why do these questions sound frivolous when the IPCC is so certain?
The models run hot. The ECS is so wide as to be useless. The CO2 control knob idea is losing ground by the day as ocean oscillations, are shown to influence or control almost everything. Solar cycles are not ruled out either. We have another 6 year temperature hiatus. The treatment of water vapour is a fudge. It is our most powerful GHG so we ignore it.
Do we spend trillions on possible Mickey Mouse science? That is fast becoming a real question. Climate scientists can get real or lose. One thing is certain. They have got it wrong so far
Government scientific institutions squeaky clean? Not possible, given human nature (desire for more money). Better approach: deep skepticism about the government and figure truth lies somewhere in middle.
Nearing peak global CO2 emissions?
ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/205966/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-region/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205966/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-region/
jungletrunks wrote:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205966/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-region/
OK but note this only includes CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, and not from land use changes, cement production, or other GHGs.
I acknowledge the anecdotal nature of the graph trends, DA, which is why I formulated my comment in the form of a question. But I find lifestyle trend shifts due to COVID interesting relative to the global CO2 footprint regardless. This particular chart I posted doesn’t calculate total inputs (though I dare say as a practical matter that there was, i.e., less cement produced in 2020 too). COVID has obviously influenced the carbon footprint over the last year. How much will lifestyle change permanently effect CO2 is an interesting question.
But there’s other interesting data intriguing to the question of when peak CO2 is reached. Year-on-year growth change in CO2 emissions also presents a narrowing, and less volatile, range over the last 100 years while atmospheric CO2 accumulated. The measure in the following chart is strictly the year-over-year percent increase, or decrease of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I consider dwindling yr/yr volatility just as interesting, it’s a measure of technologies effect on CO2 emissions that began well before wide spread AGW policy solutions were implemented, before most people were aware there was a debate to begin with. It’s simply intrinsic to the nature of finding efficiency through technology, efficiency requires fewer inputs by default. The rate and volatility of increasing human CO2 has demonstrably fallen since post WWII.
3rd chart down
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Obviously total CO2 discharge has remained at about 35 billion tons since 2012. Asia is the primary reason it hasn’t declined, the free ride politics is stifling, but that’s another issue.
jungletrunks commented:COVID has obviously influenced the carbon footprint over the last year.
Absolutely. But just this week the EIA projected that US energy-related CO2 emissions for 2021 will go up 7% compared to 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
“US energy-related CO2 emissions for 2021 will go up 7%”
US emissions dropped 11% in 2020, that makes the stat the DA posts a net gain yr/yr for US atmospheric carbon reduction.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47496#
U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions declined by 11% in 2020 – Today in Energy – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Based on data in EIA’s Monthly Energy Review, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions decreased by 11% in the United States in 2020 primarily because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions.U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions fell in every end-use sector for the first time since 2012. Within the U.S. power sector, emissions from coal declined the most, at 19%.
http://www.eia.gov
If the local DA wishes to ankle bite 24/7 at least do it honestly. COVID must be hampering your ambulance chasing business to be gratuitously trolling here. And lying by ommision is also quite sleazy BTW.
jungletrunks commented: US emissions dropped 11% in 2020, that makes the stat the DA posts a net gain yr/yr for US atmospheric carbon reduction.
Suddenly we’re doing a detailed analysis here? Right.
EIA also projected 2022 will see a 1% increase over 2021.
I see no point in arguing over a couple of percentage points of a PROJECTION. It’s a silly pedantic waste of time. Point is the large 2020 dip in US CO2 emissions isn’t going to last.
Obviously COVID had an impact on 2020, but given that fertility rates are falling for every country on earth and that the global baby boom demographic is firmly in retirement, senescence and decline, it would not at all be surprising if 2019 was the year of peak CO2.
The effects of demographic collapse on the global economy is a real problem people should be concerned with.
I agree with all your points, McGee. Also the shift in commuting to work, many will probably work from home on a permanent basis, or work part of the week from home. It will be interesting to see how much the CO2 needle moves as a consequence to this trend.
Population is a poorly understood metric in climate change as well. A paper in 2017 “Using population projections in climate change analysis” The two leading sources of long-range population projections, the United Nations (UN) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), currently disagree on the most likely end-of-the-century world population by over two billion people. Because climate change policy models are influenced by population uncertainty, this poses an underappreciated problem for analysts. Furthermore, long-range population projections have not been predictably stable over time and climate change policy models have not consistently used one set of population projections.
I am not convinced global population is going to collapse, at least no time soon. It is true that birth rates are very low (and often falling) in most economically developed countries. But growth in Africa and a few other places will likely increase total population by about 1.5 to 2 billion between now and 2050. The people in the countries with rapid population growth are now pretty poor, but are going to generate new demand for electricty, transportation, and material wealth. Aside from a short term dip due to special causes (recession, pandemic, etc), I doubt peak CO2 will happen for at least a couple of decades, and probably longer than that. Of course, adopting nuclear power in a big way might shorten the time to CO2 emission peak, but so far nuclear power is verboten among most who are worried about rising CO2.
Steve F:
I am not convinced global population is going to collapse, at least no time soon. It is true that birth rates are very low (and often falling) in most economically developed countries. But growth in Africa and a few other places will likely increase total population by about 1.5 to 2 billion between now and 2050.
Yes, the sub-replacement fertility countries are all in the developed world.
African countries, though all have falling fertility, still have quite high absolute fertility rates. They also have quite low CO2 emissions. Of course, development requires energy use. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Geopolitics folks such as Peter Zeihan point out the effect of geography.
Africa has huge limitations. Impassable Sahara Desert, impassable interior jungle, no navigable rivers for transport make development very difficult, although there is a wealth of natural resources. To the extent Africa can develop, it will occur with energy use, the kind that eco-religious would deny Africans and condemn them to continued poverty.
The demographic decline of the developed world, including China, is not without consequence, particularly wrt CO2. If working populations decline, the only way for economic growth is through improved efficiency (robots).
Since 2019 is past, this is an easy relatively near term outcome to subject to test. COVID is still a factor, but within a few years, we can see if 2019 is peak or not.
Very interesting graphic.
I note that nearly all of the (modest) reduction in total CO2 emissions came from drops in Europe and North America. That may continue, but I suspect there will be at least some return to commuting to work and some increase in non-work related travel, so the drops in those regions may not be long lasting.
‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
The IPCC summary for policy makers is the product of bureaucrats, the science precis suffer from selection and confirmation bias. The intergovernmental purpose is political not scientific. To reset communities and economies to some profoundly impractical and unrealizable socialist ideal. Nothing new – just a different vehicle for ambitions that would be socially, economically and environmentally damaging.
It’s been a long time since I have read anything from the IPCC. But we are pushing global systems into new territory – in a system that is chaotic and with a future that is uncertain. The politically strategic answer is not contrarian anti-science that is frequently quite mad or at least unsophisticated. It is in policy that increases economic opportunity, builds resilient infrastructure and conserves environments.
“It is in policy that increases economic opportunity, builds resilient infrastructure and conserves environments.” And socialism by any name and centralized bureaucracies have never accomplished any of that. Free market capitalism has given us unprecedented growing human welfare.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies.
Much ado about nada is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.
I usually regret responding to your long-winded diatribes, so I’ll just say: Where did I mention laissez faire capitalism?
You are not an anti-government loony?
Yes. I am an anti-unquestioning-trust-in-government. Been there, done that, got the scars. Spend some time working with or lobbying lawmakers and you will learn to control your gag reflex.
Much is permitted in robust democracies. Not everything is up for grabs. I keep an eye on the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom.
‘The United States’ economic freedom score is 74.8, making its economy the 20th freest in the 2021 Index. Its overall score has decreased by 1.8 points, primarily because of a decline in fiscal health.’
https://www.heritage.org/index/
That is the same as saying much is permitted in robust Peoples Democratic Republics.
Yes – if you lose the politics in a robust democracy and become irrelevant you are up sh1t creek.
The only “robust” democracy is one that has an equivalent of the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.
It requires a commitment to individual freedoms that are the core of your constitution. Not absurd breast beating about guns.
‘When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.’ https://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html
It appears the opposite situation as described by Hayek has developed; progressives are mounting cultural wars to shut down opposing opinions. If you need for me to detail all the methods they are employing, you haven’t been paying attention. Academia and government are examples of organized hostility to ideas that do not fit the constantly evolving and increasingly irrational progressive dogma.
High-minded liberalism has degenerated into progressive neo-Marxist intolerance and active suppression of others with differing opinions, including personal violence against others. Antifa, BLM and other like-minded Marxists have proven they are quite willing to assault, beat, maim and actually kill people to enforce their will.
Democracy? Over 80 percent of Americans support increasing immigration enforcement at our southern border. A majority want a wall built. The results? Nada, except for shipping many thousands of Covid19-positive illegal aliens around the interior of the nation. What we get are platitudes about fixing Guatemala’s economic and social problems. It is only one of many current insanities exemplifying the complete disconnect between our governing class and the average citizen.
Does any of that indicate that any of the radicals mentioned above have your “… commitment to individual freedoms that are the core of your constitution.” Those individual freedoms were codified in our Constitution by its first ten Amendments. Its 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “absurd breast beating about guns.” It recognized the pre-existing right of a free person to protect self, family and property, with firearms as necessary. Since the document was establishing a new government, it mentioned the need for armed citizens to protect against a tyrannical takeover of said government from any source, interior or exterior.
At last a thoughtful if misguided response. Democracy is defended with the rule of law and the will of the people. Not by invoking the blood of patriots. Losing the politics and thus control of the legislature means that the support of the majority is absent. Unless the election was stolen – and that seems more unlikely as time goes by and nothing conclusive emerges. At the very least you should ensure that future elections are unassailably fair and transparent. But claiming you are in the majority and blaming lefty loon ideologue sounds like something a loser says. Frankly – it’s cringeworthy.
Dave Fair wrote: Academia and government are examples of organized hostility to ideas that do not fit the constantly evolving and increasingly irrational progressive dogma.
You mean like banning the teaching of ideas like critical race theory, white privilege, institutional racism, Project 1619, and ideas like that?
It’s one thing to have an idea that’s wrong. It’s quite another to teach an idea you know is wrong as fact.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: ‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
From the AR6:
“The observed slower global surface temperature increase (relative to preceding and following periods) in the 1998–2012 period, sometimes referred to as ‘the hiatus’, was temporary (very high confidence). The increase in global surface temperature during the 1998–2012 period is also greater in the data sets used in the AR6 assessment than in those available at the time of AR5. Using these updated observational data sets and a like- for-like consistent comparison of simulated and observed global surface temperature, all observed estimates of the 1998–2012 trend lie within the very likely range of CMIP6 trends. Since 2012, global surface temperature has warmed strongly, with the past five years (2016–2020) being the hottest five-year period between 1850 and 2020 (high confidence). {2.3.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.1, Cross-Chapter Box 3.1}”
AR6 Cross-Section Box TS.1
This is a mechanism that is neither regional or summing to zero over decades. The warmer Pacific Ocean state that emerged at the start of the 20th century is overwhelmingly likely to shift dramatically – it always has.
‘This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.’
‘Because EEI is such a fundamental property of the climate system, the implications of an increasing EEI trend are far reaching. A positive EEI is manifested as “symptoms” such as global temperature rise, increased ocean warming, sea level rise, and intensification of the hydrological cycle (von Schuckmann et al., 2016). We can therefore expect even greater changes in climate in the coming decades if internal variability associated with the PDO remains the same. If the PDO were to reverse in the future, that reversal would likely act to decrease the rate of heat uptake. Further modeling studies are needed to fully understand the impact of the increasing trend in EEI on global and regional surface temperature, sea level rise, and changes to the hydrological cycle.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Robert Ellison wrote:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
You keep citing the same few papers long after they are explained to you.
All this paper is doing is closing the energy budget. In no way is it saying warming from anthropogenic GHGs isn’t happening.
Norman Loeb will be the first to tell you that AGW from GHGs is real. I saw him give a presentation in Boulder than spent an hour in his office talking to him about it. Greg Johnson will tell you the same.
David Appell has a blind spot. I have no idea why he imagines that I reject greenhouse gas warming. Simply that the total picture is more complicated than he comprehends.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
The link to an earlier Loeb et al paper – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
Loeb et al 2021 is too new to have had much of a mention – or to feature in AR6. But the conclusion does say that the climate future depends on the unpredictable future state of the Pacific Ocean.
People like David might ‘explain’ all they like – the fact is that they have been wrong for so long that it’s hard to break a habit.
“1998–2012 period, sometimes referred to as ‘the hiatus’, was temporary (very high confidence). ”
Then what proportion of the warming that followed that hiatus was anthropogenic and what proportion was ENSO? I kept an eye on the ENSO throughout that period and it was consistently El Nino conditions of varying magnitude. Did the IPCC quantify the contribution from ENSO versus anthropogenic forcing?
If there was no or next to no warming during the 1998-2012 period and ENSO neutral and averaging out, where was the anthropogenic signature?
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
Yes yes yes natural variability. Of course it exists, everyone knows that. The temperature wiggles up and down as it increases over time.
You get your wiggles.
The rest of us are focused on the longer picture, the long-term increase in temperature over decades. It’s going up and up — have you noticed? Or are you just paying attention to the wiggles?
Because I think you’re just paying attention to the wiggles. The wiggles are all you write about. You’re obsessed with the wiggles. You giggle about wiggles.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
agnostic2015 wrote:
Did the IPCC quantify the contribution from ENSO versus anthropogenic forcing?
Dunno but ask yourself why ENSO years of each variety — La Nina, neutral, El Nino — keep getting warmer and warmer over time:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
Five year period with a Super El Nino on top of minor secular warming from the Little Ice Age. Since the UNIPCC CliSciFi AR5 they have further dicked with observational records and re-tuned the hindcasts of the GCMs. That was an effort to deceive, not inform.
Dave Fair,
What is “minor secular warming from the Little Ice Age?”
Since the UNIPCC CliSciFi AR5 they have further dicked with observational records
You mean adjustments? They correct biases. Scientifically necessary.
re-tuned the hindcasts of the GCMs.
Such as?
That was an effort to deceive, not inform.
If you have evidence people are intentionally trying to deceive, let’s see it. Nothing you wrote here comes anywhere near showing that — it’s more likely you just don’t like the science, can’t disprove it and find it easiest to accuse people of fraud and deception without evidence. It’s all a big conspiracy, isn’t it Dave. Better watch your back.
David:
1) Warming from the Little Ice Age is manifest.
2) See Tony Heller for a description of the adjustment game.
3) UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers described how they shifted off primarily aerosols onto clouds to justify high ECSs.
4) Real scientists such as Roger Pielke, Jr. are now picking apart the numerous lies, exaggerations and convoluted circumlocutions contained in the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6. Additionally, any reasonably educated, math literate, science-informed and expert report writer (such as myself) readily identifies the tricks employed to mislead the casual reader. Expect more revelations in the coming months.
David Appell wrote:
“Dunno but ask yourself why ENSO years of each variety — La Nina, neutral, El Nino — keep getting warmer and warmer over time:”
Everyone and their mother knows this, David.
Dave Fair wrote:
Warming from the Little Ice Age is manifest.
What does that mean?
Tony Heller is a joke. He has no clue about adjustments, isn’t trained in the science of them and has been caught muffing it all up. I don’t take my science from people like him, I take it from experts who publish in the peer reviewed literature.
Dave Fair:
#3 and #4 are just vague unsupported claims. Nothing that can be discussed without tangible details. There are a lot of such vague claims in these comments.
Norman Loeb and NASA colleagues confirm a robust mechanism of internal climate change centered on the eastern Pacific. Sea surface temperature variability results in a cloud effect feedback that warms and cools the planet. The Pacific Ocean state varies over years to millennia. It shifted to a more frequent and intense warm state early in the 20th century.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
They may continue to wave this away as a minor inconvenience – as they have for decades. The question is – how much of the modern warming was natural and how much of that will be lost this century.
Robert Ellison wrote:
Sea surface temperature variability results in a cloud effect feedback that warms and cools the planet.
A feedback isn’t a forcing!!
Do you know what a forcing is?
Greenland low end contribution to GMSLR under SSP5-8.5 for 2100 is 0.09 m. Antarctica low end contribution to GMSLR under SSP5-8.5 for 2100 is 0.03 m. Will never be reported.
Chapter 9 page 7
CKid: Why would reporters report on Greenland and Antarctic contributions — their readers don’t care, they care about local and global sea level rise,
eustatic + steric.
The point is that these low numbers don’t conform to the scary scenarios and catastrophic narrative intended to terrify the masses. Reporting the truth about the very low probability of meters of SLR doesn’t get clicks or readership or ratings. It’s too bad journalistic ethics have all but disappeared. They are just propaganda shysters who have become sellouts.
CKid wrote:
Reporting the truth about the very low probability of meters of SLR doesn’t get clicks or readership or ratings. It’s too bad journalistic ethics have all but disappeared. They are just propaganda shysters who have become sellouts.
Who’s reporting meters of sea level rise?
David
It took me all of 3.5 seconds to find this. 2.5 meters is plural.
Do your own homework. Try to keep up with the science. It’s fast moving.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
More meters, this time from EPA. Another failed prediction.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
It must be a bummer to be made to look bad.
Ckid wrote: 2.5 meters is plural.
That page says, “On future pathways with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise could be as high as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100.”
Is that an incorrect claim?
What does your homework tell you?
David
2 meters, in Nature no less.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z
CKid wrote: 2 meters, in Nature no less.
Quote the sentence.
12 feet
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340215599777
You can read the Nature paper yourself. All these links prove my point.
CKid: I’m not hunting through papers trying to guess at the numbers you’re referring to. Quote them in context.
12 feet
This one you took completely out of context — it says “potential sea-level rise.” How is that untrue?
If you can’t do better I’m not going to respond to these anymore.
David appell – you mention where did “meters” come from –
“In 2015, the NPCC projected the sea level rise for the mid-2020s, -2050s, -2080s, and for 2100. These projections were calculated relative to the 2000–2004 average sea level, at varying levels of confidence. At the 90th-percentile level—in other words, the level where 90 percent of the multiple forecasts from different teams using different methods fall below it—the ocean is forecast to rise 10 inches by the middle of the decade of the 2020s, 30 inches by the mid-2050s, 58 inches by the 2080s, and 75 inches (more than 6 feet) by the end of the century.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340215599777
See also the nature study linked by CK
David – ask your self – how credible are those studies and projection?
To get to the 6 ft SLR rise by the 2100, its going to require SLR to accelerate to a pace 15x -20x the current rate of rise.
You have stated / claimed that several studies show the current SLR for charleston SC and NY to be in the range of 6mm-9mm per year. Rates that are 2x – 3x the historical average for the last 50 years. How credible are those SLR measurements – think of the probability of measurement errors.
You cited a table named “Observed contributions to global mean sea level (GMSL) change for five different periods,” Kid. They end in 2018.
Now you’re citing projections.
Do better.
Apple
You doubted meters of SLR. I gave you several links.
I hadn’t gotten to Chapter 9 page 78 when I said scare tactics in the media use meters. Here is what IPCC6 says.
“ A new study by Garbe et al., (2020) suggests that 6C sustained warming and associated mass loss of ~12 m
SLE may be a critical threshold beyond which the ice sheet re-organises to a new state, leading to large
losses from East Antarctica (including the Aurora Subglacial Basin) and leading to a further 10 m sea level
contribution per degree of warming; other studies also show much higher mass loss per C at higher levels of warming.”
This is not just a meter of SLR. THIS IS 10 METERS PER DEGREE OF WARMING.
Talk about frightening people for the sake of frightening people.
So I repeat. The scare stories of meters of SLR abound. This paragraph will definitely be picked up by the media in the next few years and used for more catastrophic narratives just like the last 40 years.
Oh no, now it’s CKid who has lost his cool and turned disrespectful.
End of discussion.
Fascinating. A Trolling Device has been programmed to feign hurt feelings. I wonder exactly the words Kid posted.
Here, Kid:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2727-5
Try to read properly before screaming.
Dave Fair, respond with some specifics and science instead of vague claims and there can be a discussion. Vague claims mean nothing and are a waste of time, a form of trolling of their own.
David said “ Who’s reporting meters of sea level rise?”
I gave several sources plus the Big Enchilada, direct from IPCC6 Chapter 9 page 78,…..” leading to a further 10 m sea level
contribution per degree of warming; ”
Not just meters but meters PER DEGREE OF WARMING.
Apple “End of discussion.”
Translation. Apple proven wrong again.
I gave several sources plus the Big Enchilada, direct from IPCC6 Chapter 9 page 78,…..” leading to a further 10 m sea level
contribution per degree of warming; ”
Not just meters but meters PER DEGREE OF WARMING.
After the last glacial maximum, sea level rose 125 meters with 5 C of warming. That’s 25 m/degC.
That’s all until you stop acting like a juvenile in high school.
David
You were wrong. Bottom line. And you have yet to show you understand the issue with geothermal activity in Antarctica and Greenland. If it’s over your head, we will get it.
Pick up your game. Show us you understand the science.
125 m with 5 C of warming after the LGM isn’t wrong. Go look.
Pardon me if I don’t take you as the world’s expert on geothermal under Greenland and Antarctica. LOL.
Come on David, come out of your cave. Statements with “could be meters” have been common for decades. You can’t be serious with that absurd question. Even some peer reviewed papers say that.
Ckid wrote: Come on David, come out of your cave. Statements with “could be meters” have been common for decades. You can’t be serious with that absurd question. Even some peer reviewed papers say that.
I get it — no proof required for Ckid’s claims, we just accept them because he says so.
Kid, David Appell has developed the persona of a Trolling Device (TD). This TD has adopted the trick of posting inane observations and insincere questions. Treat the David Appell as a TD and avoid attempts at a real discussion or debate.
‘The purpose of this review is to describe the global scope of the multidecadal climate oscillations that go back at least, through several hundred years. Literature, historic data, satellite data and global circulation model output have been used to provide evidence for the zonal and meridional jet stream patterns. These patterns were predominantly zonal from the 1970s to 1990s and switched since the 1990s to a meridional wind phase, with weakening jet streams forming Rossby waves in the northern and southern hemispheres. A weakened northern jet stream has allowed northerly winds to flow down over the continents in the northern hemisphere during the winter period, causing some harsh winters and slowing anthropogenic climate warming regionally. Wind oscillations impact ocean gyre circulation affecting upwelling strength and pelagic fish abundance with synchronous behavior in sub Arctic gyres during phases of the oscillation and asynchronous behavior in subtropical gyres between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833
The northern and southern annular mode zonal or meridional patterns are biased to one state or the other by changing polar surface pressure related to solar variability in part. With a dimming sun cooling is indeed possible. With a THC feedback it might be dramatic. Humans adapt to conditions with technology. I suggest that micro nukes might come in handy.
Fear
In 2014, Joe Duggan started reaching out to climate scientists to ask them a question: how did climate change make them feel?
“[Professor] Katrin Meissner “It makes me feel sad. And it scares me,” Meissner wrote.
Prof Lesley Hughes, pro vice-chancellor, Macquarie University
“I have some very dark moments”
Dr Roger Bodman, University of Melbourne
“So, the future, basically, looks bad. Hard to stay hopeful. Change is too slow, too late”.
Prof Dave Griggs, Monash Sustainable Development Institute
“I feel scared for the future”
Scientists displaying Gretaesque sentiments.
We should all feel scared for the future when even scientists have succumbed to this world view.
Have they heard of Jonestown?
CKid wrote: Scientists displaying Gretaesque sentiments.
We should all feel scared for the future when even scientists have succumbed to this world view.
Maybe the scientists know more about what’s coming than you or Joe Duggan, whoever he is.
The Australian census was yesterday – along with the usual kerfuffle from the religiously irreligious lefty. Someone noted today that the oversight was not to include climate change as a religious option.
The paper was full of IPCC predictions of fire and brimstone. Pragmatically – Australia has no option but net zero by 2050. Practically we do it with land management and technology.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Australia has no option but net zero by 2050. Practically we do it with land management and technology.
Glad to see if — if you can get your many lunkhead politicians out of the way. Do it however you can. We all need to do the same.
Australia will meet and exceed our Paris commitment for a 50% per capita reduction by 2030. As the Prime Minister says – targets without a plan mean zilch. Wind and solar is not a plan.
Australia estimated 2021 total fertility rate: 1.74
I think you all can back into it.
Pingback: New climate report got you shakin’ in your boots? - Right USA
I have never trusted politicians or their views about anything. I have never trusted the political machines. I do not trust modern day media with its painfully obvious agenda and built in bias. They have all conspired to make finding the truth hard work when once upon a time it was a case of reading or listening to all the arguments and making up your own mind what was most likely to be a reasonable assessment of ‘truth’. Nowadays we seemingly cannot be trusted with argument or discussion and face ostracism for daring to even believe that there may be a better way to reach conclusions that may actually work for all humanity. Being press ganged now has a new 21C meaning.
Policy makers are only concerned with the relatively short term value of a vote. That also applies to their advisers of all types and sizes, their backers, and the whole bureaucracy supporting their framework. Politicians have always told lies as a means to an end and now scientists and other academics and professional classes are doing the same. It saves their job; it gets them promoted; it’s made so easy to follow and only the very strong minded will resist and find relief only in their honesty, integrity and strength of character (the true gifts of life).
Nobody in the UN or any of its offshoot bodies today will be around in 2100 to answer for their utter failure to act honestly and genuinely for the people they claim to represent now. These so called representatives are too busy enjoying their very privileged lifestyle to bother with the truth since truth could see them in poverty or jeopardy tomorrow. Our politicians let us down over foreign affairs and finances in the first decade of this century and have now added almost everything else to their list of complete and utter failures, but, no worries, they are all singing the same hymn from the same hymn sheet.
If the UN’s WHO got and is getting so much wrong about COVID-19 mitigation over a twenty month period, then why trust the IPCC to get anything right about climate and/or weather mitigation at all over twenty years plus? And, if there is a problem with a viral epidemic, or our weather and climate, then what are the answers to those problems and where is the evidence that these privileged people know what they are doing other than maintaining their selfish interests? How has locking us up in our own homes or relying upon intermittent energy sources helped us in any way, shape or form? Have any of the bureaucrats really saved lives or are they costing lives and encouraging a truly dystopian future?
For both a serious virus and serious climate change there should have been global plans in place long ago. For a virus of any danger there should have been a complete mitigation policy to protect the most vulnerable whilst honestly stating to the rest of the population what the serious risks were to people as compared to any other daily risks. For climate change there should, in the last century, have been a serious move towards the development of larger and smaller scale nuclear energy production since that would have tempered any fear that burning too much fossil fuel might just be harmful for humans in the future. And innovation in the nuclear sector may just lead to discovery of other new technologies of great benefit to livelihoods, unlike throwing good money after bad with the insane worship of wind and solar. What we can reason from politics is that the planet is not burning up, Covid-19 is just another coronavirus of which there will be many more, and conceit has never been a good place for the human race. We have no control over Earth. Nature can swat us aside in less than a heartbeat and all our literature from the most ancient of times tells us that including our many religious texts.
In no case where strong leadership is needed have we seen clear, open and honest policy from the UN or politicians in general. And so the echoes running throughout politics (especially in the west) suggests the agendas on climate, Covid19, and perhaps much else besides, are all false and part of a very misleading narrative being enacted by dangerously self- interested and selfish people who fool themselves by failing to understand that nobody wins in dystopia – nobody.
There are some interesting if complex comments on this site and it is beyond my intellect to respond to them. However, I do have an opinion on the latest IPPC report AR6.
To me it is just more of the same, ie the same as we have received for the last 30 years or more. Admittedly the arguments may be more subtle and to some people more convincing. I don’t see it like that at all. I remember well Prince Charles’ speech to the EU parliament in 1989. The rhetoric and the warnings were the same then as they are today and we are still waiting for armageddon.
You can cry wolf too often before the mass of people start to see the truth.
Problems arise because it has become quite difficult to get publication or publicity for scientific studies that disagree with the IPCC views. For example:-
On sea surface temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef, no significant change since an 1871 ship survey by scientists. See Trends in sea surface temperature at Townsville, Great Barrier Reef on the blog bomwatch dot com dot au
On heat waves getting hotter, longer and more frequent, this official wisdom does not stand scrutiny for the 6 Aust State capital cities, home to 70% od the population, using a simple analysis of official BOM records back to the 1960s. Updated version is at http://www.geoffstuff.com/hw6capsjuly2021.docx
On the accuracy of past temperature data sets, Australian versions adjusted by BOM induce cooling of the early years, hence an artificial warming trend – look around on the waclimate blog of Chris Gillham
More on the accuracy of historic Aust temperatures, see Gillham again, comparing what was the best data in the 1950s with temperatures from 2000 to now. One can find warming of Aust of no more than 0.8 deg C, not the 1.4 deg C officially claimed.
http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html
It is annoying that detailed, inclusive studies like these almost always show significant problems with the quoted official versions. There are more, but readers seldom get interested enough to read and learn from examples like these. Geoff S
Pingback: New climate report got you shakin’ in your boots? – Climate- Science.press
I am very surprised, no one is talking about the, I will call it, late modern peak. In the last decade in the 18th century the people, at least in Europe, were confronted with a warm phase. Temperatures up 0,5 degrees C. You could cross the danube on foot (source: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_R4NMAAAAcAAJ/page/n9/mode/2up ), two winter later Napoleon crossed the frozen rivers in the Netherlands. It is not about the MWP, its about this short time period we have to think about. Do you have data from the US or China? Some say the Fr. revolution was not about freedom it was about hunger bec. of the failed harvest in the 1790s.
If you like to look at the historical perspective, take a look at this: https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/The_Curse_of_Akkad.html
Quote section:
““She started going up through the core,” DeMenocal told me. “It was like nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Then one day, I think it was a Friday afternoon, she goes, ‘Oh, my God.’ It was really classic.” DeMenocal had thought that the dolomite level, if it were elevated at all, would be modestly higher; instead, it went up by four hundred per cent. Still, he wasn’t satisfied. He decided to have the core re-analyzed using a different marker: the ratio of strontium 86 and strontium 87 isotopes. The same spike showed up. When deMenocal had the core carbon-dated, it turned out that the spike lined up exactly with the period of Tell Leilan’s abandonment.
Tell Leilan was never an easy place to live. Much like, say, western Kansas today, the Khabur plains received enough annual rainfall—about seventeen inches—to support cereal crops, but not enough to grow much else. “Year-to-year variations were a real threat, and so they obviously needed to have grain storage and to have ways to buffer themselves,” deMenocal observed. “One generation would tell the next, ‘Look, there are these things that happen that you’ve got to be prepared for.’ And they were good at that. They could manage that. They were there for hundreds of years.”
He went on, “The thing they couldn’t prepare for was the same thing that we won’t prepare for, because in their case they didn’t know about it and because in our case the political system can’t listen to it. And that is that the climate system has much greater things in store for us than we think.””
See the last four lines.
My current favorite is Roman wine.
So far contrarians had little to say against:
https://lerkekasa.no/
Willard, enjoy.
You should try Sicilian wines from around Etna. I hope their vines will survived the 48+ degC temperatures.
My favorite is my home-made of about 12yrs ago, which I had forgotten about. Nice, fruity, and with a decent kick to it. But there is no way I’m going to consume it anytime soon in the 42deg heat.
And that’s the last of it. Most of my vines did not survive the lack of rain these past eight yrs. The last I saw the surviving few vines I found there is no leaf growth. The few grape bunches have reduced in size since the vine is sucking back the stored water to try to survive. I looked at the surrounding vines in my locality, better cared for than mine; all are in the same situation. The years of increasing drought are taking their toll. Seven decades ago my patch of soil had a perennial spring; its all cracked earth now.
Enjoy your wine – while you can afford it.
What a coincidence: I just tasted the Marabino Eureka and the Fedelie Terre Siciliane two days ago from a friend who fell in love with Sicily!
Steve Koonin in the Wall Street Journal …
“But two experts, Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens, write in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the lack of detail in current modeling approaches makes them “not fit” to describe regional climate. The atlas is mainly meant to scare people.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-ipcc-un-united-nations-global-warming-floods-wildfire-stevens-palmer-koonin-11628631428?st=4ajupxy35zbl7sk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The meteorological fallacy strikes again!
Robert I. Ellison wrote: The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.
The scientific answer is less than zero.
David Appell
Yes yes yes natural variability. Of course it exists, everyone knows that. The temperature wiggles up and down as it increases over time.
How very unscientific of you,
David.
Almost mendacious.
“Less than zero” does not mean there’s no variability, Doc. It just means that natural variability does not swing the way contrarians would like it to swing.
Almost mendacious of you indeed.
angech commented: Yes yes yes natural variability. Of course it exists
It wiggles. Nothing natural is causing any net warming.
Willard | August 11, 2021
“Less than zero” does not mean there’s no variability, Doc.
–
I’m not sure which of you is the most pedantic in the sense of picking up other people’s grammar.
I suspect you would edge David out.
No disrespect to David, or you, I like it as well.
–
So in the interests of context when David says
“The scientific answer is less than zero.”
in answer to RIE’s
“The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.”
–
The answer less than zero is not about whether natural variability is variable, is it, after all it is in it’s description.
–
The answer David gave to the question of how much [not how variable]
in terms of percentage or temperature did natural variability contribute to the warming.
–
“Less than zero”
–
Is wrong in the context of the paper IPCC AR6 WG1.
and worse wrong in the context “The scientific answer”
–
Were you or he actually interested in the science, ie if either of you had read the paper, you would both have noted that the scientific answer in IPCC AR6 WG1. was not less than zero. It was positive.
–
This leads to the sad state of affairs whereby David [and yourself?] would have to admit that you did not actually read the paper, or worse he was less than honest with the truth when he used the term less than zero.
–
Apart from that simple observation one would like to comment on the negative correlation used by David here and the so often by AGW in general.
A negative correlation in science is a warning sign that the person making conclusions has got them wrong. Or has mixed up his positives and negatives somewhere in his work.
–
In this case if the IPCC is absolutely sure that natural variation has little impact over the time frame they considered then they have set a benchmark for standard deviation that is either impossibly correct or impossibly loose scientifically.
It means that natural variability does not swing the way AGW would like it to swing.”
I’m not picking on grammer, Doc.
I’m tearing your logic apart.
Cheer up: your wild goose chase will keep Ron busy!
From the WSJ artikle:
“The models fail to explain why rapid global warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, when human influences on the climate were less significant.”
I have nothing against skepticism, but am tired of “climate skeptics” repeating and recycling myths that were refuted many years ago. And I’m even more tired of all the climate politicians on Climate.etc who have nothing to contribute but other than political statements, covid skepticism and that Trump actually won the election.
When it comes to heating from approx. 1920 to approx.1940 it is well explained and understood. It was a combination of a positive PDO:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:1950/mean:60
and a positive AMO:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:1950/mean:60
This in addition that AGW began to strike. It is a typical “skeptic” myth that CO2 and other anthropogenic contributions had no effect before 1950.
But the fact is that the anthropogenic forcing pr.1950 was about 25% of what it was in 2010. And now the “skeptics” can claim that 25 % is insignificant or that the warming from approx. 1920 to approx. 1940 is unexplained.
The technical question is how much modern warming was natural. The policy question is what you want to do about it.
Rune,
I have nothing against skepticism
meaning I have something against skepticism.
Confirmed by the later use of the word but.
–
now the “skeptics” can claim that 25 % is insignificant
or that the warming from approx. 1920 to approx. 1940 is unexplained.
–
Your claim appears to be based on using 2 of about 100 different reasons AGW uses to try to explain inconvenient facts.
An extremely biased way of doing things.
Pick two reasons you already know are positive in that time and rely solely on them ignoring the other 98.
Otherwise known as cherry picking.
–
I think that it is you who has made the claim that 25% is insignificant, certainly not the IPCC or skeptics.
You have provided good evidence that natural variability can have a great impact in 1920-1940.
Why would skeptics want to dispute that?
–
The argument is that CO2 increase provides a modest, probably beneficial increase in global temperature and that the multiplier effects ascribe to CO2 do not exist.
Hence some not dangerous warming from CO2.
A little more if CO2 continues to rise.
Natural variability has a far wider range than the IPCC admits at the moment and reasonably strong inhibitory dampening factors at either end as the temp goes up or down, not accelerating ones.
How much of the warming after 1975 is explained by PDO and AMO then?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/mean:240/integral/detrend:-100/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/mean:240/offset:0.085/integral/normalise
According to Michael Mann there is no AMO
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w
There is no logical reason to be confident of any global average temperature compilations before 1979 when satellite data became available as a check and balance.
Southern Hemisphere surface coverage was insufficient before 1950 and extremely poor before 1920.
Ocean measurements were mainly in Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes before 1950.
The sea surface measurement methodology repeatedly changed, with no attempt ever made to measure the sea temperature in one (or more) locations using all different measurement instruments to see whether some of the measurement methodology changes caused a warming or cooling trend.
I do not trust sea surface data before the ARGO floats were used approximately 20 years ago.
While lab experiments suggest rising CO2 levels ought to cause mild global warming, the assumption that the global warming since the mid-1970s was caused mainly (or completely) by CO2 has never been proven.
There are too many variables that can affect the global average temperature to determine exactly what CO2 does.
So the effect of CO2 is guessed, and asserted — mainly by declaring (without proof) that natural causes of climate change, in progress for 4.5 billion years, suddenly became just “noise” in 1995, as declared by the IPCC.
When all natural causes of climate change are arbitrarily assumed to be “noise”, the ONLY possible causes of climate change are man made.
This is junk science, not real science.
(1) Poor measurements before 1950 — worthless measurement before 1900.
“(2) Adjusting” inconvenient data (global cooling from 1940 to 1975, as CO2 levels rose, has been “adjusted” from -0.5 to -0.5 C. cooling, as reported in 1974, to almost no global cooling, reported in 2021 = science fraud).
(3) Assumptions about CO2 stated as if they are proven facts.
(4) Always wrong predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming in the future, while completely ignoring the actual mild, harmless global warming in the past (1975 to 2021).
Use satellites from 1979 and ARGO from 2003. They both cover periods of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and can be directly compared. They are not contaminated by coverage area uncertainties, changing measurement methods, arbitrary adjustments to data, UHI effects, aerosol assumptions & etc. Compared to older methods, device errors are minimized. Additionally, algorithms to estimate temperatures from gathered data are clear and well-justified.
To Robert Ellison:
>>> The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.
How can I know? Do you know the answer to this question or are you just asking a “Catch You” type question? Is David Apple’s answer correct where he claims that the aerosols have inhibited AGW and that without the aerosols we would have had a further rise in temperature?
I have a fairly simple approach to this and it applies to GMSL. Had there been major temperature changes in the last couple of thousand years, this would also have had similar consequences for sea level, where we have reliable proxies at least a couple of thousand years back in time.
Nor can I see what physical mechanisms can raise global temperature in such a short time without involving an anthropogenic contribution. So you can choose from the top shelf, if you have the answer I will gladly welcome it.
Next question:
“The policy question is what you want to do about it.”
And to that question I have to answer with a series of proxies.
– in 1940 DC – 3 was among the most advanced passenger planes, 23 years later Boing 747 had the 747 ready on the drawing board
– in 1943 Werner von Braun had already designed the V-2, 20 years later he had already sketched and by and large designed the Saturn and what led to what happened on July 20, 1969.
– 10 – 12 years ago, a fool named Elon Musk appeared who claimed that the future was electric, and yesterday i received an e-mail from BOS (the Norwegian Mercedes importer) I was informed that the Mercedes EQS has a price of NOK 971,000-. The winter tires come in addition.
Is it necessary to say more? Since I obviously need to say more, I can also announce that the West must immediately take nuclear power far more seriously, otherwise we risk having to buy it from China.
Internal variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years – and most of the early 20th century warming – as a cloud effect feedback over the eastern Pacific.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
Policy is another matter. The measure there is pragmatism.
‘The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’ https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/climate-pragmatism-innovation
Advanced nuclear reactors are a start. There are many billions being spent on development. But mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
Conservation and restoration of soils and ecosystems is of critical importance. The soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. Winner of the 2020 World Food Prize soil scientist Rattan Lal estimates that the carbon content of 157 ppm atmospheric CO2 could be sequestered by 2100.
Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement and steel manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.
Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology.
There are the Decade of Restoration that started this year and the French 4 per 1000 soil carbon initiative revealed in Paris in 2015 that are more promising solutions than wildly unrealistic and demonstrably nonsensical notions of 100% renewables and banning fossil fuels immediately. But they are solutions that don’t require the social and economic reset agenda that emerges from avowed but impossible certainties of climate catastrophe.
Robert Ellison wrote:
Internal variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years – and most of the early 20th century warming – as a cloud effect feedback over the eastern Pacific.
A feedback isn’t a forcing.
The cloud feedback is to SST that varies over years to millennia due to shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. He tries hard not to get it.
Robert I. Ellison | August 11, 2021 |
Internal variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years –
The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.
–
David Appell | August 11, 2021 at 5:56 pm |
The scientific answer is less than zero.
–
Both using absolutes .
My take is if the difference is let’s say 0.35 C over 40 years
Internal variability has to have a range of uncertainty of 1.05 C [at least] in that 40 years.
Strictly speaking I said that natural variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees of recent (last 40 years) warming. Implying uncertainty. The number comes from the Kravtsov et al paper.
And there is a whole lot more to digest in that comment.
Pingback: Don’t Be Afraid: The UN’s Climate Report Is A Politicized Debacle | altnews.org
Rune … I share your concern with any side in a debate that use myths, or otherwise dubious information. And it seems that the climate debate is full of it. UK – Weather Lass posted a nice statement above on politicians and politicization. Suffice to say that with humans, inevitably, the drama tends to overshadow reality. So, it is with great regret that I say we need to pay attention to the drama if only to keep those at bay who would have us view reality through their lens. Regret because, as you said, who wants to keep dealing with the misdirections, etc.
Here’s something which I hope will give you a chuckle. Human drama … there’s no limit.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/11/former-criminal-justice-professor-arrested-for-allegedly-setting-fires-near-massive-dixie-fire/
Wow. The first time I couldn’t read the entire comment section. Some really childish stuff going on here. It’s frankly tiring and boring to watch a couple people natter at each other.
Geography and climate
E. Linacre
4/’99
“Summary
Fair success may be achieved in deducing the location of a place from a given small set of climatic data, using crude empirical relationships between climate and geographic averages. Conversely, monthly mean temperatures can be inferred approximately from geographic information. The extent to which these normative estimates differ from actuality offers clues on the effects on climate of regional features of topography and ocean circulation, as well as on microclimatic effects.”
Below is the link to the article and to the Graph
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/Image64.gif
I see Steve McIntyre is on the job already about the Hockey Stick. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
I find this stuff hard to understand. Do they care if people trust their work?
>>I find this stuff hard to understand. Do they care if people trust their work?
Who should trust whom? On the one hand, we have all these climate scientists who – in some people’s opinion – only follow orders from the head of the UN to create a socialist world order. On the other hand, we have thousands of scientists – so-called scientists – where at least some of them are “scientists” in the deeper understanding of the term.
We are talking here about a market where the “skepticism” has been fed with a lot of money from Heartland, Exon and Southen Energy. A market that even on Jutith Curry’s blog can claim that the greenhouse effect has been falsified, or that global sea level rise has been going on for thousands of years, and that what we now observe is not an anomaly.
I do not consider myself a climate Aramaist, I will handle this “problem” quite calmly. But I’m starting to get pretty fed up with the obvious deniers that Climate.etc is overpopulated with.
So, Rune, manufacturing and publishing bogus Hockey Sticks is a scientific endeavor? And I want some of that manufactured skepticism money. Tell me where Heartland, Exon and Southern Company are handing it out so I can get in line.
Dave, if you claim that the hockeysticks prepared by the PAGES 2K network is bogus, you can easily show that by writing a rebutal, I think you will find all the information you need here:
http://pastglobalchanges.org/science/wg/2k-network/intro
When it comes to money, I suggest you write an email to GWPF:
https://www.thegwpf.com/
I can not guarantee the outcome. But GWPF distinguishes itself by demanding full transparency from everyone else, but refuses to disclose from where they get their own money. They also regularly publish articles that pretend to be climate science, but where even an amateur like me easily reveals it as complete rubbish.
“obvious deniers”. Rune, I posted a link to the rebuttal you claim to want to see. Don’t know if you’re familiar with him, but he was an expert reviewer for IPCC AR4 (https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/). He is also the go-to expert on details of paleoclimate reconstructions, starting with his disagreements with Michael Mann’s original work, since acknowledged by the entire field except maybe Michael Mann.
In this link he repeats what he has pointed out for more than a decade, discussing it on every new major publication: many of the critical errors of paleoclimate reconstructions have never been fixed and recur with every iteration – and that they are serious enough to make the results useless.
‘On the one hand, we have all these climate scientists who – in some people’s opinion – only follow orders from the head of the UN to create a socialist world order. On the other hand, we have thousands of scientists – so-called scientists – where at least some of them are “scientists” in the deeper understanding of the term.’ Could be you’re a beginner on this issue. Both sides here are climate scientists. There are certainly not “thousands of scientists” doing paleoclimate reconstructions; the major studies are done by maybe a few dozens of scientists, all very familiar to Steve McIntyre and they with him. He is published in major journals and so are they.
He tends to disagree with some parts of a lot of their work, but that is no reason to jump into some political nonsense mode (socialist world order, Heartland…). Scientists disagree among themselves too.
MikeR wrote: [McIntyre] is also the go-to expert on details of paleoclimate reconstructions
LOL
@David Appell. https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/ Where a Skeptical Science contributer says that McIntyre made a major contribution at the time, and that Mann was unequivocally wrong, and never admitted it. “I don’t think these are minor points. I think they get major points correct.” “The Tiljander debate showed that Mc was right on that issue.” etc.
In public, of course, Skeptical Science never admitted a thing; David Appell’s comment is similar to their typical obfuscation.
This ship has sailed. Anyone who followed these issues knows which side won. Then.
Since then, anyone who followed these issues sees that every so often new studies are published by the same people, McIntyre goes through the studies and points out the reasons they haven’t fixed the issue – and people like Appell are there to pretend that no one in the field takes him seriously. Except in private.
Don’t be surprised when I ask if anyone is expected to trust their work. Richard Muller from BEST (who is on their side) said this long ago.
Nice to see you dropped the numbers after your name, MikeR.
The Antarctica episode wasn’t about any paleo-reconstruction, and if you’re to re-hash Robert’s remarks, why not quote from his first comment:
https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/#comment-450323
Considering that Robert’s overall conclusion is that tone is important, what you conclude about trust applies to your own contributions.
Also, I’m not sure on which side RichardM is on exactly, but he used to be a contrarian, and after checking the data for himself, he reconsidered.
What about you?
MikeR: McIntyre has an unreviewed blog. Does he ever write and submit papers or letters to the journals he thinks are publishing bad papers? That’s how science works. McIntyre knows that. Scientists don’t communicate with one another by blogs, they don’t read blogs, and they don’t take them seriously. McIntyre can pedantically say whatever he wants, his fans will shake their heads and say yes aha aha, no experts will look at it, and on and on. He refuses to participate in the science or act like a scientist. I wonder why.
McIntyre also gave my private correspondence to someone, who then published it.
Robert Way is right, it is a very dishonorable thing to do.
Willard:
This on the Way link from one Geoff Sherrington
“ Robert,
Suggest you vacate the field of “communicating the message” and immerse yourself in pure research. Warning – do not try to direct your research according to your beliefs. That is one of the biggest, most frequent no-nos we encounter.”
Well I larfed
@Willard. Hey, Willard! Long time no see. The numbers may return if I ever manage to log into WordPress again. As for Robert Way’s comments, I sympathize. It must have been awful for him, having his honest opinion publicized. I mean that seriously; it was a private conversation, and Skeptical Science tries to present a certain public face, and he is partially to blame for wrecking their propaganda, and maybe they blame him.
But it is standard journalistic practice to publicize newsworthy things, even though the people they are about don’t want you to. And even when the information was obtained illegally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the publisher is not to blame and the news remains news.
And you agree with everything I’ve said, when it comes to private info about Donald Trump or anyone you don’t like. This is definitely newsworthy. The substance proves something about Skeptical Science and the nature of the field, and I understand if you don’t like it, but truth is truth.
@David Appell “That’s how science works.” Not anymore. And you know that well, but you’re trying to pretend. There are math discussion groups where unknown people have made major advances in the field. Even in my time in math, back in the ’80s (!), anyone with any sense took preprints and emails and any communication seriously. “Your paper has a major error.” No one would have been foolish enough to say, I’ll look at it after you publish the response. Oh, in a reputable journal, with referees… Because we wanted to get it right, not to score political points. You’ve been making this claim for years and it wasn’t true then either.
And as Way made clear in his private comments, the people in the field do take McIntyre seriously, to the extent that Way says that he was advised to steer clear of the section of the field that McIntyre basically destroyed.
Could be by now they’ve managed to shrug it off, but – so much the worse for the field. You’re being a spokesman for their public face, but we know what’s behind it. There’s math and physics, and there’s gender studies, and they’re making a bad choice if they prefer their field to look like gender studies. There are sincere scientists doing real work there, and there are political hacks, and the sincere scientists probably ought to get rid of the hacks for their own good and the good of the field.
@Willard “Also, I’m not sure on which side RichardM is on exactly, but he used to be a contrarian, and after checking the data for himself, he reconsidered.” Did he reconsider on the parts that he said (very strongly) were unethical garbage? Or did he verify that some other parts of the field were right?
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2012/8/2 – at about 50 minutes.
This is a scientific discussion, and each side can be right about different issues. Political hacks, on the other hand, can never admit that the other side is right about anything. You choose.
MikeR’s comment regarding paleo reconstruction and treatment of McIntyre – “Could be by now they’ve managed to shrug it off, but – so much the worse for the field.”
Yes they have shrugged it off – note that according to McIntyre, the bristlecone pines are back in the latest pages2K along with few upside down proxies. repeating the same errors does not validate the HS
MikeR,
You are rationalizing your hero’s behavior. That puts you into the political hack category.
Thanks for playing!
MikeR, get one thing straight: I’m not a spokesman for anybody. I’m not even a scientist. What a ludicrous thing to write.
Gender studies? WTF does that have to do with the science? Nothing. You talk politics because you can’t talk science.
Science works the same way it always has — how would you know if it didn’t? Because you studied math a zillion years ago? What do you know about how scientists work now, about what they’re publishing now, about what they’re discussing now, about what they’re thinking now? Anything whatsoever, Mike? What makes you think scientists don’t want to get it right NOW, Mike — just because you don’t like their results?
Too bad for you. Tough. Deal with it. Whine all you want. Meanwhile the world is moving forward based on the science.
There have been dozens of papers that have confirmed the hockey stick, by many different statistical methods. None needed McIntyre or cared what he thought. He hasn’t responded to any of them in the scientific literature but only on his unreviewed blog where he delights in taking potshots at everyone.
You don’t know enough to know who the “hacks” are — you judge based on whether you like their results or not. THAT’s political.
David, ad hominins all the way down.
If you took the time to honestly read and try to understand the various McKitrick and McIntyre analyses you would not denigrate their scholarly work. Mannian hockeysticks and their various clones have been conclusively shown to be scientific frauds. Marcott is probably the most egregious example.
You are a CliSciFi pimp. Prove me wrong.
Oh, and provide a detailed critique of McKitrick and McIntyre analyses. Anything less is CliSciFi evasions and lies.
David
“ There have been dozens of papers that have confirmed the hockey stick, by many different statistical methods.”
Produce the links.
How about the Auditor’s own reconstruction, Kid:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html
Wow! Gaspe cedars by themselves prove all the Mannian hockeysticks are valid.
Ckid wrote:
David
“ There have been dozens of papers that have confirmed the hockey stick, by many different statistical methods.”
Produce the links.
Hockey sticks in the scientific literature
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
David
What you provided was mostly a list of information that either didn’t provide a link, or studies a decade or more old, or specific locations not global or not covering the proper time period.
Useless junk.
Willards comment “How about the Auditor’s own reconstruction, Kid:
“Padding as Mann did with the Gaspe cedars had a very small, local effect. The M&M sffort to replace with missing values triggered a large response. But it was an artefact.”
Out of a couple hundred errors in the numerous HS studies, willard cherrypicks an error that has a minor effect on the results, ignoring the 100+ errors.
Willard thats a strong rebuttal
There’s no “error” there, Joe. That’s an editorial decision from the Auditor.
Nick did what Ed Wegman failed to do, which is to check what the Auditor did:
“But MBH” might very well be the biggest nothingburger in the history of the Climate Ball.
> Useless junk.
Alright, Kid. You’re on. Show us what you got:
Deming’s cartoon?
Tony’s storytelling?
Willard – Again you cherry pick one item out of the few hundred errors in the HS reconstructions ., the one which has the smallest effect
Kinda like the ex post screening done with the proxy selection in most all the HS reconstructions
Willard that is a really strong rebuttal – rebut all the errors using the smallest of the errors.
Joe, speaking of cherrypicking, have you noticed how the Auditor chopped half of the figure he criticizes?
Willard | August 13, 2021 at 2:45 pm |
Joe, speaking of cherrypicking, have you noticed how the Auditor chopped half of the figure he criticizes?”
Willard – speaking of cherrypicking
Have noticed the number of proxies that get excluded due to ex post screening? law dome? oroko? mt read? yamal revision/update, just to name a few.
Joe,
The figure you keep harping about does not figure into WGI. Were you interested in the science half as much as you pretend to be, that’d be the end of it.
You lost as soon as you cried about cherrrypicking. That’s all you got. If you got a better recon, I’m all ears.
Science marches one funeral at a time. Contrarian zombies are already dead.
CKid commented:
What you provided was mostly a list of information that either didn’t provide a link
Need an Internet class on how to highlight text and do a Google search?
or studies a decade or more old
Did the science change?
specific locations not global or not covering the proper time period.
The original hockey stick was only for the NH. Several papers in my list do the same, or are global. Do some research. I’m not here to be your tutor.
Useless junk.
More of finding it useful to maintain ignorance.
Dave Fair wrote: Mannian hockeysticks and their various clones have been conclusively shown to be scientific frauds. Marcott is probably the most egregious example.
Why Dave. Explain.
Have any ever been retracted from a scientific journal?
Why do hockey sticks keep getting published using different and new methodologies?
Why is it trivial to show the hockey stick is required by basic physics?
OMG! Marcott changed the timing of his proxies between his doctoral thesis and his 2008 paper (with his thesis instructor’s guidance in both examples). Double scientific fraud.
Why do subsequent fraudulent hockeysticks (using the same bristlecone pine series and inappropriate statistics) keep being produced? Because it keeps the grants (free money) flowing.
“Basic physics” has nothing to do with paleoclimate reconstruction. If you naively believe that CO2 is the control knob for climate and you have no scientific honor, you will adjust paleoclimate studies to reflect your beliefs.
Dave Fair wrote: Oh, and provide a detailed critique of McKitrick and McIntyre analyses.
The critique is that hockey sticks keep getting published all the time by new and different methodologies. That’s the basic test of science: confirmation.
Here’s a comment about M&M I received on my blog. See especially the last paragraph:
“You should actually read the Mann paper. You can find a copy of it somewhere on the internet that is not behind a paywall. You’d be surprised as to what the paper is actually about. Mann’s intent was not to show the world a hockey stick. He didn’t need to do a principal component analysis to do that. He could have merely showed the data and that would have been sufficient. What he was actually interested in was unraveling the natural patterns in Northern Hemisphere climate. That’s the reason for the PCA analysis. We use it in plasma physics to reconstruct plasma equilibrium. It’s been a while since I read the paper, but from memory he was interested in looking at things like ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation.
“When you do a PCA you get a set of eigenvalues that correspond to a set of eigenfunctions. Using his centering the warming component was the first and therefore the largest eigenvalue. There is a criteria for how many eigenvalues you should use in the reconstruction. The essential point is that when you do the full reconstruction you should get very close to the original data that you started with.
“What M&M (McIntyre and McKitrick) did was to change the centering. What that does is change to order of the eigenvalues. The warming component is still there, but it’s not longer the largest eigenvalue. M&M simply threw it away, which is nothing less than fraud.”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-stacks-deck.html?showComment=1449683570199#c2545048246463087986
(emphasis mine>
—
And there was this:
“Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.” Wahl and Ammann, Climate Change, November 2007, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 33-69.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9105-7
Absolute, mindless repetition of pseudo-scientific jargon. Don’t believe me? Read M&M and you will find that this is not what their analyses entailed. Mann keeps losing in court for a reason. His hockeystick is a proven fraud.
Dave Fair wrote: “Basic physics” has nothing to do with paleoclimate reconstruction. If you naively believe that CO2 is the control knob for climate and you have no scientific honor.
Basic physics shows the hockey stick is required over the last few thousand years.
But maybe you don’t understand the math.
The science shows CO2 is a control knob for climate — no belief required.
And the published hockey stick and CO2 have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The former doesn’t say a thing about the latter, it’s merely a reconstruction of past temperatures.
@Willard. I’m sure you’d prefer to discuss some issue about who should have published what, instead of discussing the details of the PAGES work. David Appell seems to be doing the same. “Why doesn’t he publish in a peer-reviewed journal?” Sheesh. Why doesn’t someone respond to his work, if they can? I see Willard posted a comment there. But not to respond to the work. Nor did a single commenter there as far as I can see.
The very clear impression I get – and have gotten for a decade – is that you cannot touch the work, so you make up reasons why you don’t need to. And hope not too many people will notice it.
There are consequences. Anyone who actually follows this stuff sees you as cheerleaders, not as honest scientists. No one can fix that but you. If you have a response, respond. If you don’t know enough, find someone who does. Enough with the excuses.
And more rebuttal. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/15/pages19-asian-tree-ring-chronologies/ Rune, you listening?
Rune, I have to tell you that this has been happening since Michael Mann started up. They publish a paper, McIntyre publishes a rebuttal, they all claim they don’t need to look at it (David Appell has been repeating his demand about “peer-reviewed journals) since he first showed up on the scene. Eventually they publish a retraction or two which actually removes the whole point of the paper, and come out a couple of years later with a new paper that hasn’t fixed the major issues. If you follow this stuff you get used to the sequence.
And as I mentioned already, if you get them talking behind the scenes they admit it.
MikeR,
Seems that you haven’t grew over You-and-Him Fight games. Paleo climate scientists are big enough to defend themselves. Now, how about you – have you *ever* double checked the Auditor’s work? Have you ever contacted them? How about statisticians?
Perhaps you’re too busy brown-nosing Nic.
If you had any experience dealing with that kind of series, you’d know that raising concerns about them is trivial [1]. The Auditor already said he won’t publish his stuff. So in the end it’ll end up into yet another PR stunt for the contrarian matrix.
Have you noticed how he ignored my question? How about you answer it:
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/#comment-804818
If only Denizens could help him! Wouldn’t be great if they could come up with their own reconstruction? No, they’re too dumb to realize that he’s lulzing about the observed part of the graph!
Now should come the time when you say I make no sense.
Best.
[1] If teh Goddard can do it, anybody can.
As per CliSciFi practitioners, Willard distracts from the relevant question/observation: “The Auditor already said he won’t publish his stuff.” Well, the “Auditor” (assuming one means Steve McIntyre) has published his “stuff” independently. The fact that it is not in a pal-reviewed gatekeeping journal is immaterial to its accuracy and value. Dismissal of scientific work without consideration of its specifics is a dishonest trick to avoid real science and, simply, spew propaganda.
> The fact that it is not in a pal-reviewed gatekeeping journal
Our Hall Monitor misses the point. If the Auditor wanted to communicate his findings to researchers, he’d contact them. Which he seldom does, e.g.:
Source: https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/6560898633
Were Denizens interested in the Auditor’s scientific output, they’d realize that they idolize instead of trying to understand a blog that is hard to follow.
But prove me wrong, Dave. Let the Auditor setup a repository of data, code, and metadata to which Denizens like you could contribute. Come with a contrarian recon!
The world awaits.
So yeah, humans still need to communicate. Acting like an asshat will hinder that.
Thanks for providing me with a clear example of what an asshat looks like, Willard. Your posting (like others) is just distraction from the fundamental question of the reliability of hockey stick reconstructions. M&M present their analyses and CliSciFi practitioners don’t respond to their observations and calculations nor make indicated corrections.
I won’t be responding to attempted distractions and misdirections in the future.
The feeling is mutual, Dave.
Please rest assured that you don’t get to decide what’s the fundamental question.
I suppose you were as surprised as the Auditor to find out that his pet topic did not make WGI, right?
Correction, Willard: You published four comments there, along with a bunch here. Not a single word about the issues involved, ever. What do you really think you’re doing? Do you think cheerleaders are helpful here?
Not a good look.
You say I’m a political hack? I would actually like to see scientists behaving like scientists. Respond to rebuttals if you can. So far I don’t see one substantive response over there.
In more than a decade of posts, I have only seen one climate scientist who tried to duke it out over there, and it was awesome, and I think he acquitted himself very well. The rest of them I assume were wrong and knew it, and frequently retracted the parts of their papers that had been refuted. Later, quietly, no credit given.
Not a good look.
MikeR,
You dodged all the points I made. You ignored most of my questions. The only answer you gave was very weak sauce.
And you’re wrong: I did address the issue you raise. Which is better than what you did, for you simply hide behind your Big Dog.
So after showing that you have no honor, now you show you have no courage.
I award you no point.
MikeR, why would any scientist comment at McIntyre’s blog? Where McIntyre controls the site, and decides what comments get published and which do not? Where McIntyre can delete a comment at any point in the future and it’s likely no one would notice. Where other commenters who probably don’t understand the technical issues anyway will insult them and call them names? (Just look at the goons here who can’t resist name calling and can’t respond civilly.) When their comments might be altered or taken out of context and used somewhere against them, as happened with the stolen emails? When they might even receive death threats because of what’s altered or taken out of context that they can’t control, or shown a noose the next time they lecture in Australia?
They’d be crazy to comment there. And it’s not how they do business anyway. Scientists communicate science via the peer reviewed literature. For very good reasons. For one, the author is required to cite prior work and adhere to basic scholarly standards. And two, the author’s claims are review so as not to be obviously wrong. These ensure the paper won’t be a waste of everyone’s time. The real question is, why doesn’t McIntyre communicate via the peer reviewed literature? If he wants to be a scientist he needs to play in their arenas. Over the weekend he told me on Twitter he did submit two papers, to Science and Nature, and they were rejected. He had all kinds of excuses. But they didn’t make the grade. Of course, most papers submitted to those journals get rejected. Professionals don’t make excuses — they try to improve their papers and submit elsewhere.
Scientists and professors are extremely busy people, especially these days. Don’t know if you know any, but follow one around for a day and you’ll see. Then they go home and work there, and they do a lot of traveling. Like a lot of professionals, they’re extremely stretched. They don’t read and comment on blogs for the same reason the management of Goldman Sachs doesn’t read and comment on economics blogs, or professional athletes don’t read and comment on armchair fan blogs. Most of what appears on blogs is beneath them or useless to them. Why waste time there when they could/should be read published work? So that’s what they do. Of course.
So, as lofty “scientists” it is beneath them to read pertinent critiques of published literature in their field by knowledgeable experts? Pretty lame, David, considering McIntyre and McKitrick are acknowledged reviewers.
MikeR, why do I always point to the peer reviewed literature? Because it’s long been the standard in science. It doesn’t mean a paper is right, but it does mean a paper isn’t obviously wrong and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards. It’s clear it understand and cites prior work.
Why am I not auditing hockey sticks or auditing Climate Audit? Are you crazy, it’d be a full time job? (Isn’t McIntyre retired? Then he has the time.) I have to make a living. I also do not wish to spend my time in such minutiae. So I leave it to the professionals, just as you do in nearly every technical field out there. (Did you audit the design and engineering of the last bridge you drove over? Personally verify the safety of the last flu shot you received?) And I utilize the standard they themselves insist on for the development of quality science — peer review. Not BLOGS, lolz — peer review. Scientific journals. Scholarly work.
And when peer review misses the deletion of the MWP and Mike’s Nature trick? And when Marcott moved the time series of proxies?
FWIW, here’s a short list of scientists who commented at the Auditor’s:
– Myles Allen
– Richard Betts
– Jim Bouldin
– Chris Colose
– Judith Curry
– Andrew Dessler
– Robert Grumbine
– Martin Juckes
– Patrick Minnis
– John Nielsen-Gammon
– Tim Osbourne
– Eli Rabett
– Dave Ritson
– Gavin Schmidt
– Nick Stokes
– Michael Tobis
– Rob Wilson
– Eduardo Zorita
And that’s just from the top of my hat.
MikeR has no idea what he’s talking about.
MikeR wrote: I have to tell you that this has been happening since Michael Mann started up. They publish a paper, McIntyre publishes a rebuttal, they all claim they don’t need to look at it (David Appell has been repeating his demand about “peer-reviewed journals) since he first showed up on the scene. Eventually they publish a retraction or two which actually removes the whole point of the paper, and come out a couple of years later with a new paper that hasn’t fixed the major issues.
When has Michael Mann et al ever published a retraction? Cite it.
David L. Fair wrote: And when peer review misses the deletion of the MWP and Mike’s Nature trick?
What deletion of the MWP? Show me the data that showed there was a northern hemisphere-wide MWP around 800-1200 CE. Not some hand drawn graph by Lamb, but honest-to-God scientific data. Show it Dave. Give the link to it.
Explain what you mean by “Mike’s Nature Trick,” Dave.
Dave Fair wrote:
So, as lofty “scientists” it is beneath them to read pertinent critiques of published literature in their field by knowledgeable experts?
Who/what says they’re “pertinent?”
“Because it’s long been the standard in science. It doesn’t mean a paper is right, but it does mean a paper isn’t obviously wrong and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards.”
Mostly
How about
Zharkova 2019
And another post from McIntyre over there, this time on 0-30S. https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/ Zero response so far, on any of them. Have you gotten the idea yet?
Some of us have watched this happen for many years. Paleo guys publish, McIntyre responds with very detailed criticisms that amount to complete refutations, paleo guys pretend it didn’t happen. “Hockey Stick again confirmed by science!”
I am seeing something confirmed, but the paleos may not want to hear what it is.
MikeR comment – “And another post from McIntyre over there, this time on 0-30S. https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/ Zero response so far, on any of them”
MikeR – you actually should be impressed the numerous straight shafts in the HS studies with so few proxies dating back the the MWP, especially with such low resolution proxies.
It sure has me convinced since they have been peer reviewed.
Pages2K has 3 proxies from 0-60 in the Southern Hemisphere dating back before 1450AD and only one before 750AD. How Many proxies in the 60-90S lat band? 10?
I sure 3 proxies covering approx 40% if the globe is more than sufficient to determine the global temp prior to 1450AD
MikeR wrote: And another post from McIntyre over there, this time on 0-30S. https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/ Zero response so far, on any of them. Have you gotten the idea yet?
Some of us have watched this happen for many years. Paleo guys publish, McIntyre responds with very detailed criticisms that amount to complete refutations, paleo guys pretend it didn’t happen.
Man, when are you going to learn? Scientists read peer reviewed journal papers, not blogs. They have limited time and don’t have any to waste. They have standards and it’s the obligation of others to meet them.
It’s odd and rather funny that you think scientists are supposed to stoop to McIntyre’s level instead of expecting him to rise to theirs.
MikeR wrote: Paleo guys publish, McIntyre responds with very detailed criticisms that amount to complete refutations….
And let’s not pretend that you are qualified to judge what is and is not a “complete refutation.”
Willard, good list of scientists who’ve commented there. All power to them. Are you and David Appell having trouble coordinating your comments? He seem to think that no one would. Are you aware that it is he you are proving wrong? – Anyhow, what do you want from your list? I said that McIntyre has refuted each hockey stick as it showed up. Did anyone on your list un-refute it? Or did they comment on something else entirely? And did anyone on your list respond to his most recent refutation?
Hey Mike –
> But their obtuseness never ceases to amaze.
Please correct me if I’m wrongz but isn’t arguing from personal incredulity considered a logical fallacy?
Maybe if Steve’s so amazed, he’s not fully understanding the arguments being presented by others.
Personally, I admire cognitive empathy – where instead of concluding that others are “obtuse” because they don’t agree with you, you try to interrogate (with good faith) how their perspective might be logical and reaonable even if you disagree with it. For example, maybe they’re working from a different premise or different definitions.
My favorite part of the Auditor’s post is this one:
The rest of his audit can be reduced to the following problem: how many times can the Auditor repeat “hide the decline”?
David, go back and read more carefully. Your blinders are manifest.
Yea, they may be amazed because the science and math has proven the CliSciFi practitioners to be liars so many times that a thinking person would never believe them. Prove me wrong.
It’s the other door, Charlie.
As usual, Joshua, if anyone has a response they should probably feel free to post it. He has another post up now, https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/. I have close to zero doubt that no one will challenge any of them.
My honest impression is that they have given up on convincing any of us who follow both sides.
I have not noticed any response from you (or the Auditor, for that matter) about Baz’ question in the previous thread, MikeR.
Why is that?
Willard, if you mean Baz’ questions at climateaudit, there have been quite a few responses. He doesn’t seem to know much about the topic, which is okay, but doesn’t seem to notice that some others there do.
How you dodge my question and try to make it about Baz indicates that you may not know as much on these issues as you pretend, Mike.
In reply to Willard and David Appell
As long as I continue to see receding glaciers exposing tree stumps from the wmp (columbia ice field, mendenhal glacier, etc ) , tree lines 150k north of present day northern edge (yamal) ……
As long as I continue to see high resolution proxies showing warmer mwp, ….
As long as I continue to see ex post screening of proxies, law dome, oroko, mt read, non updated yamal, etc, ….
I will continue to question whether the multitude of HS replicating each other really provide any meaningful insight to the prior temps.
Joe,
AGW rests on the right side of the figure that the Auditor elided.
He himself reminds his readers that nothing in his work establishes that the MWP was higher than today, and he’s being coy about the fact that a higher MWP would imply a bigger climate sensitivity.
I started at the Auditor’s. You will lose that one.
AGW rests on speculation about aerosols that are unmeasured. Without aerosol speculation (now clouds) UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs blow up. Prove me wrong.
God exists, Dave.
Prove me wrong.
Dave Fair wrote: AGW rests on speculation about aerosols that are unmeasured. Without aerosol speculation (now clouds)….
Figure 2.10 in the AR6 WG1 shows the evolution of the effective radiative forcing of tropospheric aerosols, currently about -1/2 that of CO2’s.
Not speculation – see sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.5.
joe – the non climate scientist wrote: I will continue to question whether the multitude of HS replicating each other really provide any meaningful insight to the prior temps.
Again, the hockey stick is required by basic physics:
1) temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)
2) CO2 forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)
3) Atmo CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.
So if CO2 isn’t changing, there is no temperature change — the flat handle of the hockey stick.
If CO2 is increasing exponentially, as it has been over the industrial era, its forcing is changing linearly and hence so is the temperature – which is the blade of the hockey stick.
There’s your hockey stick. Trivial.
Jean-Paul Sartre demonstrated that being and nothingness cannot coexist – therefore the universe is infinite. Phillip Adams showed that in an infinite universe the chance of anything happening – however improbable – approaches unity. Ergo God exists.
‘Last let us make a HUGE qualitative leap and cross from finite dimensional X’s (aka Hamiltonian mechanics) to infinite dimensional X’s (aka field theories). From the mathematical side not much changes – the formulation of the measurable set theory doesn’t prescribe any particular X’s, µ’s and T’s. But physically everything changes – our points become functions, the measures base on square integrable fields and trajectories can no longer be geometrically visualised. Navier Stokes and by extension weather and climate belong to this category.’ https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/15/ergodicity/
In a physical system anything is not possible. The physical components restrict the system to a finite part of the phase space in the infinite dimensions of a flow field coupled at every point. It means that the dynamical limits of future uncertainty and change – that may indeed be abrupt and extreme – is the partial state space mapped out in past climate states. Physics demands it and it is not a hockey stick – the latter being politically motivated and not science. But contrary to Tomas the system can be visualized as fractal patterns from planetary waves to micro-eddies all the way down to viscosity – as the Navier-Stokes equation says.
The problem with pissant progressives is that they never had much capacity or curiosity, find the self in a group identity, play with words and not ideas and pine for the security of a technocracy. Poor wee willie takes it a step further with complete ignorance of math and science and faith in an AI economic overlord. We all have our gods and demons.
Robert I Ellison wrote: poor wee willie takes it a step further with complete ignorance of math and science and faith in an AI economic overlord
Still waiting for your calculation of the Hurst exponent of HadCRUT5.
You prattle on about math concepts you don’t understand and can’t begin to calculate with, and cite the same couple of papers you happened upon over and over. Always with an endless stream of wisecracks and insults to deflect from your ignorance of anything practical about the subject.
Surface temperature series follow energy budget modulation by clouds, ice, dust vegetation etc. With the thermal inertia of oceans the warming and cooling at the surface changes relatively slowly. So rather than looking for Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as done for hydroclimatic series one would look for change points in the temperature trajectory. These are around 1912, 1944 and 1976 if not 1998. They reflect changing states in the Pacific Ocean that are spatiotemporally chaotic. Your demand makes no sense at all.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_300.png
Rune, you following here? Two more posts on Hockey Stick by McIntyre on his blog. I see you posted there, as did Willard. So far no one at all has said a word of disagreement about his results.
I’m used to this, but I’m asking honestly. What should anyone conclude?
That you’re dogwhistling, MikeR.
Since people here scoffed at McIntyre’s creds, I checked out his wikipedia page. I am having some fun there adding the simple sentence that “he was an expert reviewer for IPCC AR4”, seemingly as obvious a fact as anyone can imagine, and which is acknowledged in AR4 itself.
So far I’ve been reverted several times, by three different people. They each give reasons for some problem in some peripheral issue – but each time they disappear the entire sentence.
Short-lived fun, of course. They reverted me five times within minutes of each posting, and have now threatened me with suspension for “edit warring”. Because there are three of them, and only one of me.
Pingback: Don’t Be Afraid: The UN’s Climate Report Is A Politicized Debacle – Menopausal Mother Nature
The need for the TCRE is the uncertainty in the ECS
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/10/the-climate-sensitivity-issue/
I still have not received a satisfactory answer to a question I raised a year ago. What is the optimal temperature (for the ‘Earth System’) that we should aim for? It seems a lot of folks truly believe that they have the knobs that can change settings. So, what should we set it to?
Climate isn’t predictable let alone controllable. On the other hand we can deploy cheap and abundant energy sources – fossil fuel or not – and use atmospheric CO2 as a resource to restore soils and ecosystems for food security and biodiversity conservation.
Chebyshev: The optimal temperature (climate, really) is the one a species has adapted to.
All Earthly species have adapted to fantastic ranges of “climate.” And minor calamitic changes will have no significant impact on the diverse lifeforms. Life is not fragile.
Dave Fair wrote: All Earthly species have adapted to fantastic ranges of “climate.”
What’s your evidence for that claim?
Evidence? The fantastic ranges of climate on planet Earth and the obvious life inhabiting those various climates. David, you are an obnoxious Trolling Device.
Chapter 4- page 16: ” The high-end scenarios RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 have recently been argued to be implausible to unfold (e.g., (Hausfather and Peters, 2020); see Chapter 3 of the AR6 WGIII). However, where relevant we show results for SSP5-8.5, for example to enable backwards compatibility with AR5, for comparison between emission-driven and concentration-driven simulations, and because there is greater data availability of daily output for SSP5-8.5”
So, finally, the scariest, implausible scenario RCP8.5 is no longer regarded as a useful projection for policies? Then, why is it still mentioned over 700 times in the report if it had nothing to do with reality?
Jan
“Then, why is it still mentioned over 700 times in the report if it had nothing to do with reality?“
So that scary headlines across the globe can traumatize the next generation who are too young and gullible to know when they are being hosed. I’ve noted above that they have acknowledged the impact of geothermal activity on glaciers and thus sea level rise (albeit insignificant) in Iceland, and yet they have made no mention of the dozens of studies finding an influence on basal glacier dynamics under the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets. The biggest scare tactic for decades has been the possibility that those Ice Sheets will contribute meters of sea level rise and drown coastal communities.
The same goes for studies on the possible impact from solar. In spite of hundreds of peer reviewed papers finding some association between solar and climate those authors are persona non grata. They can’t all be cranks or being paid under the table by big oil.
Marketing 101, control the message.
Following are four letters to the Editor in today’s ‘The Australian’ newspaper:
Net-zero for West undone by developing nations
“Once again Graham Lloyd injects some reality into the scenario posited by the climate change alarmists (“Setting fire to the politics of global warming”, 11/8). While developing countries expand their use of fossil fuels, no amount of ritual economic suicide in the West will make a jot of difference.
It is sobering to note the irony of Lloyd’s observation that the developed world now outsources industrial production of wind and solar technology to China, much of which actually creates the poisons of real pollution, as we used to understand the term.
What price China’s Paris commitment for action beyond 2030, while the West imposes hardships on its own economy and people to pursue a fantasy of 2050 net-zero global emissions?”
John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic
“Graham Lloyd asks if the latest IPCC report is a scientific document or a political one. He kindly considers it to be a bit of both. However, the political reaction of the UN and certain Western leaders has been almost hysterical, following on from the alarmist tone of the report.
The report has based its conclusions on the quite modest, historically speaking, increases in temperature and sea levels since the arbitrarily chosen comparison period – the pre-industrial 1850 to 1900. The statistical outcomes would have been much less alarmist had the comparison period been, say, 1000 years ago, a much warmer period than now.
It is a great shame that the warmer periods of human existence when agricultural production and general prosperity increased are being portrayed as something terrifying for the young and poorly informed.”
Dennis Backshall, Golden Bch, Qld
“Graham Lloyd has put his finger on the problem. Science has suffered at the hands of politics. It is interesting that as the Earth fails to live up to the extravagant predictions of the past, the strident warnings have focused on smaller and smaller temperature increases. I still have a chart from the Australian Academy of Science predicting rises of tens of degrees. This is out of the question.
Couple this with Bjorn Lomborg’s piece on June 15 that pointed out that a couple of degrees of temperature increase would be greatly beneficial to humanity as a whole and the alarm takes on a different perspective.”
John Billingsley, Toowoomba, Qld
“Graham Lloyd is to be commended for his sober and measured treatment of the latest IPCC report. He did not dwell on the negatives. He responsibly made no mention of the IPCC’s less then happy record of climate predictions and modelling, or of the examples of dodgy special pleading presented as “peer-reviewed” science – pages ripped from green/left magazines, that sort of thing. The IPCC is in the enviable position that the production of a new report has the effect of washing away all its past sins. A bit like a dip in the River Jordan, I suppose.”
Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld
Peter, thanks for posting these letters.
It’s too bad such slaps at the face of democracies haven’t carried more weight; but the dogmatic political machine is entrenched, along with deep pocketed allies. Money makes the world go around one way, or other; we’ve quickly evolved to the “or” for the western economic model. It’s not unimaginable that the slate of current policy proposals lead to the short lived contemporary Venezuelan economic model, if the momentum continues. We can only hope these slaps wake enough up sooner, rather than later.
The people behind implementing this change will continue to march on, unflinching. Fascist methodology requires a strong unflinching collective of elites to control and maintain public thought—controlling the media and education, aka the narrative, is paramount to success as history has demonstrated; after which facilitating methodical policies to centralize command and budding control. All this is fundamental to Fascist collectivist ideology.
China will continue to be coddled, though behind a veneer of scolding, and punitive, yet half-hearted sanctions; simple measures to maintain appearances for what is expected in a democracy. The rank and file will never understand how their freedoms became compromised in the end; executed policies made so much sense in the beginning, back when citizenry were doing very well economically.
“Again, I am at a loss as to how a Catholic can come out in defiance of the Church’s clear teaching on the subject and still identify as a Catholic, but that is not for me to judge.
I wonder if parish priests and bishops still call parishioners, who are publicly in error, in for a chat and, perhaps, a little spiritual direction. We can only hope that this still happens.
Frank Pulsford
Aspley, Qld”
https://catholicleader.com.au/opinion/letters/unexpected-attacks/
Horst Kasner was a small cog in a much bigger apparatus helping the nature of your anecdote along.
Please don’t turn this into the Denial of Peter’s anecdata, Trunks.
I please ask you in return, Willard.
Unfortunately it’s you who demonstrates denial here; it’s a fact that China undo’s all efforts for absolute atmospheric CO2 reduction. This should be of particular concern for the religious, ideologically driven net zero crowd.
Looking at the metrics of world CO2 contributions shows that without China’s spike, most notably post 2000 (to now representing 27% of the “global” human contribution of CO2), that peak CO2 would have already been achieved otherwise.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
jungletrunks wrote:
it’s a fact that China undo’s all efforts for absolute atmospheric CO2 reduction
China emits a lot of CO2 because it has a large population — they’re a much older country. Their population emits less per capita than do Americans or Australians.
Are you saying an individual American citizen has the right to emit more CO2 than an individual Chinese citizen?
—
PS: America has, in total, emitted twice as much CO2 as has China.
I believe an individual American, Chinese, Jamaican & etc. citizen has the right to emit as much CO2 as they individually choose. History has shown CO2 is not the climate control knob.
Everyone can see that your switching from Peter’s vox populi to “but China,” Trunks.
Do you know the Two Generals Problem?
The court already dismissed Freedom vs China Hug case along with a contempt of court warning directed at the local DA.
To Willard: A classic example of the two generals problem is climate data translation between IPCC messengers, and the media. This is demonstrable by legions of Greta foot soldiers, and a few die-hard hippies sprinkled in the mix. Algorithms are pointless, the worlds denizens have been given marching orders, net zero or the earth ends. A few flanking members know that to mean we have 10 years left to get our act together.
And now from “But China” you’re into “But the Press,” Trunks.
Impressive.
What is less so is how you can distort the Two General Problems to operate your switcheroo.
Here’s how the Two Generals Problem counters your “But China”:
If we wait for China to act, China might do the same, in which case we all lose.
Simple, isn’t it?
@David Appell “America has, in total, emitted twice as much CO2 as has China.” This seems like an example of the Sunk Cost fallacy. Right now, China is the major emitter and by their own words will continue to be more and more.
Sure, Will.
What’s simple is that China doesn’t give a twit about the 2 generals game, this analogy is in your imagination, there aren’t 2 generals on the same side planning a campaign. China does whatever it wants without regard to either you, or the rest of the worlds collective planning sensibilities.
Speaking of games, don’t you have a bingo hall to carnival bark at?
MikeR wrote: “America has, in total, emitted twice as much CO2 as has China.” This seems like an example of the Sunk Cost fallacy.
China and India think America got wealthy by burning fossil fuels, and they demand the same opportunity. America should eliminate its emissions first and take its CO2 out of the atmosphere. They think Americans should reduce their high per capita emissions before telling anyone else how to live.
Right now, China is the major emitter and by their own words will continue to be more and more.
Actually the wealthiest 10% of the world emit 50% of the CO2, and the richest 20% emit 70% of it. They’re the problem, not any particular country.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam
> What’s simple is that China doesn’t give a twit about the 2 generals game
Sure, Jan:
https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy
I’ll add your false claim to my “But China.”
jungletrunks wrote: China does whatever it wants without regard to either you, or the rest of the worlds collective planning sensibilities.
Like the US doesn’t often do the same. Every Republican president has left world planning commitments. George W. Bush said the U.S. would not implement the Kyoto Protocol. Trump left the Paris Agreement.
China see that and naturally wonders why can’t they do the same.
Here you are once more, David:
https://c.tenor.com/qSZj81IgWy8AAAAC/haha-ha.gif
Yes, Will, exploitation metrics, I’ll let you believe that’s impressive. It’s a clever win win for China, have your cake and eat it too, using export capitalism to do it. They export low tech renewable wind and solar panel tech, produced via cheap labor.
But why don’t they instead utilize all that production themselves to get off coal? They’re too smart for that. I give them credit. The brown outs in China would be, uh, legion.
Speaking of having one’s cookies and eating them:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/egnxzj/the_immigrants_are_coming_for_your_jobs/
That’s how Muricans are looking when they keep whining about China, Trunks.
To access the Bingo, cf.
https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo
@David Appell “They think Americans should reduce their high per capita emissions before telling anyone else how to live.” You’re reading their minds? Sounds absolutely delusional.
Here, I’ll read their minds differently: “Americans should acknowledge our right to release CO2 until we reach their level of standard of living, and keep it for as long as they did.”
The difference is that mine is closer to what they actually plan to do. And who can blame them?
Dave Fair wrote: History has shown CO2 is not the climate control knob.
Hmm. I wonder what you know that these guys don’t:
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
Well, since CO2 didn’t drive temperatures in the past (especially 1910-1945) and demonstrably hasn’t driven them since 1997, when did it drive them? UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs are wildly divergent on the effects of CO2 and admittedly run hot. Who to believe? The AR6 with its hockey stick right up front in the SPM (but nowhere else)? No long term trends in nasty weather events? What does anyone expect from the multi-thousand person COP26 gab fest? The whole clown show if falling apart while we watch.
“If we wait for China to act, China might do the same, in which case we all lose.”
That’s not the dilemma in our actual two-generals situation.
The problem would be better described as “two generals in opposing armies are fighting to the death in a winner-take-all contest. Can one melt down all their weapons and turn them into plowshares and then expect the other to do so?”
The politicians dilemma is worse. Climate crusaders say year 2000 levels of global emissions will fry the planet. Because the climate crusaders intentionally encouraged rapid emissions growth in China, India and Brazil, the best you can get with “zero emissions” in the west is… year 2000 levels of emissions. We fry unhappy or we fry happy.
Here, JeffN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem
Funny how you distance yourself from all these crusaders when you present the problem as one of domination.
I know what the two generals problem is Willard. That’s why I know it doesn’t apply. The Two Generals problem is communication between allies.
China and the West are economic competitors. Write that down.
Then ponder the other problem you have.
“If we wait for China….”
Why do we have to ‘wait for China”?
The climate crusaders have been telling us for two decades that renewables are cost competitive with coal, completely reliable and, in the words of Al Gore 20 years ago; “all we lack is the political will.”
Obviously, if any of that is true, it is in China’s best interest to be acting now, and to have been doing so for many years. In fact, per the crusaders, it would give them an economic leg up- the wind is free, you know.
Or to rephrase Willard’s thesis- obviously the children of China cannot be expected to eat yummy ice cream until the United States raises taxes. If we wait for the kids to dig into their cones, China might inexplicably deny themselves ice cream for no reason, and we all lose!
JeffN,
Here are a bunch of statistics on the commercial balance between China and the US of A:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
The world isn’t like it was when you were young.
***
However you slice it, solving the AGW problem involves communication between the parties. It does not matter much if they are competitors, collaborators, or a bit of both. There are many flavors, and some powerful extension to parallel computing:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/byzantine-generals-problem/
Quit projecting your toxic warrior mindset, and all should be well.
“It does not matter much if they are competitors, collaborators, or a bit of both.”
If your policy is.. “you increase your costs and limit your production first, then maybe I will” then it obviously matters.
McDonalds and Burger King talk all the time. it would be nuts to write a “policy” that says only one of them must stop selling hamburgers now based on the non-binding assumption that the other will, probably, stop selling them in a decade or two.
That “policy” will fail precisely because it isn’t collaboration or even “communication between parties,” it’s one-sided nonsense.
Speaking of “toxic,” how’s it going with your strategy? Rio was in 1992, you’re coming up on 30 years of trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You know what they say about that?
> If your policy is
Whatever policy you may fancy, Jeff, if (1) you need to communicate because (2) it requires coordinated action, the Two Generals problem applies. Think of nuclear disarmament.
As for my strategy, thanks for asking:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/majority-germans-believe-scientists-climate-change-warnings-are-correct
lgl | August 12, 2021 at 3:54 am |
”How much of the warming after 1975 is explained by PDO and AMO then?”
–
Unimportant for two reasons.
–
The first is that the oscillations themselves are caused by factors that are not understood properly yet. They do not cause heating or cooling, they are just part of the furniture reacting to the real causes [albedo, clouds, CO2 and solar output]
–
The second is that they are only part of the many putative causes put up.
If Rune was right people would pay more attention to PDO and AMO.
But what’s the optimal oscillation, Doc?
someone who’s Just Asking Questions, not answering them.
–
“But what’s the optimal oscillation?”
–
XKCD’s answer to the meaning of a universe of strings. “I dunno”
comes to mind but is too glib.
His comic picture of the orator and audience with a member of the audience holding a placard , “citation needed”
sums up our dilemma, Willard.
Would you care to advise whether you mean in string theory, galaxies, quantum or guitars?
Jelly perhaps?
or even one of the ocean/atmospheric systems in particular?
Contemplative, standing in the supermarkets produce centre, I await your reply.
apologies to Randall Munroe My hobby , no 8 in best of.
XKCD, Willard
But what’s the optimal XKCD cartoon, Doc?
Angech, I am fully aware that PDO, ENSO and AMO are not heat sources per se, but only redistribute heat in time and space. I do not “believe” so much in AMO anymore, I think what is happening in the Pacific is the dominant contributor. And these phenomena are important for the decadal fluctuations we can see all the way back to 1850. The reason why I highlighted these oscillations was that in my view, they were a contributing factor to the warming we had from approx. 1920 to 1940, this in addition to the anthropogenic climate drivers also began to have effect.
Not a source of heat and only redistributing is rather vague. Does it change the energy balance or doesn’t it would be the appropriate question to ask.
Why ocean heat transport warms the global mean climate.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2005.00121.x
Stevenreincarnated; You may think that my post is not precise when it comes to;
“Not a source of heat and only redistributing is rather vague.”
I do not think it’s vague at all. If you read my posts in context, You should understand that I am talking about the primary energy source and its significance.
More heat towards the northern parts of the globe will lead to more evaporation with the consequences it entails for the atmosphere’s ability to capture more heat. You could also mention that without the ocean currents, Oslo would be about as close to a massive ice mass as the southern tip of Grenland, they are about the same latitude. An Ice covered Scandinavia would have great significance for albedo and global temperature, which is also a feedback.
I’m not a climate scientist, but I try to learn the difference between the primary energy source and all the feedback that occurs when one changes one or five of the basic parameters.
.
CO2 isn’t an energy source either so I fail to see your point. Something either affects the energy budget or it doesn’t.
Rune Valaker
” I am fully aware that PDO, ENSO and AMO are not heat sources per se, but only redistribute heat in time and space.”
Good, one of the few.
–
I understand people linking temperature changes to events but other than dating them correlation is not causation, as you say.
It would be best not to link them as a possible causation.
Angech, if you redistribute the energy in the ocean do you believe you don’t change weather patterns and thus albedo? What are the odds of that?
angech
It’s important because the sensitivity to ghg-forcing is reduced.
The cloud effect feedback over the Pacific is confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Reduced (increased) albedo over a warmer (cooler) ocean surface allows more (less) shortwave in warming (cooling) the planet. Sea surface temperature variability is caused by deep water upwelling on the eastern margin. This varies with evolving patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation over years to millennia at least.
The obvious corollary – explored by Amy Clement and colleagues more that a decade ago – is that this is a mechanism for positive cloud feedback to AGW.
RIE,
Please go to bomwatch blog to see the research by Rick Willoughby. Yes, there is substantial interaction between cloud, rain, convection, sea surface temperatures, with magnitude more than enough to show in global temperature guesstimates. Cloud effects can be bigger even than GHG effects.
Why not remove your word “positive” from your last sentence and gain credibility? Geoff S
There is data in the relevant region of the Earth both from surface and satellite observations. Nothing in your empty rhetoric can possibly counter that.
Its fascinating that CliSciFi can take a short-term late 20th Century warming and extrapolate doom. That “scientists” can observe Mannian misconduct without comment and, additionally, believe the outputs of UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs that clearly run hot and do not represent observations (especially the hot spot) is beyond understanding.
Absurdly irrelevant contrarian memes repeated just for the hell of it?
Prove me wrong.
Dave Fair commented:
Its fascinating that CliSciFi can take a short-term late 20th Century warming and extrapolate doom. That “scientists” can observe Mannian misconduct without comment and, additionally, believe the outputs of UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs that clearly run hot and do not represent observations (especially the hot spot) is beyond understanding.
Three sentences, at least seven errors. Impressive.
List the errors and document their errors.
Dave Fair wrote: List the errors and document their errors.
It’s not a comment serious enough to be worth my time.
Then go do something more productive.
The past 45 years of global warming were good news:
(1) The greening of our planet, and
(2) Moderate warming that mainly affected colder, higher latitude areas, during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night
(e.g.; Warmer winter nights in Siberia)
There is no logical reason to claim the next 45 years of global warming will be bad news — completely different than the past 45 years of global warming.
No one on this planet has any idea what the climate will be like in 100 years.
Predictions of that climate are climate astrology, not climate science.
Not one prediction of environmental doom made since the 1960’s has been correct. All climate predictions should be ignored.
Real environmental / climate / energy-related problems include:
— Air pollution over many Asian cities,
— Chinese solar panels made with slave labor, and
— About one billion humans living in poverty with no electricity.
The leftist “CO2 is Evil” believers could not care less about solving those three real problems. They do, however, want to spend HUGE amounts of money on themselves, to replace a reliable electric grid, powered mainly by fossil fuels, with an unreliable electric grid, powered mainly by sun and wind. Reliability is the most important attribute of an electric grid.
But wind is the least reliable source of energy.
Branden O’Neill gives the most common sense view on climate change, the reasons behind it and what should be done, more than anyone else that I’ve heard:
The high economic growth scenario of Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5 could – if powered by fossil fuels – see an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the order of 1000 ppm by the end of the century. This would be an immense change to the system in short order with unpredictable consequences. The scenario is laudable in itself but it needs to be powered by advanced nuclear technologies. And that geoengineering efforts in conserving and restoring soils and ecosystems be ramped up.
‘This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rad growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.’ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681
Robert Ellison wrote: The scenario is laudable in itself but it needs to be powered by advanced nuclear technologies. And that geoengineering efforts in conserving and restoring soils and ecosystems be ramped up.
Surely you don’t mean a 1000 ppm SRM-geoengineered scenario would be “laudable.” That would be bonkers mad stupid beyond belief, for a whole host of reasons.
Such a ridiculous interpretation is what’s bonkers.
Robert Ellison wrote: Such a ridiculous interpretation is what’s bonkers.
I doubt you’ve thought this out. It would be, as Ray Pierrehumbert calls geoengineering, barking mad.
1000 ppm CO2 would be about 4 times the preindustrial level, so two doublings. If CO2 climate sensitivity is 3 C, that’s 6 C of warming.
The 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption cooled the globe by 0.6 C for about 15 months. So SRM geoengineering might need to put up about 10 times as much aerosol sulfates into the stratosphere that Pinatubo did.
That eruption decreased global rainfall by about 10% for a year. Weakened monsoons. Who knows what 10x that amount of aerosols would do to rainfall. You certainly don’t.
Who knows what kind of acid rain we’d get. Effects on the ozone holes. Warming where the aerosols don’t reach. How would the solar dimming and acid rain affect agriculture?
We’d create a high CO2, low temperature world that has never existed in Earth’s history. No precedent. No idea what happens in such a climate, the feedbacks, the potential tipping points. Ocean acidification would still exist, and be much worse than foreseen today.
And we’d have to do SRM *forever*. You can’t stop, for war or plague or economic depression. If you stop the global temperature would shoot up 6 C in just a few decades, and then you’re REALLY in trouble because nothing can adapt to a delta-T of 6 C in just a couple of decades. Everything suffers greatly, if it doesn’t die completely.
So you have to geoengineer for a few millennia at least. Your great-great-great^N grandchildren will thank you, where N~a couple hundred. What a legacy, all because you’re too lazy and stupid to build and use clean energy, which is now cheaper than fossil fuels anyway.
Because the supposed “free market” says everyone should be able to pollute for free. Privatize profits, socialize costs.
Soil and ecosystem restoration involves sequestering the carbon content of potentially 157 ppm – according to soil scientist and 2020 world food prize winner Rattan Lal – of atmospheric CO2. This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, reclaiming deserts, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. In the decade of restoration that started this year – and with the French 4 per 1000 initiative that began in Paris in 2015 – these things are gaining momentum.
It is geoengineering but it is not solar radiation management (SRM) through sulfate dispersal. That would indeed be madness. Per usual – David has such a one track mind that it has derailed.
If planting trees is geoengineering, Chief, cooking is bioengineering.
Depends on the scale poor wee willie.
DA wrote “If CO2 climate sensitivity is 3 C, that’s 6 C of warming.”.
David, what is the value of climate sensitivity?
Is it positive or negative, zero or non-zero, less that some value, and does it reflect whether temperature affects CO2 levels, or the reverse, or both?
I am not seeking a list of authorities with opinions of values. I am seeking a single, credible value for a topic that seems to have eluded progress for several decades.
Yet, you quote 3 C as if you know it is a plausible value.
How is this not unscientific propaganda? Is is not better science to state that the value is not known? Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
DA wrote “If CO2 climate sensitivity is 3 C, that’s 6 C of warming.”
WOW, did you miss the point of my comment.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is usually given as 1.5-4.5 C. The mid-point of that is 3 C, so that’s what I assumed.
Then you are a Trolling Device of the authorities currently in power, David. Observational estimates of ECS are below 2 C/doubling.
Do you believe that current UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs reflect reality?
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Soil and ecosystem restoration involves sequestering the carbon content of potentially 157 ppm
Potentially. You’re down to 843 ppm. Now what?
Now what? Party on!
> Depends on the scale
Not really, Chief.
Depends on what you decide falls under techno-poptimist wordology:
https://youtu.be/XsboMhUE9Gw
Contrarians should pay more attention to this kind of “hot spot.”
Language is a social art.
“Language is a social art.” … To deceive.
Dave Fair wrote:Observational estimates of ECS are below 2 C/doubling.
What data say that?
FFS, David. You are being purposefully obtuse. It makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.
> to deceive
This, but unironically:
“my position is that reasonable people can disagree on whether a mile of ice over Ottawa would be a good thing or not (depending, I guess, on how many Trudeau cabinet ministers were entombed under ice). But I oppose a mile of ice over Toronto.”
Dave Fair, you claim that “observational estimates of ECS are below 2 C/doubling,” and when asked you can’t cite any evidence or data to support it.
In fact you seem to get annoyed to even be asked.
You never seem to be able to cite any evidence or data to support anything you say.
You’re just sound and fury, and you know what that signifies.
How about Lewis & Curry? Others. Look them up if you are curious. Apparently you are just a crank.
Yes Dave, you’re right, Lewis & Curry 2018 is one paper with an ECS < 2 C.
Though we have 1.2 C of warming and CO2 isn't even 50% above the baseline yet, so their ECS of 1.66 C looks like it's going to be easily passed. (Remember, ECS is the warming after equilibrium is reestablished, i.e. after all feedbacks have played out.)
And as you know people have pointed out some real problems with that paper. ATTP has a good rundown of those:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/lewis-and-curry-again/
Also see the first comment there.
Any other papers, Dave?
Since your persona is a Trolling Device (TD), David, I’m not going to waste my time looking up readily available data on declining ECS studies. Your TD will just deny them and simply kick up more obscuring dust.
UAH6 trend from 1997 is 0.14 C/decade. ARGO results in SST trends far below that implied in the UN IPCC CliSciFi mid-range estimate of 3 C.
And I’ll just let Robert I. Ellison destroy your TD.
Those don’t seem like unusual problems when estimating climate sensitivity. Assumptions are always made. I agree with ATTP that the internal variability is a problem.
Lund 2006 Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium
“We also estimate that Little Ice Age volume transport was ten percent weaker than today’s.”
Plug that in a model that is sensitive to ocean heat transport and you can explain all the modern warming without invoking anything from CO2. Their climate sensitivity estimate is probably way too high.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
Plug that in a model that is sensitive to ocean heat transport and you can explain all the modern warming without invoking anything from CO2.
What says that? Where does that heat come from?
And you can’t avoid CO2 warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Put more in the atmosphere and it causes warming. It just doesn’t equal zero because there is warming from some other source. Enhancing the greenhouse effect is basic physics.
CO2’s warming is inevitable.
Climate scientists say that. The energy comes from changes in albedo and in more modern model exercises changes in dynamic water vapor. You seriously don’t know this yet? I had hopes for you.
BTW David, I’m not saying CO2 doesn’t cause any warming. I’m just saying a good attribution is impossible. If you look at what CO2 does in model exercises it slows poleward ocean heat transport. That would be a negative feedback. It may not be doing nearly as much as suspected.
steve, climate scientists aren’t saying you can explain modern warming without CO2. They’re saying just the opposite.
CO2’s heat is going to go somewhere — almost all of it into the ocean. Water vapor doesn’t increase until the temperature first increases (by some other factor). Yes there’s concern, and now evidence, about the slowing of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic (which climate scientists have warned about for decades, btw) that might cause cooling in northern Europe. This is supposed to be a reason to relax concern about AGW and carbon emissions??
Increased ocean heat transports and warmer climate
Rind and Chandler
“We investigated the increase in ocean heat transports on climate in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation model (GCM). The increases used were sufficient to melt all sea ice at high latitudes, and amounted to 15% on the global average. The resulting global climate is 2C warmer, with temperature increases of some 20C at high latitudes, and 1C near the equator.”
A 10% increase in ocean heat transport could easily accomplish the warming we have experienced so far according to that model so yes, they are saying that regardless of if that is their intent.
David Appell | August 14, 2021 at 2:37 am |
“The US can be powered on wind (on- and off-shore), solar and hydro. People like Mark Jacobson of Stanford have already started preliminary plans to transition to 100% renewable energy.”
If Jacobson had any real expertise, the utilities would be paying hima 7 figure salary . that aint happening. People with real expertise in electric generation consider Jacobson a joke.
David Appell | August 14, 2021 at 2:37 am |
The US can be powered on wind (on- and off-shore), solar and hydro. People like Mark Jacobson of Stanford have already started preliminary plans to transition to 100% renewable energy.
Appell man – Electricity is an extremely perishable commodity. Did jacobson explain how the US was going to generate 100% of electricity from renewables for such times as when electric generation from wind and solar was off by 90+% from Feb 12, 2021 through Feb 19, 2021 across the entire North American Continent? Note that it was the entire North american continent, not just Texas/ERCOT
What about how electric generation from wind and solar was going to happen when the production dropped by 60%-70+%across most of the north american continent between June 28, 2021, and July 4th 2021 – that is 6 days.
How many batteries do you think the US will need? Pump storage – when the geography for 3/4 of the NA continent doesnt have the geography for pumped storage.
As I recall, Jacobson has been thoroughly discredited and has tried to sue his detractors and the case has been dismissed. He is pretty obviously a fraud.
dpy6629 | August 15, 2021 at 12:11 am |
“As I recall, Jacobson has been thoroughly discredited and has tried to sue his detractors and the case has been dismissed. He is pretty obviously a fraud.”
Jacobson is a joke / fraud or what ever similar term is appropriate.
1) Appell man has mentioned Jacobson multiple times, but never responds to my points, though appellman and other QGW zealots seem to worship Jacobson
2) Gotta wonder how those the believe renewables will work to power 100% of electric generation can have intellectual capacity to under the complexities of climate science when they lack a basic understanding of the physical limitations of renewables to power 100% of the US
Whoever talks about 100% renewables must also consider the 100% back-up needs and the corresponding electrical grid expansion. If contemplating on non-fossil fuel back-up by batteries for the US alone, there won’t be a fraction of Lithium type minerals available from all worldwide resources. Add to this the dreamy 100% electrical powered vehicles you will have to add another 130% such capacity. A back-of-the-enveope calculation suffices. Welcome to the yellow brick road.
in reply to Dietrich Hoecht
The renewable advocates seem to think that a 90+% drop in electric production from renewables is only a trivial hurdle. They dont seem to grasp that a 3-4 day occurrance is quite common. In Feb 2021, the 70%-90% drop lasted 9 days across the entire north american continent. Not just Texas.
Further they want to convert all heating to electricity – nearly doubling demand while at the same time risking 70%+ drop in production.
Skeptical Science is a big promoter of renewables, yet they fail to grasp any of the engineering hurdles
The high economic growth scenario of Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5 could – if powered by fossil fuels – see an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the order of 1000 ppm by the end of the century. This would be an immense change to the system in short order with unpredictable consequences. The scenario is laudable in itself but it needs to be powered by advanced nuclear technologies.
Is what I said. Economic growth pays for health, education and environmental development. But we should not confine ourselves to dwindling resources to power a high growth world with exponentially increasing energy demand.
As for poor wee willie – his expertise is limited to being a progressive smartass. I can’t compete with such dedication to frivolity. But we can transform continents with simple technologies.
https://thewaterproject.org/sand-dams
https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/types-ecosystem-restoration
https://www.4p1000.org/
Liberals are supposed to be progressive, Chief.
Haven’t you read your Hayek?
Hayek’s classic liberalism is not what he termed socialism.
How’s that AI economic overlord going poor wee willie?
Progressivism does not imply socialism, dummy.
Your AI economic overlord says otherwise poor wee willie. A computer to divine consumption and production is some sort of progress from 5 year plans I suppose.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Economic growth pays for health, education and environmental development. But we should not confine ourselves to dwindling resources to power a high growth world with exponentially increasing energy demand.
That hardly means you have to use fossil fuels, which destroy the environment. Or nuclear, which a lot of people don’t want and which is expensive anyway and has a substantial waste issue. You need *energy*, not a particular form of energy. Wind and solar are getting cheaper anyway, and as storage gets cheaper you have clean energy to power economies without all the externalities you seem to think are inevitable and must just be accepted for the sake of capitalism, freedom, dear mother and blondes in cheerleading outfits.
Yes – the world will continue to use clean technology for fossil fuels until there is an economic and technically feasible alternative. That isn’t wind and solar no matter how cheap they are at the fringes. Not enough land area – or indeed materials – at the limited energy density.
“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.
Factory made, dropped into a bunker or a mine, run uninterrupted for 20 or 30 years using leftover ‘nuclear waste’ – of which there is enough for hundreds of years of energy supply. And then recycle the fuel core to burn more of the energy in fissionable material. Producing far more power from the same ore with with far less waste and far shorter lived – 300 as opposed to 30,000 years – fission products. Replacing aluminium fuel cladding with silicon-carbide. Melting aluminium in superheated steam produces hydrogen which then explodes. In the history of bad ideas – this one gave us Chernobyl and Fukushima. General Atomics is supplying silicon-carbide coated fuel piles in different control rod shapes. 21st century materials and fuel pile design are critical to small modular reactors – quite literally. These can’t melt down and explode whatever happens. The nuclear pile can not get hot enough – physics says – to melt silicon-carbide fuel cladding.
Why don’t you try thinking and reading a little bit out of your smug and superior groupthink comfort zone. As far as I am concerned you are part of the problem.
The US can be powered on wind (on- and off-shore), solar and hydro. People like Mark Jacobson of Stanford have already started preliminary plans to transition to 100% renewable energy
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html
You’re determined to put filthy fuels in place no matter what — I think you think it develops character, like eating ball bearings for breakfast and sleeping on plywood at night. We need a price on carbon, domestically and on imports (which will quickly be matched by all other countries) that will speed the transition to clean fuels and clean vehicles. We need to get carbon emissions down to zero and stop global warming before the escalating problems around us (which we all now see happening every day; some of us live in them) get worse and worse.
First thing is to stop the privatizing of profits and the socializing of costs. What’s happening to Shell Oil is a good start.
Then you have to factor in process heat, transport and the residential and commercial sectors. Do you have any idea of what that means in real numbers? Or of the global growth in energy demand that will require a 350% increase in supply this century? Largely fossil fueled in the developing world until something better comes along. Wind, solar and batteries are not close to meeting energy needs in an abundance that will continue to lift people out of hunger and poverty this century. Energy is literally life – it is worth a great deal more than the externalities you natter on about. It depends on how we see the world. I see a world evolving in great promise. You embody a dangerous and immoral ideology of scarcity and social control – even if you deny it.
Nuclear engines are being developed by all the major global players – from Westinghouse to Rolls Royce and others not so well known. Rolled out of factories they can be deployed in sufficient numbers to meet current and future energy demand. With abundant and low cost energy – anything is technically possible.
“Urgent action is needed on climate change which is why we have accelerated our efforts to become a net-zero emissions energy company by 2050, in step with society, with short-term targets to track our progress,” a Shell spokesperson said. “We are investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels. We want to grow demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even more quickly. We will continue to focus on these efforts and fully expect to appeal today’s disappointing court decision.”
Opposed to that innovation is your legalism and taxes. Getting the developing world to fall into line with your taxes is yet another story.
Robert Ellison wrote: Largely fossil fueled in the developing world until something better comes along.
Very doubtful that Africa is going to see the construction of large power plants and the stringing of power lines all over the continent. They just don’t have the transportation infrastructure for it. As how they bypassed traditional POTS, telephone pole telephony for cellular service, it’s far more likely the poor of the continent will be powered by local or rooftop solar or wind. Far, far easier to install, connect to, and augment.
And can be done *now*, while your power plants are, what, 20-50 years in their future? That will pollute their skies and water, damage their health and kill some, further harm their climate, impair their ecosystems.
David, you have made a fundamental error in engaging Robert I. Ellison in debate. He knows considerably more than you and will spend the time to destroy your superficial arguments. Back off before you truly get burned.
Africa does have urban areas, power plants and lots of coal and gas resources. Coal plants don’t necessarily pollute.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/hele.png
I am technology agnostic – I have no problem with wind and solar per se. They simply cannot power a high energy planet.
https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/our-high-energy-planet
Told you Trolling Device (TD) persona, David Appell, that you picked the wrong person (Robert I. Ellison) to engage in argumentation. Your TD doesn’t have the intellectual horsepower to compete.
Are you applying for the jester job, Dave?
Assuming you meant “Dave Fair,” Willard, please tell me what is risible about anything I have posted on this Tread.
Willard, random comments in response to random posts is a symptom of Trolling Device behaviors.
Dave,
Sealioning me won’t work.
You’re poisoning your own well. This is silly.
Please, do continue. Become the new Springer. See if I care.
Who is this “Dave?” What is “sealioning?” What does “You’re poisoning your own well. This is silly.” reference? “See if I care.” … You seem to care about something. Your loss of communication focus should worry you.
Dave,
You’re Dave. David is David. Chief is Chief.
Would you prefer Charlie or Daddy?
If you need to play dumb a bit more, please don’t hesitate.
In a response to Robert I. Ellison you are being cute, Willard. It would be appropriate in polite society to clearly identify those you are denigrating. But, being the POS you are, that is clearly asking too much.
David
Your 10.01 post.
The link you provided to Stanford was seven years old. The professor you mention has got a new book just out
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
I don’t think his project has got very far yet.
Lomborg in his well referenced book fakse aarm explained why Africans were unenthused by solar in as much they wanted 24/7 power like everyone else to power their homes, fridges, freezers etc and to power industries.
Tonyb
Dave,
A polite society would indeed be a good idea.
Lead by example.
Show Denizens that you deserve to be Judy’s Sheriff!
The projections of Sahel rainfall are contradictory to the IPCC circulation models, which predict increasingly positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions with rising CO2 forcing. Which would drive a colder AMO and reduce Sahel rainfall. It is also very poor advice as the AMO will shift to its cold phase from the mid 2030’s anyway.
https://snipboard.io/UR3ldt.jpg
It’s all an illusion.
Everything that we need to know about, like heatwaves and cold waves, and large scale changes like the 1976-77 climate shift, and the rapid AMO and Arctic warming from 1995, and inter-annual cold blobs and warm blobs, are all responding to changes in the solar wind strength.Via the Northern Annular Mode variability.
The mean global surface temperature and CO2 levels are essentially irrelevant regarding weather extremes and ocean phases.
To claim that global warming is increasing the frequency of heatwaves which could not even occur without their discrete solar forcing, is akin to claiming the Moon is made of cheese. The heat waves, and the cold waves, are driving the largest noise in the climate change signal.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/
“..are all responding to changes in the solar wind strength.” – Ulric
The mainstream scientists have fully explored this avenue of investigation and have come to the conclusion that changes in the solar wind strength are too small to be a major driver of climate change.
Alan, there’s no doubt where you pulled that from, it stinks. This is a science blog, not facebook.
Ulric – can you give a link to a scientific paper or article which suggests that changes in solar wind strength *is* significant enough to be a major driver of climate change??
Alan, yes I can. But the issue now is your invented assertion that “mainstream scientists have fully explored this avenue of investigation”, lets see you rescind that inversion of the truth first.
Btw I *do* think the sun is responsible for climate change but via new physics gravitational forcing.
Carbonbrief is a highly respected source:
….
This has led some to suggest that changes in solar activity could influence the Earth’s climate by changing cloud formation.
However, the GCR hypothesis suffers from the same fundamental problem as total solar irradiance: it is moving in the wrong direction. Since 1960, the amount of GCRs reaching the Earth has increased, as shown in the figure below. If GCRs were a major influence on climate, this would result in cooling, not warming, over the past 50 years.
….
https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change
Low cloud cover responds to sea surface temperatures not GCR’s. Low cloud cover has declined since 1995 with the warming of the AMO, which is due to weaker solar wind states since then.
Ulric – where is the link that supports your hypothesis???
Re heatwaves in inhabited Australia:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/hw6capsjuly2021.docx
Geoff S
David Appell is thread bombing, as usual. He’s posted 22% of the comments on this thread so far.
Either he is paid for that amount of work or he is obsessed with his own worldview.
David Appell is unique.
Not just because he riles a lot of people up with his opinions.
If he has 22% of the comments possibly 70% of the other comments are explanations of where he may be wrong.
This leads to better understanding on everyone’s part.
It is much better to be correcting his misinformation that living in an echo chamber.
That is partly why Willard comes over here as well.
I would rather have them here than not.
You can learn a lot from listening to others and thinking about it.
Angech
That is an insightful comment.
Griff over at WUWT performs much the same function as David here, although David is much better informed and will at least reply to those that comment.
Willard has always been interesting but I do detect a somewhat more strident and combative note than in the past in his recent replies.
There are certainly a number of enmities playing themselves out here. Ah well at least it gets people up in the morning, although the focus on what someone said and what he didn’t say or inferred does mean that threads often drift off track and the original article becomes sidelined.
Its not worth writing an article that can take weeks of research if those responding then start throwing buns at each other and discuss things the article wasn’t even about.
tonyb
“I would rather have them here than not.
You can learn a lot from listening to others and thinking about it.”
I completely agree with this. This is the role of “Devil’s Advocate” – but it can be really valuable in focussing your thoughts, being precise with language, and being sure of what you are saying.
That was a very good comment IMO.
> Its not worth writing an article that can take weeks of research if those responding then start throwing buns at each other and discuss things the article wasn’t even about.
I disagree, Tony.
Consider the number of people who subscribed to Judy’s. It should be obvious that her readership don’t read the comments. Nobody should:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/done28099t-read-the-comments-why-do-we-read-the-online-comments-when-we-know-theye28099ll-be-bad/
I still do, but then it’s part of my vocation.
I just saw this comment on Jennifer Marohasy’s latest post – “Fussing Over One Degree of Simulation” https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/08/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/ :
“SCIENCE now seems to stand for: Silly Clots Investigating Every Nonsensical Claim Everywhere.”
Peter
Excellent piece. I liked this particularly because it brings up an issue that has been discussed off and on for many years…adjustments.
“Specifically, the linear trend (°C per century) for Australian temperatures had been 1 °C per century as published in 2012 in the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network − Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) database version 1. Then, just in time for inclusion in this new IPCC report released on Tuesday, all the daily values from each of the 112 weather stations were remodelled and the rate of warming increased to 1.23 °C per century in ACORN-SAT version 2 that was published in 2018.”
What would we do without adjustments? The greatest ally for creating fiction.
CKid,
To see the effects of “adjustments” by BOM, please open the waclimate blog owned by Chris Gillham. There are several detailed, non-ideology studies there that give actual side-by-side comparisons with the original temperatures (as recorded back in history) and those adjusted by IPCC author Blair Trewin from BOM. Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
To see the effects of “adjustments” by BOM, please open the waclimate blog owned by Chris Gillham.
“Turns out that global temperature adjustments actually reduce the long-term warming trend, mostly due to oceans.”
– Zeke Hausfather, BEST analyst, 2/9/15, https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/564921572096348160
Wow. You couldn’t get someone more qualified to denounce the IPCC modelling as near-fraudulent::
….
I am from northern Australia, I was born in Darwin, so I take a particular interest in its temperature series. I was born there on 26th August 1963. A maximum temperature of 29.6 °C was recorded at the Darwin airport on that day from a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen, which was an official recording station using standard equipment. This is also the temperature value shown in ACORN-SAT version 1. This value was dropped down/cooled by 0.8 °C in the creation of ACORN-SAT version 2, by Blair Trewin in 2018. So, the temperature series incorporated into HadCRUT5, which is one of the global temperature datasets used in all the IPCC reports shows the contrived value of 28.8 °C for 26th August 1963, yet the day I born a value of 29.6 °C was entered into the meteorological observations book for Darwin. In my view, changing the numbers in this way is plain wrong, and certainly not scientific.
….
Note that Darwin is just 12.5° south of the equator in Northern Australia. There’s a connection with the reported sea surface temperatures of the tropics not experiencing as much warming as expected.
I suspect the numbers appear to have been ‘adjusted’ to account for “global warming” whilst in reality the Tropical regions of both land and ocean aren’t warming as much as models predict (if at all).
CKid commented: What would we do without adjustments?
Adjustments correct for biases. If you don’t understand them by now it’s because you find it convenient to maintain an ignorance.
David A,
Here is a little test to see how well you understand adjustments yourself.
Scenario: By various valid means, a temperature/time series is deemed to be in error and requiring adjustment. The date relevant to the change is established and agreed as valid.
The next step is to determine the magnitude of the adjustment to be made to the hgiostoric temperature.
Tell us David, the method that you understand for calculating the size of the adjustment, please. Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington:
Adjustments aren’t done to or based on time series, they’re done to individual station data or to individual satellite data.
These are the best explanations I’ve come across:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done,” Scott K. Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
“Understanding adjustments to temperature data,” Zeke Hausfather
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
“Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data,” Robert Rohde, Zeke Hausfather, Steve Mosher
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
“Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
Again, this shows that adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend:
See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Corrections”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends – bias corrections REDUCE the long-term global warming trend.
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
Excellent link. Earlier I sent the following letter to The Australian: A 1.5C temperature rise is not extreme in the history of the Earth, and there is no tipping point – we won’t go over a cliff at 1.6C. Anyone who claims this because of “the science” clearly has no understanding of science, and has some other agenda behind their claim. We should stay calm, recognise that anything Australia does will have at most a minimal impact on climate, that any further warming might prove net beneficial – cold is far more harmful to both animal and vegetable life – and resist hysterical claims to the contrary.
“We should stay calm, recognise that anything Australia does will have at most a minimal impact on climate, that any further warming might [almost certainly will] prove net beneficial – cold is far more harmful to both animal and vegetable life”
Dead right!!!
Jennifer Marohasy does a good job of explaining why the IPCC AR6 cannot be trusted. Read this post:
Fussing Over One Degree of Simulation
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/08/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/
“there should be something right-up-front in the latest assessment of climate change by the IPCC (AR6) explaining that the individual temperature series have been remodelled before inclusion in the global datasets to ensure a significant human influence on climate in accordance with IPCC policy. “
Interesting discussion. I’m just a poor country boy in this debate on models.
My specialty is understanding what real-world activities drive models and forecasts.
I’m tracking real-world industries like transportation, mining, manufacturing, energy production and transport, etc.
In the last IPCC go around I could find the hundreds of local papers and data sets that were smushed together in the IPCC summaries and reports for policy makers.
It was clear in those data that the junior academics and scientists responsible for various sectors of human activity did not understand well where their data came from.
The largest gap I noted was almost complete ignorance of the billions of small two-cycle petrol-fueled motors: tractors, tillers, outboard motors, scooters, generators, etc.
This is important because a single such device can emit many times the harmful pollutants of a modern auto in a year.
In the last IPCC report the absence of those emitters made it clear the the LINK between reality, and the BASELINE SUMMARY DATA in the IPCC “consensus editing” hierarchy was weak at best.
So far I see the same thing in this report.
At the most detailed level I can find, the new report is based on environmental SENSORS – not on actual SOURCES of emissions.
This is crucial because while sensors MIGHT create a reasonably accurate global average of “outcomes”…
…there is no way the sensors defined in the IPCC appendices – so far…
…can track those gross climate metrics to specific SOURCES
So what?
That means the IPCC gross modeling process CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE WHICH SPECIFIC HUMAN ACTIVITIES CAN BE CHANGED TO ALTER THE MASSIVE CLIMATE SYSTEM
As the ongoing debates above – and among scientists worldwide – reveal…
…there is no clear agreement on global average OUTCOMES over the past.
But even more importantly – the errors and omissions in the PRIMARY SOURCE data the small group of IPCC authors use…
…reveal that they are clearly not experts on the causal human and natural activities worldwide.
So – the IPCC documents cannot be used to DIRECT SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS to their asserted problem.
They also cannot specifically predict how the “problem” will affect the world that lies hidden beyond their small subset of temperature and other sensors.
Example: the manufacturing pollution and e-waste streams from global scale Electric Vehicles, solar installations, utility batteries, etc appear to be completely missing from any IPCC consensus documents or processes.
Example: a Tesla-style EV battery is made up of thousands of individual 18650 cells (like a AA or AAA flashlight battery) with the “chemicals” in a plastic film rolled up inside it.
There is no way to recycle this assemblage – so they are currently burned at the end of life.
Bottom line: since the connection between IPCC sensor summaries and the real world of source pollution is tenuous – at best –
– the IPCC report is currently all but useless in dictating global policy responses – like massive solar installations and billions of EV’s.
Just sayin…
You made some good points Ants, but …
Te desired climate change policy response was decided many decades ago.
The climate computer games don’t make correct temperature predictions, and have not improved in four decades.
The least inaccurate climate model, the Russian INM, gets no special attention — it would if correct predictions were a goal.
Correct climate predictions are obviously not the goal.
The goal is to scare people, in a way that seems “scientific”.
Climate models (computer games) are complex and impress most people.
They have succeeded in supporting the always wrong wild guesses of the future climate — warnings of a coming global warming crisis, that appeared to have started with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.
The truth is that the rise of CO2 levels in the past 120 years was accompanied by periods of falling global average temperatures, rising temperatures, and some periods with little change. t is obvious from observations that CO2 is not the temperature “control knob”.
In addition, the actual global warming since the mid-1970s has been beneficial, greening our planet and moderating the temperatures in the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere. Mainly during the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night.
No one with sense would want that pattern of climate change to stop.
FollowTheAnts commented: …there is no way the sensors defined in the IPCC appendices – so far…
…can track those gross climate metrics to specific SOURCES
I believe such numbers come from aggregating sales data from major manufacturers, which is then fed into models.
How much accuracy do you really need in this case?
The Earth temperature is about 300 degrees K, we worry about 1.5K, so we need an accuracy better than 0.5%.
FTA,
About 1976, I was a very uncomfortable young junior taking 10 minutes of Board time to contradict and explain this very difference to the Chairman. Petrol lawn mower caps leaked more fumes than cars did and there were about as many of each. Gas tank size was irrelevant. Geoff S
AR6 has led to an imminent set of protests in the UK & elsewhere by Extinction Rebellion. The co-founder, Roger Hallum, talks to Nigel Farage about his concerns that ‘5 billion people are likely to die from manmade climate change’:
“July 2021 was Earth’s hottest month ever recorded, NOAA finds,” WaPo 8/13/21.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/08/13/july-2021-hottest-record-month/
https://www.noaa.gov/news/its-official-july-2021-was-earths-hottest-month-on-record
You should use peer reviewed sources only – at least, that’s what you always demand from others. Using an UNSIGNED report from NOAA cramps your style.
George, I gave NOAA’s link just below WaPo’s link. But you left that out, didn’t you?
Please give me names of authors of that NOAA report.
I correct myself, this does not cramp your style, this is your style.
George wrote: Please give me names of authors of that NOAA report.
Do you think I’m your research assistant?
I’ll use the same response to all of your purported “questions,” TD David.
I could not use a lying research assistant. Is the NOAA report signed, or not?
David Appell still tread bombing. 123 of 570 comments, i.e. 21.6% of the comments have been posted by David Appell.
I’m glad you’re paying attention, Peter. Keep up the good work.
PS: Just like a climate economist to value quantity over quality.
The average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–July 2021 was 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2018 as the sixth warmest such period
on record.
The July 2021 global surface temperature was 1.67°F (0.93°C) above the 20th-century average of 60.4°F (15.8°C) — the highest for July in the 142-year record. This value was only 0.02°F (0.01°C) higher than the previous record set in 2016, and tied in 2019 and 2020.
@NASAGISS different time baseline
The monthly GISTEMP surface temperature analysis update has been posted. The global mean temperature anomaly for July 2021 was 0.92°C above the 1951-1980 July average.
The anomaly in July has always been the lowest anomaly of the 12 months and continues to be so [See James Hansen reports.]
So no big deal.
The next 6 months will determine if we have a winner for cooling [10th place] or a loser [1-3 place]
Currently tied for 6th with the potential to go much lower.
Sorry to get sidetracked on the questions which DA Willard etc hope will go away.
What is the optimal or baseline temperature the earth should be at?
What is optimal CO2 level for our world going forward?
–
Do we wish to return to 1850 as the ideal world?
Resisting change as evil has always been the way of the world.
Sometimes progress is not good.
Sometimes perfection exists on the first try.
When it comes to fear or good intentions driving the agenda and the messengers are left with fear and intimidation as their weapons
the results will not be achieved with good will.
angech commented: What is the optimal or baseline temperature the earth should be at?
How many times does this have to be addressed? The ideal climate is the one to which a species has adapted. Climate change stresses species and ecosystems and in the past has even led to extinctions.
So, which species are we saving now? Are we worried only about humans? Perhaps not, since humans do seem to live all over the place: Iceland to Singapore. So is it the emperor penguin? Polar bears? Rattle snakes? Sperm whales?
Even for Appell, this is uninformed. Humans and primates and indeed mammals have survived a wide range of climates both much warmer and much colder than at present. It is almost certainly true that biosphere productivity is much higher in warmer climates. The reality is that climate is constantly changing and life has adapted.
So, the human race lives, naturally, from The Arctic to the Equator & onwards to Tasmania and a few islands further south. Seems like we have adapted to a rather large range of climates.
https://xkcd.com/1827/
You say lots of stuff for someone who’s Just Asking Questions, Doc.
Our glorious host Dr. Judith Curry speaks out in great form against the assumption of ‘manmade global warming’:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Im2TrXlqwsA
Alan, Judith doesn’t disagree with manmade global warming.
But she is wrong about a couple of things in her quick testimony.
1) The IPCC’s case hardly rises or falls on whether they can explain trends in Antarctic sea ice. That’s a very small issue, not a mountain out of a molehill.
2) She’s wrong that “40% of warming occurred before 1950 when CO2 was not a factor in the warming.” I’m not sure about the 40% number, but in any case in 1950 atmospheric CO2 was 311 ppm. Today it’s 415 ppm, so comparing to a preindustrial baseline of 280 ppm, CO2’s radiative forcing in 1950 was already 27% of what it is today. That’s nontrivial. So CO2 was a factor even then.
It’s the *assumption* of manmade ‘global warming’ vs “natural variability” which is the issue.
In reality, it’s natural climate cycles that aren’t being considered by the IPCC because a driving mechanism hasn’t been identified. This justifies their assumption that the vast majority of current climate change is therefore anthropogenic.
An as yet unknown-to-science gravitational forcing is a good fit to the data but hasn’t been considered by the IPCC and I can only assume Dr. Curry is waiting for more solid evidence casting doubt on Newton/Einstein gravity theory before bringing this sledgehammer to the table.
It will happen. The evidence is less than a year away.
David Appell
“The IPCC’s case hardly rises or falls on whether they can explain trends in Antarctic sea ice. That’s a very small issue”
–
Your saying it is a small issue does not mean it is a small issue.
It is very inconvenient for the IPCC that Antarctic ice is not following the script.
So much so that they have chosen to ignore it while boosting up the Arctic ice story.
It is a large issue as any case in science has to explain all the facts reasonably correctly.
One glaring error and the whole story has to be thrown out and start again.
For 30 out of the last 40 years , including this year Antarctic sea ice has been above , not below normal.
This is a very large thorn in the AGW narrative.
Keep your eyes closed and hope it goes away.
Alan Lowey wrote: In reality, it’s natural climate cycles that aren’t being considered by the IPCC because a driving mechanism hasn’t been identified.
So you’d rather they attribute warming to ghosts and goblins and other unknown ghouls instead of the mechanisms that HAVE been identified and DO account for the warming?
Alan Lowey wrote: An as yet unknown-to-science gravitational forcing is a good fit to the data
You don’t know the science, but yet it’s a good fit to the data. Hilarious.
Gonna be hard to top that one, Alan.
angech wrote: It is very inconvenient for the IPCC that Antarctic ice is not following the script.
So much so that they have chosen to ignore it while boosting up the Arctic ice story.
It is a large issue as any case in science has to explain all the facts reasonably correctly.
So you think physicists should throw out the entire Standard Model because it doesn’t predict the observed imbalance of matter over antimatter in the universe? (It’s wrong by a factor of about 10^9.)
“You don’t know the science, but yet it’s a good fit to the data.” – David
It’s the mainstream that doesn’t know the science of gravity & matter. Dark matter as a particle hasn’t been detected, yet it’s thought to compose 85% of all matter in order to account for the anomalous galaxy curve rotations.
As I’ve recently linked to, scientists are admitting that unless a detection is made in the next year or two, they’ll have to “accept there is something very wrong with the way we think about the universe and about gravity.”
You’re an intellectual ignoramus David. Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled. Fact.
The DA says lots of stuff for someone who’s not a climate scientist.
There’s a reason why one doesn’t find robust argument on social media threads about the science of gravity.
Well at least not directly, the local DA recently wanted citations for how gravity could possibly effect Earth’s climate. He’s a studied man, that one. Beyond the IPCC I’m surprised the DA doesn’t have more to say about the Antarctic; what a collective let down.
angech, while Judith is talk about Antarctic sea ice, perhaps she could talk about this, from 2013:
Judith Curry and Marcia Wyatt (source): “the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s.”
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.”
https://archive.is/HsLxS
David Appell
angech wrote: It is very inconvenient for the IPCC that Antarctic ice is not following the script.
So much so that they have chosen to ignore it while boosting up the Arctic ice story.
It is a large issue as any case in science has to explain all the facts reasonably correctly.
–
David Appell wrote “So you think physicists should throw out the entire Standard Model because it doesn’t predict the observed imbalance of matter over antimatter in the universe? (It’s wrong by a factor of about 10^9.)”
You don’t know the science, but yet it’s a good fit to the data. Hilarious.
“Gonna be hard to top that one,David”
[David Appell’s logic [see below] applied to David Appell’s logic.
Hilarious.
–
Yes.
Physicists think it should be thrown out , David.
When something is wrong, it is wrong.
–
“Cosmic trouble
Astronomers have also discovered there is far more to the universe than what we can see. The standard model has absolutely no place in it for dark matter and dark energy, ingredients that constitute 95 percent of the universe’s gravitating “stuff. And it gets worse.”
Wrong by a factor of 10^9
is stunningly wrong.
Hockey stick proxies wrong.
Gerghis wrong.
Hilariously wrong.
Still defending the indefensible is your forte.
Forget anything you think you know about dark matter.
New physics is almost inevitable unless a miracle happens beneath our feet:
….
However, researchers acknowledge that the current generation of detectors are reaching the limit of their effectiveness and warn that if they fail to detect dark matter with these types of machines, they could be forced to completely reappraise their understanding of the cosmos.
“Dark matter accounts for around 85% of all the universe’s mass but we have not been able to detect it so far – despite building more and more powerful detectors,” said physicist Professor Chamkaur Ghag of University College London. “We are now getting close to the limits of our detectors and if they do not find dark matter in the next few years, we may have to accept there is something very wrong with the way we think about the universe and about gravity.”
….
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/08/dark-matter-one-last-push-to-crack-the-biggest-secret-in-the-universe
Alan – dark matter has been discovered finally!
Did you miss this?
It’s nitrogen and oxygen – they are dark matter.
They can’t be heated radiatively, IR radiation fails to interact with these molecules at all.
Phil – it won’t be a laughing matter in a year’s time. Jennifer Marohasy has shown that using artificial intelligence modelling based on past rainfall records and the assumption of climate cycles, predictions are better than those of standard models. It’s the driving mechanism of a current climate change cycle which is missing.
The James Webb Space Telescope is destined to show there is something desperately missing from gravity theory.
Is it too simple to put two and two together? Too clever?
Alan Lowey wrote:
Is it too simple to put two and two together?
Alan, explain how gravity connects to climate.
That clip perfectly encapsulates the difference between science and political fearmongering.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
Not the first or last time such sentiments have been expressed. Yet models continue to be used for purposes they are ill suited to – and criticized for failing to perform. Endlessly and to no reasonable end. Along with a few other pettifogging talking points in the climate blogosphere that were old news a decade ago – and yet still make up the major part of climate commentary.
What Judith says in Alan Lowry’s slight video excerpt is that natural variability played a part in 20th century climate variability. It emerges from patterns of spatiotemporal chaos in Earth’s flow field – that cause feedbacks in cryosphere, aquasphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. This doesn’t mean that anthropogenic emissions don’t result in ‘manmade (sic) global warming’. Simply that the story is complicated. Unlike the wild and wooly unscience of such as Alan or the blinkered notions of David Appell and ilk.
Or indeed that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1000 ppm by 2100 is guaranteed to be benign – seeing as how the planet is better off thus far. It reminds me of the old joke about the person heard muttering as they plummet to the ground off a tall building – ‘so far so good’. Let me remind you what spatiotemporal chaos is – seen as Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics in geophysical series.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/#:~:text=Weather%20and%20climate%20are%20manifestations,standing%20wave%20of%20the%20system.
Some climate end points could be especially challenging. Here’s a brand new tipping point. One I have warned of for a decade now. There is an underlying dynamic in transitions from warm interstadials to cold stadials. And it is not entirely Milankovitch cycles.
‘The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a major ocean current system transporting warm surface waters toward the northern Atlantic, has been suggested to exhibit two distinct modes of operation. A collapse from the currently attained strong to the weak mode would have severe impacts on the global climate system and further multi-stable Earth system components. Observations and recently suggested fingerprints of AMOC variability indicate a gradual weakening during the last decades, but estimates of the critical transition point remain uncertain. Here, a robust and general early-warning indicator for forthcoming critical transitions is introduced. Significant early-warning signals are found in eight independent AMOC indices, based on observational sea-surface temperature and salinity data from across the Atlantic Ocean basin. These results reveal spatially consistent empirical evidence that, in the course of the last century, the AMOC may have evolved from relatively stable conditions to a point close to a critical transition.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4.epdf?sharing_token=2w5P28IW2Jnxw3dt41OPWdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0ODQw4Na6S4LwvIIwjZ_S3NdBoG6pi8c5NBfIwoUKp1VK_OHHszXMnB3OMoyz8L8emOhG-hoDsJyn1YMubz_IampYbIRg_8P9vjnfIPPzRQwm6m9BfwEGfoLu0JsB4E2trSfyu4r947mOz1oZQlyxQxepDLVgpqLfEuzDINbAfikI4w3ThbqQDvCovx-vRvruw%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com
Lucky we have all the technology needed to provide energy for 1000’s of years in a compact factory made nuclear engine – whatever happens.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/16/using-all-of-the-heavy-elements-in-nuclear-waste-to-provide-energy/
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Or indeed that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1000 ppm by 2100 is guaranteed to be benign – seeing as how the planet is better off thus far.
Why is the planet better off thus far?
It was used ironically. Are you on the spectrum?
Robert I. Ellison wrote: It was used ironically.
An easy excuse when caught saying something ridiculous. Followed by an insult to the disabled. A class act, RIE.
Ooooh, TD David, you are going to get royally slapped for that one.
Article by Bjorn Lomborg in today’s The Australian
Climate change is actually saving lives
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released its latest climate report and reactions from politicians and media pundits could not have been more predictable. Fitting the apocalyptic narrative many have spun lately, the always climate-breathless Guardian summarised this scientific report as finding mankind “guilty as hell” of “climate crimes of humanity”. (Needless to say, the report never says any such things.)
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the findings a “code red for humanity”, saying we could avert catastrophe only by acting in the next couple of months. Of course, the UN has a long history of claiming catastrophe is right around the corner: The first UN environment director claimed already half a century ago that we had just 10 years left, and the then head of the IPCC insisted in 2007 that we had just five years left.
In contrast to the hyperventilating media, the report is actually serious and sensible (and very, very long). It doesn’t surprise, since it is a summary of already published studies, but it reconfirms that global warming indeed is real and a problem.
cont …
… cont
But it also highlights how much one-sided thinking takes place in the climate conversation. Since the heat dome in the US and Canada in June, there has been a lot of writing about more heat deaths. And the IPCC confirms that climate change indeed has increased heatwaves. However, the report equally firmly, if virtually unacknowledged, tells us that global warming means “the frequency and intensity of cold extremes have decreased”.
This matters, because globally, many more people die from cold than from heat. A new study in the highly respected journal Lancet shows that about half a million people die from heat, but 4.5 million people die from cold. As temperatures have increased over the past two decades, that has caused an extra 116,000 heat deaths each year. This, of course, fits the narrative and is what we have heard over and again. But it turns out that because global warming has also reduced cold waves, we now see 283,000 fewer cold deaths. You don’t hear this, but so far climate change saves 166,000 lives each year.
Likewise, we have heard a lot about flooding in Germany and elsewhere being caused by climate change. But the new UN report tells us it has “low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale” – and low confidence in attributing “changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events”. The report tells us that the evidence isn’t there to say floods are caused or driven by climate change.
…. cont
It also mentions climate upsides like the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere has acted as a fertiliser and created a profound global greening of the planet. One NASA study found that over a period of 35 years, climate change has added an area of green equivalent to two times the size of Australia. But don’t expect to read about this in any of the breathless articles on climate impact.
The new UN report only deals with the physical impact of climate change, but, of course, much of what really matters is how humans handle this. Often the real problem of rising sea levels is converted into a catastrophe by arguing that nobody will adapt and everyone will drown or be displaced. Remember when news reports told us rising seas would displace an astonishing 187 million people, potentially drowning entire cities like Miami in 80 years? In reality, humans adapt, as The Netherlands has shown. That’s why many models show that adaptation will reduce the number of flooded people 12,000-fold. As in the past, rising prosperity will continue to reduce flood impacts, and climate change will merely slow down this reduction slightly.
cont …
… cont
Ultimately, this is why the scare stories on climate impacts are vastly overblown and not supported by this new climate report. One of the clearest ways to see this is through climate economics. Because of economic development, the UN estimates the average person in the world will become 450 per cent as well-off by 2100 as they are today. But climate change will have a cost, in that adaptation and challenges become somewhat harder. Because of climate change, the average person in 2100 will be “only” 436 per cent as well off as today. This is not the apocalypse but a problem we should fix smartly.
END
Pingback: Don’t Be Afraid: The UN’s Climate Report Is A Politicized Debacle - Natura Revelata
stevenreincarnated | August 14, 2021
” if you redistribute the energy in the ocean do you believe you don’t change weather patterns and thus albedo? What are the odds of that?
and
. Something either affects the energy budget or it doesn’t.”
–
I think your first comment answers your second.
The energy in the ocean is a result of both changing weather patterns, albedo and insolation [primarily, there are always others]..
–
In other words the drivers of the energy in the ocean, its transport and effects in turn on weather and albedo are secondary not causative.
The weather patterrns and albedo affect the energy budget acting on the new energy from the sun [the new energy budget coming in].
We can quibble, people like to quibble, about the chicken and the egg but your comment clarified it. The existing weather patterns and albedo determine how and where the new energy is spent [affected] in distributing the energy into the oceans. This is what causes the ocean to warm and new weather patterns and albedo to develop. There is no new energy being made by the warmed ocean, only redistributions of the unchanged energy packet.
–
Like it or not the cause of global warming or cooling changes is how where and how much energy comes in.
Not how it goes out.
At TOA the energy is always in balance. The atmosphere is neither storing nor making new energy.
–
This comment includes studies on the geothermal activity impacting Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets. Apparently, IPCC6 has no reference to these studies or any others identifying geothermal activity under those Ice Sheets. IPCC6 does include reference to the Iceland geothermal activity.
The issue is not the relative significance of geothermal activity in all 3 areas. It is simply the illogical decision to include discussion of this physical process
in Iceland but not Antarctica and Greenland. A scientific document would make sure all elements of a system are considered. This omission is more evidence that the IPCC reports are not scientific documents
“The stability of Pine Island Ice Shelf and the Pine Island Glacier are of paramount importance to sea level rise and the mass balance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Geothermal heat sources and the production of subglacial water can influence the bottom boundary condition that partly determines the glacial mass balance”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
“This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070
138 volcanoes
https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/461/1/231
“The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition that influences the melting, flow, and mass balance of ice sheets,“
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/6/e1500093.full.pdf
More Antarctica
“ IT is widely understood that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) would cause a global sea level rise of 6 m, yet there continues to be considerable debate about the detailed response of this ice sheet to climate change. Because its bed is grounded well below sea level, the stability of the WAIS may depend on geologically controlled conditions at the base which are independent of climate.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/361526a0
“The West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) contains 11 major ice streams moving at speeds 10^100 times faster than the surrounding ice, with the exception of the lower part of Kamb Ice Stream (former Ice Stream C) that slowed considerably about 150 years ago.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/6EC71E6E485327ED0F504B7EACB6C9C4/S0022143000214329a.pdf/ice_temperature_and_high_geothermal_flux_at_siple_dome_west_antarctica_from_borehole_measurements.pdf
“Mean heat flow in West Antarctica is expected to be nearly three times higher than in East Antarctica and much more variable. This high heat flow may affect the dynamics of West Antarctic ice streams and the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.“
http://ciei.colorado.edu/~nshapiro/PUBS/Shapiro_Ritzwoller_epsl2004.pdf
“Subglacial drainage beneath the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) is important because basal water can affect the flow of overlying ice (Stearns et al., 2008), may influence ice sheet mass balance (Bell et al., 2011) and, where it meets the ocean, may locally enhance rates of basal melt beneath ice shelves (Le Brocq et al., 2013). The pattern of subglacial drainage reflects not only the ice conditions and geothermal flux (Schroeder et al., 2014), but is strongly controlled by subice topography (Rose et al., 2014).“
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/44/2/87/132081/An-extensive-subglacial-lake-and-canyon-system-in
Your first cite is holder than MBH, Kid.
Try something more recent:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117035
Irrelevant. Catch up. It’s not about substance.
“ The issue is not the relative significance of geothermal activity in all 3 areas. It is simply the illogical decision to include discussion of this physical process
in Iceland but not Antarctica and Greenland. A scientific document would make sure all elements of a system are considered. This omission is more evidence that the IPCC reports are not scientific documents”
Since Apple said he wasn’t a scientist, I would have expected an irrelevant comment from him. But from you? Unthinkable.
When IPCC omits any reference to geothermal activity or solar studies it’s further evidence the report is a religious work for the committed zealots. The 3,949 pages would be perfect for the Jonestown library or the Branch Davidian’s reading list.
There’s nothing relevant about your “here are random papers I haven’t read that has not been included in the AR6 I haven’t read that discuss a pet theory I barely understand that helps me appeal to my ignorance,” Kid, except for Climate Ball sake.
Which part of “Resolving the argument about volcanic bedrock under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and implications for ice sheet stability and sea level change” you do not get?
You still need to catch up. But nice try.
Hard to have anything more up-to-date than a 2021 study, Kid.
CKid
“Since Apple said he wasn’t a scientist, I would have expected an irrelevant comment from him. But from you? Unthinkable.”
-Irony.
A pithy edged sword.
Unfortunately only inflicts skin wounds.
Much has been made of the emotional toll of all the publicity about climate warming. Even psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are getting involved. A poll by the American Psychiatric Association found that 67% of GenXers said climate change affected their mental health.
New terms such as eco-anxiety and ecological grief are finding their way into the nomenclature. Articles are being written outlining the debilitating psychological effects from worrying about CAGW. Some report despair, helplessness, sleep disorders and PTSD.
The potential runaway SLR of Greenland and Antarctica where the media have written about meters of rising oceans could be one of the sources of these eco emotions. It makes you wonder if the large population increases in Denver has its roots in people wanting to avoid the meters of SLR by moving to the Mile High City.
A cynic might suggest that the reason IPCC6 doesn’t reference geothermal activity is to increase the fear felt by the public through the connection between the Ice Sheets melting and CO2. The IPCC reports are political propaganda vehicles, after all, and the constant fear mongering about potential meters of water drowning coastal communities are definitely having an effect on the mental health of the public. If the public learns that there could be natural factors in the Ice Sheets contribution to GMSLR, the motivation for political action might dissipate.
When you have a hammer, everything is a nail.
Yet our cognizant rulers keep buying jets and beachfront property. Apparently they don’t suffer the same mental health problems as the serf class.
For all those snowflakes who are afflicted with eco anxiety and want to be assured all will be ok and meters of SLR are not in their future, they should check out Obama’s multi million dollar mansion on the Atlantic coast. What hypocrisy to support a narrative of freak out fear mongering while being comfortable enough with the safety of his seaside estate.
There is no crisis. Watch what the elite do, not what they say.
If hopelessness, helplessness, ennui, and just overall flaccidity has set in due to the burden of climate anxiety and your not able to get out of bed, even for Mom’s steel cut oatmeal, then perhaps a glance at these tidal gauge graphs would pick you up out of the doldrums.
LA where meter plural, at present rates, is not in your future for 2,000 years.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9410660
Or Marseille for almost as long.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=230-051
Or Honolulu, where you can still get beach time for several hundred years.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=1612340
Or the old standby, Sydney, where, well let’s just say, not to worry.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=680-140
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/climate-anxiety-counseling.jpg
All I see are ad hoc statistical models that are fit to tiny sample set. Surprisingly, there is very little physics. Why would anyone spend trillions of $ and bear real physical hardship on the basis of 100 year predictions with ridiculous CI from these models? No one writes insurance contracts for such risks.
There is a huge cabal that is making a ton of $ and getting press time out of this issue – a group that would otherwise be consigned to academic conferences. It isn’t going to go away now.
Willard | August 13, 2021
the fact that a higher MWP would imply a bigger climate sensitivity??
–
Would, could or must?
why not just higher natural variability than you are prepared to concede?
Doc,
Your questions would look more genuine if you showed evidence that you researched them, that you think before you ask, and that you remember when people answer you.
Let’s focus on the thinking part.
Suppose there’s higher variability than what is ordinarily presumed. What does that imply? That climate is more sensitive to forcings and feedbacks. This conclusion follows by definition, so to speak.
So yeah, the luckwarm gambit and the MWP gambit are not compatible.
Now, what makes you think that higher variability needs to cancel the A part of AGW? You presume that the A and the non-A parts are opposed. You don’t know that, and it’s quite clear that there natural variability isn’t always on the cooling sides of things.
Everybody should know by now that you’re more into the leg pulling business. That business model makes you try to bait me with something I already told you many times. Why? Responses don’t seem to really matter to you.
Good night.
Earlier I said
angech | August 10, 2021
The two pertinent questions the IPCC does not consider and has never answered are
–
What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?
–
A dismal failure, like the IPCC report itself.
A bunch of concerned people and scientists with no opinion to offer.
No reference sites to look up.
Where is there a warmist , skeptic or climate scientist prepared to give an honest answer?
Most of all, why not?
–
A little bit of name and shame may help here?
Actually that is, as Robert Wray said, not a nice thing to do.
So perhaps just list THOSE who have made a serious attempt to answer either question and when I quote them next I can just put an * next to their name to say thanks for making a commitment to discussion.
I am not the best person to put up an article here but I would not be the worst either.
I will make an attempt to put these thoughts together in a way that might be allowed to be posted or at least encourage others with more gravitas to attempt something similar but better framed.
Past posts by Zeke and Mosher have tried to explain model warming adjustment. Perhaps one of those could put up an explanation of the underlying assumptions of ideal temperature and CO2.
Any answer at the moment on the the ideal global temperature has to relate to an agreed observed specific temperature data and adjustment
set.
There is a away around the impasse of different base ranges and measuring systems.
Satellite temperatures overlap with various thermometer measuring systems and adjusted historical temperature reconstructions.
Each would have once specified a comparable temperature range over 1 year, say 1980 that could be permanently standardised matched and compared from that base year.
A monumental problem is that historical, true data and satellite records are being continually adjusted and so do not bear true correlations with the past.
All one can do is specify the fixed unadjusted models in a set past time that is still relevant and then work the comparisons from there.
For example UAH would have a temperature that Roy would be able to tie to earth surface temperature in 1980.
Lets say for arguments sake it is 14. 34 C.
assumes Roy would currently say temp is 14.9 C and 0.56 C warming over 4 decades.
My gut feeling is we could quite happily cope with an extension to usable land area and more rain to grow crops of at least 1.5 C.
So my optimal temperature for good life conditions on earth would be 16.4 C.
I would suggest a 0.5 C range around this,
So 16.4 C +/- 0.5 C.
Way short of where we are.
Directly comparable to any other temperature that you wish eg NOAA.
–
Note for those wishing to be difficult a 1.5 C global rise in temperature would be highest at the poles and much less at the equator.
.
>>>>”What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?
–
A dismal failure, like the IPCC report itself.”
The obvious failure is that Angech does not understand that the WG1 report that came a few days ago does not address:
“the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change and options for adapting to it.”
That is what WG2 will deal with, and that report will be published in February 2022.
And Angech really wants a UN body to decide what is the ideal temperature on the planet? The obvious answer to this is again that there is no ideal temperature. Heating or cooling – for whatever reason – will affect different regions and continents differently. For some, heating will be beneficial, for others unfavorable.
Angech should write less and read more. Further up, Angech wrote:
“It is very inconvenient for the IPCC that Antarctic ice is not following the script. So much so that they have chosen to ignore it while boosting up the Arctic ice story.”
Is the IPCC AR6 WG1 ignoring Antarctic Sea Ice? Read chapter 9.3.2.
Rune, It must be tough carrying one of those the end of the world is nigh signs.
Not to mention unsociable.
–
And Angech really wants a UN body to decide what is the ideal temperature on the planet?
–
Well, if they are telling us it is warming [and they are]
They are making dire predictions [and they are
who else but that UN body on climate would you want to do it?
Surely you are not suggesting they lack the chops and qualifications to do so?
–
Is the IPCC AR6 WG1 ignoring Antarctic Sea Ice? Read chapter 9.3.2.
–
Is that where they say Antarctic Sea ice is above normal this year and for 30 of the last 40 years so don’t mention it?
angech –
> Well, if they are telling us it is warming [and they are]
They are making dire predictions [and they are
who else but that UN body on climate would you want to do it?
Why would them telling us its warming in some way obligate them to.answer your |gotcha] question?
Joshua | August 15, 2021 at 6:31 am |
Why would them telling us its warming in some way obligate them to.answer your |gotcha] question?
–
Thank you Joshua for your rhetorical question.
-\
Might as well start with you.
–
Joshua [no *] is unable to answer either of the two questions
–
So perhaps just list THOSE who have made a serious attempt to answer either question and when I quote them next I can just put an * next to their name to say thanks for making a commitment to discussion.
–
I would go further and say that Joshua is unable to comprehend the importance of the two questions and will almost certainly continue to duck and dodge when they are put up.
Like the IPCC.
angech –
Are you talking to me or some audience?
OK talking to you. Why would the IPCC have some obligation to answer your question because they tell us it’s warming? What does the one thing have to do with the other?
BTW – I have no problem, whatsoever, with rhetorical questions. But I don’t see why telling us it’s warming would obligate the IPCC to sneer your questions. Could you explain the link instead of being nasty towards me and talking about me?
sneer = answer.
angech wrote: What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
Define “optimal” in the context of temperature.
angech,
I suspect that you know that the reluctance of some scientists to endorse a value of “optimal global temperature” is because many official temperature numbers from history have been altered, thereby removing confidence that a quoted value of ‘optimal’ can be compared to ‘historic’ because of uncertainty from adjustments.
Colleagues have taken another look at some historic Australian data. Some was compiled by CSIR, now CSIRO and other from sources like the official Commonwealth Year Book series, some from senior qualified individuals from history. The following recent, deeper look compared these historic compilations published about the 1950s with values used today. We take it as a fair assumption that the Year Book numbers represent the best science available at the time and are thus somewhat inarguable unless there are known deficiencies unknown to us.
https://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html
You can see the conclusion, that official estimates of national warming made today are about double those that rely on this historic data. The ‘threat’ of urgent global warming for Australia goes from marginally harmful to inconsequential.
There is the possibility that some data originally assumed to be untouched from the observer sheets of old, might in reality have been adjusted but represented as raw. That would explain some of this mismatch. We are looking into this.
So, when you us about optimal temperatures, a response might be “Optimal compared to What?” If the true value of that “What” is in question, one does not know what to compare to derive “optimal”. So we do not attempt it.
One of the Drafting Authors of the IPCC AR6 report is Blair Trewin, who with Neville Nicholls and Simon Torok was one of the main adjusters of original data within the BOM, the father of ACORN-SAT. It follows that a realistic probability of any action by the BOM to look into questioned adjustments and corrections where needed, is virtually nil.
Geoff S
Today’s post by Jennifer Marohasy:
https://mailchi.mp/ba39dc2a66b6/homelands-weddings-and-weather-forecasting
“My daughter was married recently in the little church at Yirrkala in East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. My mother was also married in the NT after migrating as a ‘Ten Pound Pom’ following the second World War. I was born in the Darwin General Hospital and spent the first seven years of my life on a cattle station in the NT, just to the west of the famous Kakadu National Park.
It was an outdoors childhood under a large sky where it was always possible to see to the horizon. Conversations often revolved around the weather. Accurate short- and long-term weather forecasts mattered. Bushfires were to be avoided, and that required annual burn-offs. I swam in the local billabong with Aboriginal friends who knew where to gather and hunt food – depending on the season.
Some of these first Australians, who still live-in community in the NT, have a much better understanding of weather and climate than our IPCC experts. This is because they think in terms of cycles. They listen to the wind, and they still study the night sky. In contrast, meteorologists across the West have their eyes fixed on computer screens running simulation models to the extent they will adjust observations from the real world, so they better accord with IPCC policy that dictates linear trends driven by carbon dioxide.
Temperatures change on a daily cycle as the Earth rotates on its axis, temperatures change with the seasons because of the tilt of the Earth relative to its orbit around the Sun, and then there are ice ages because of changes in the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun. Western science made these discoveries, yet their practical consequences have eluded the latest IPCC report (AR6) that is mostly nonsense as I explain in my latest blog post:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/08/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/
“
Oh boy! Memories, and as luck would have it.
I also aimed for the ten pound that would take me to Q’land and the sugar cane country, with my local teen friends. I was refused and told to go back after finishing my studies. Never got there because my apprenticeship suddenly included degree engineering studies, and that changed everything.
However the lady above has been in Aussie-land a very short time to notice the long ‘Climate’ changes. Now I know the cycle of changes is around 980years. I do not know if that is visible in Australia, in changes by natives in land management and history. But it is very visible in my country, in the native endevour to eek a living in changing times; in the related history, both local and foreign (eg Cicero – writing about it during the Roman warm period), both in city and rural. Now I see what for decades I (and more so academia) missed, how to deal with times of flood and times of drought, – and times of famine-.
And, -for millennia-, to get the harvest sowing and harvesting times right.
But not in three generations; a much longer perspective is needed.
Geoff,
BOM has done what it has done and is accountable for it.
If a majority of voters want Climate action then their actions will be lauded.
If the wheel turns [[a while yet] then the truth, belated and bedraggled will emerge.
–
All you can do is point out the inconsistencies and hope someone somewhere is both able to take notice and act.
–
That still does not stop BOM and others issuing an optimal temperature for their data sets.
There is a responsibility on the IPCC to state what their optimal temperature is. All we can say at the moment is that the temperature guesstimate for the world in 1850 is the best temperature that ever existed for life on earth [Unwritten IPCC VIEW]
The best temperature that ever existed for life on Earth was that which existed during the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (50 Ma ago), when GMST was around 10 C higher than now. No ice on the planet. Tropical vegetation and animals in the Arctic and Antarctic. Balmy climate everywhere.
Warming Good!! Cooling Bad !!!!
angech,
Your words are OK as an abstract essay, but please include real life.
If you nominate an optimal temperature, you are in effect saying that it is better than another temperature (one that we have experienced, even.)
This raises to problem of temperature accuracy. If we say that 2021 was warmer/cooler than on some other date, we have to be sure that they do not have overlapping estimates of accuracy, so that they are indeed different.
I have several times asked BOM for their estimates of accuracy. Several times I have been obfuscated. It has long been my suspicion, based on my own experience with the relevant official data, that this error term is of the order of +/- 2 deg C for a 2 sigma distinction, assuming many matters about distributions.
If this is the case, we have a problem with defining ‘optimal’.
Here is the most recent BOM obfuscation.
……………………….
Dear Mr. Sherrington,
You have asked “If a person seeks to know the separation of two daily temperatures in degrees C that allows a confident claim that the two temperatures are different statistically, by how much would the two values be separated?”
The internationally accepted standard for determining if two measurements are statistically different is ISO/IEC17043. The latter covers the calculation of a normalized score (known as the EN score), which is a standard method for this type of question.
As previously communicated, the most relevant figure that we can supply to meet your request for a “T +/- X degrees C” is our specified inspection threshold (conservatively within +/- 0.3 ⁰C), but this is not an estimate of the uncertainty of the ACORN-SAT network’s temperature measurements in the field.
From Dr. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn
BOM Manager, Data Quality and Requirements.
Letter dated 7th June, 2019
………………………………….
It seems to me that if you want to be serious about ‘optimal’, you need to get BOM to answer that question.
The answer, if representative of the word in general, has profound implications for much of the IPCC AR6 report. There might be no global warming, only a hypothesis. Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington
Your words are OK as an abstract essay.
If you nominate an optimal temperature, you are in effect saying that it is better than another temperature.
This raises to problem of temperature accuracy.
–
Geoff.
When the BOM is appointed as our collector, assessor and presenter of data one presumes that as Australians they aim for accuracy, clearness and openness in doing so.
When they obfuscate and dodge continually then there are problems there in the management and the instructions they are following.
–
Temperature accuracy has inherent flaws that have to be worked with.
No-one can collect data in this field without it being subject to a number of known and some unknown problems.
–
In the case of Australia we are ahead of the pack in terms of Stevenson screens, collection and collation of data for significant time periods compared to most other countries in the world.
We suffer from a small population, large sparsely inhabited areas where needed recording is lacking and a lot of tarmac near our recording sites.
On the good side Australia would have to be of the most evenly elevated countries around. On the downside it does have a diverse range of weather climates due to its semitropical position.
–
Climate records exist well before the ACORN sets.
Some homogenization of data sets using sites far apart is obviously unacceptable the way it is done.
–
An optimal temperature is a figure in the middle of an accepted range that one can hang one’s hat or one’s argument on. .
The BOM has deliberately ignored 100 years of recorded history prior to ACORN which is completely at odds with the narrative it runs with.
–
Anyone with commonsense in the department can see that. They also see they need to keep their heads down if they want to be employed.
Peter Ridd being the prime example.
Another La Niña is coming up.
A large drop in the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png?fbclid=IwAR2Vp6z5-gpiFWkZR9wr2YOVGzaj_T8Ynua-A-HiESVGPXLQ2irt5_sWvZI
That’s good news. More rain across Australia. Excellent!!
Thanks Ren, good news as ENSO had dropped under 10.
Was worried.
Peter More rain across Australia. Excellent!!
Except I live on the banks of a river!
More La Niña? Good news for Peruvian anchovy fishermen. And for the world’s cats 🐈 .
Rune
Is the IPCC AR6 WG1 ignoring Antarctic Sea Ice? Read chapter 9.3.2.
–
Is that where they say Antarctic Sea ice is above normal this year and for 30 of the last 40 years so don’t mention it?
–
I go to skeptical science when I want a good chuckle.[from there]
–
Trends in Antarctic sea ice are easily deceptive. For many years, Antarctic sea was increasing overall,
2014 The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)
1. A warming climate is the cause says said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas for 44 years.
2 Its so big Walt Meier . And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.
3 “The winds really play a big role,” Meier said. They whip around the continent, constantly pushing the thin ice. and grow the extent
4 stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds Walt
5. Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier Parkinson
7 Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen
8 The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain and snowfall as well Zhang 2007, Bintanga et al. 2013).
9 “Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” Walt again
10 a low-pressure system centered in the Amundsen Sea could be intensifying or becoming more frequent in the area, changing the wind patterns and circulating warm air over the peninsula, while sweeping cold air from the Antarctic continent over the Ross Sea. Parkinson not communicating on 4 with Walt.
11. Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow .
–
This Rune is not an exhaustive list.
If we used the full 120 or so reasons why Antarctic Sea Ice has not been following the narrative and gave a little credence to each one Australia would be under a kilometer of Antarctic Ice right now.
–
A little dramatic , you say.
No, not really.
Just using the RCP 8.5 where runaway global warming must lead to such a totally predictable outcome. see Walt no 1 .
“rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic”
“In Spitsbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the years before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s. The average total area of the Arctic sea ice seems to have declined by between 10 and 20 percent over that time.”
H H Lamb ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’, 2nd Edition p260
In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes people make about debating Climate Change is by attacking the science and models behind it. The Alarmists control the Media, Social Media, Academia and Government. They can continually crank out garbage and easily overwhelm any honest person trying to get to the trust. Climate Change is a political issue, not a scientific issue. Just look at what is reported by the authorities and then look at the actual data. Almost everything is a lie or gross exaggeration. They take a grain or truth regarding the GHG Effect, and add Catastrophic to it for political reasons. The backradiation of CO2 shows a log decay, there isn’t enough carbon on earth to cause catastrophic warming. CO2 used to be 7,000 ppm and we never had catastrophic warming. Marxism is bases upon lies and control. They are know for effectively executing the Big Lie, and Climate Change is one of the biggest in history. People hoping to make a difference should start arguing Climate Change as a political issue, not a science issue. Do you want the Government to spend trillions of your dollars on trying to stop the climate from changing? That is the real question. We could spend that money or education, healthcare, infrastructure, shoring up Medicare and Social Security, or a giant tax cut. Those are the real issues. Do we want to waste government revenues and bankrupt our children fighting climate change, or do we want to focus spending on real issues and get real results.
IPCC report shows devil is in the detail for climate alarmists
By Chris Mitchell, Editor of The Australian 2002-15
The release of the latest UN climate change report last week makes three things clear about elite media coverage of the climate.
First, many journalists must not have read the report, which adds little by way of new data to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s previous assessment report, released in 2014.
As Graham Lloyd wrote in The Australian on Wednesday, IPCC 6 is a political document. Most environment writers will cite the report in the lead-up to the UN climate change conference in Glasgow in November, but it’s unlikely to stave off the failure most expect from that meeting.
Second, if journalists, the UN and politicians really believe the world can only meet its aim to limit warming to between 1.5C and 2C by accelerating 2030 Paris emissions-reduction targets, then they may as well give it away now. Why? The developed world is already reducing emissions, so all of the rise in man-made CO2 output is coming from the developing world, and particularly from the highest and third-highest emitters, China and India. Since both are refusing to commit to reducing emissions by 2030, the Paris Accord effectively concedes emissions will still be rising in 2030.
Third, while the world’s financiers may – as Paul Kelly argued in this newspaper last week – make it impossible for a country such as Australia to resist pressure to increase its climate ambition, there remains in most democracies the problem of voter hesitancy. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden are fast learning the limits of voter tolerance about paying for climate action.
The EU faces resistance from Poland and Hungary to ambitious commitments by nuclear-dependent France and the wealthy Germans. As the UK Daily Mail expressed it on August 11: “If Boris thinks Brits are going to pay through the nose for green boilers and electric cars while the Chinese are burning coal like there’s no tomorrow he’s signing his own death warrant.”
Indeed, while journalists at the ABC and the Nine newspapers scoff at Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce on the issue of policies to meet “net zero by 2050”, Joyce may just have a better idea than them about how voters not cosseted in high-paying jobs in the inner cities will feel about destroying their lifestyles while advancing the lifestyles of Indian and Chinese citizens.
cont…
… cont
Back to point one. On the ABC’s RN Mornings on Tuesday, self-confessed activist journalist Fran Kelly allowed Greens leader Adam Bandt to spout propaganda about IPCC 6 without really challenging his understanding of the report. Bandt claimed Australia needed to follow what Johnson and Biden “have done” in the UK and US on net zero by 2050. Apart from talk, Johnson and Biden have done zip. Johnson has just abandoned his singular heat pump policy for domestic users and Biden is presiding over record gas and oil exploration and exports. Perhaps for Bandt, talking is acting.
Bandt claimed Australia is allowing its CO2 emissions to rise. In fact, it is ahead of most countries in emissions reduction, and is ahead of its Paris Agreement target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Bandt wants us to commit to a 75 per cent reduction for 2030. Asked by Kelly about China and India he refused to concede global CO2 emissions cannot be reduced without increased commitments from China and India. He said Australia could not ask other countries to do what it is not prepared to do, and claimed Australia is lagging on renewables. The numbers show Australia is a leader on wind, rooftop solar and solar farms.
“Scott Morrison is putting Australian lives at risk with his 2030 death sentence targets,” Bandt claimed. Yet 2021 is to date one of the coolest years since 2000, largely because of a strong La Nina phenomenon.
Here’s a fact this newspaper has been emphasising for two decades: Man-made climate variability in the short term is dwarfed by natural changes to climate.
Over-reaction and hype dominated IPCC 6 coverage across the ABC, the Nine newspapers and Guardian Australia. Yet all virtually ignored what was a substantive and new climate science development only a week earlier.
In The Australian on July 30, Lloyd reported a stunning admission (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/climate-change-science-magazine-article-blows-the-whistle-on-model-failure/news-story/bf51960ad9a0b7caf3e75843081eef3f ) from some of the world’s leading climate scientists – revealed in the prestigious journal Science – that the models used to predict global temperature rises are coming up with higher numbers than temperatures in the real world. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this (admission the models are over-estimating warming).”
The article in Science stated: “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast.”
… cont.
Lloyd’s piece concluded with a quote by Australian geophysicist and IPCC 6 reviewer Michael Asten describing the Science report as a “significant concession”. Asten spoke to Andrew Bolt on Sky News on Tuesday night.
Asten, former professor at Monash University’s School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment, criticised the report’s failure to discuss differences between the models and real world measurements, and rejected the way the report cherrypicks small time periods to find accelerated warming. He observed other parts of the same report emphasise that only changes over 30-year periods should be considered because of the climate’s natural short-term variability.
“There is a discrepancy between models and observational studies. And that’s been obvious since the year 2000. It’s even clearer now in 2021. The only surprise to me is that it’s taken so long for the establishment to admit there is a problem,” Asten said.
“In 2021 … the global temperature has decreased to the same value it was 15 years ago. The report ignores this. I argue this is a significant flaw in logic.”
On Sky News and in the News Corp tabloids, Bolt pointed out that despite overheated media claims the IPCC report expresses “low confidence” about human influence on meteorological droughts, and says it is a challenge to identify any trends with tornadoes and cyclones – which it nevertheless expects to be more severe.
It does expect more agricultural droughts, both overseas and in Australia. It has “low confidence” forecasting flood trends, but does expect more heavy rain.
It admits higher CO2 levels are greening the planet. It expects more fires, even though NASA satellite data shows land burnt annually is falling. It expects more hot days.
Lloyd on Wednesday nailed how political IPCC 6 is: “Analysis shows the high-emissions scenarios that the IPCC says have a low probability dominate the report, with 41.5 per cent of all scenario mentions. The scenarios judged most likely … get less than half of this amount.”
Asten took the rational approach to over-hyped reporting: “The world has already warmed 1.1 degrees since 170 years ago and the world’s a nicer place … 170 years ago was a little ice age. If we warm another 0.4 of a degree I don’t see that is a problem and, no, I am not frightened.”
Chris Mitchell began his career in late 1973 in Brisbane on the afternoon daily, The Telegraph. He worked on the Townsville Daily Bulletin, the Daily Telegraph Sydney and the Australian Financial Review before joining The Australian in 1984. He was appointed editor of The Australian in 1992 and editor in chief of Queensland Newspapers in 1995. He returned to Sydney as editor in chief of The Australian in 2002 and held that position until his retirement in December 2015.
Nick Cater article in The Australian today
Australia not joining panicky world’s rush over climate cliff
Leo Tolstoy told the story of War and Peace in 1250 pages. The International Panel on Climate Change kept going until the final foot note, Zscheischler, J et al, on page 3949. Summarising the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Review in 280 characters or fewer is hard to say the least, but Labor’s climate spokesman managed to do so with 49 characters to spare.
“There is a climate and nature emergency,” Chris Bowen tweeted within hours of the report’s release. “This report is just the latest reminder of how important and urgent action is. And the Morrison government just shrugs its shoulders and can’t even agree on the most minimal required action.” Bowen’s final 111 characters might seem gratuitous from the spokesman of a party that threw away its old 2030 target and has not bothered to set a new one. Which is a pity, since the rich-nation consensus is that we need to get our skates on.
John Kerry, Joe Biden’s special envoy to an aching planet, said last week: “All major economies must commit to aggressive climate action during this critical decade.” Boris Johnson agreed “the next decade is going to be pivotal” while Emmanuel Macron gave a heartfelt cry for “un accord à la hauteur de l’urgence!” when leaders meet in Glasgow in November.
As our friends at The Guardian never tire of reminding us, Scott Morrison is out of step with the rest of the world, judging by his measured and practical response to the IPCC’s latest house brick. The Coalition’s record on carbon management is not unimpressive. Between 2005 and 2019, our emissions fell faster than in Canada, New Zealand, Japan or the US.
The Europeans who want to slap a sin-tax on Australian beef have the hide of Brahmans given their own hypocrisy. It is easy to be green if you outsource your heavy industry to China, as Europe has been doing for more than 20 years. The EU’s share of world steel production has more than halved this century from 20 per cent to 9 per cent, while China’s has risen from 20 per cent to almost half. Australia’s steel production capacity has also fallen, by the way, from 0.003 per cent of global capacity to 0.002 per cent. The deindustrialisation card is not one a resource-based economy can play.
cont…
… cont.
Last week’s unseemly scramble for virtue among rich-world leaders was matched in the media, where the prize for the most outrageous headline belonged to The Guardian: “IPCC report’s verdict on climate crimes of humanity: guilty as hell”.
Rhetorical inflation has been a feature of climate coverage since the first UN environment summit in Stockholm almost half a century ago. The crucial-decade meme may still work in politics, but it doesn’t cut it any more in the media where embellishment breeds constantly with a gestation faster than a bandicoot.
The superficial response to the IPCC report from people who clearly hadn’t read it was a grave disservice to the teams of scientists who condensed as much evidence as they could into a couple of million words. An attempt to review a store of scientific literature as extensive as this one is bound to be open to accusations of subconscious distortion and groupthink. The scientists were not responsible for the Summary for Policy Makers, which is where the simplification and overreach begins. This is a problem, since it is the only part that gets seriously read, or more likely skimmed, since it runs to 150 pages.
In these circumstances, we should not be surprised that the public debate is driven by sentiment rather than science. It largely reflects what politicians and journalists feel about what they imagine the IPCC is trying to say rather than a grown-up analysis of the report itself. It is only by staying out of the weeds that they can pronounce on the subject with seeming authority.
Neither should we be surprised that the debate becomes emotional, since it is founded on little else but emotion, and the overwhelming sentiment is fear. Scaring the population witless about a common enemy that only the state has the power to fight is the oldest and most ignoble trick in the political playbook.
cont …
… cont:
Rhetoric matters greatly if we are looking for practical ways to meet, and perhaps beat, our greenhouse gas commitments and are not just here for an argument. As Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Balancing benefits with costs is all but impossible in an atmosphere of catastrophe, as we are learning in the pandemic.
The Glasgow meeting is shaping up to be another panic-fest of rich-world hand-wringing while the developing world seeks exemptions that will accelerate emissions and hasten the redistribution of wealth from the rest of the world to India and China.
Australia looks like the odd country out, not because of a lack of achievement or ambition. It looks different because we have a government that tries to answer the question of how we get to zero emissions rather than merely trying to frighten us into believing that we should. Unlike so many of their international counterparts, Morrison and his Energy Minister, Angus Taylor, have not walked past two inescapable facts. First, we don’t yet have scalable technology to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050, but we will have if we commit to find them and don’t get distracted, just as we have done in developing a coronavirus vaccine. Second, bringing our economy to a shuddering halt won’t help. The OECD’s share of global emissions is down to a third and shrinking further every year. If China and other industrialising countries refuse to do the heavy lifting in the next round we might as well give up.
In truth, Australia will have many more supporters behind the scenes in Glasgow than is apparent from outside. Its focus on practical solutions will win it friends in unlikely places.
The prospect of being cast as the scapegoat to atone for the miserable failure of the UN framework must not deter us, since to deviate from our path would be catastrophic for a country like Australia. Instead, the Prime Minister should draw comfort from the words of CS Lewis: “When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.”
END
Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre and a columnist with The Australian. He is a former editor of The Weekend Australian and a former deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph. He is author of The Lucky Culture published by Harper Collins.
‘The government-approved WG1 Report of the IPCC’s AR6 was released today. As predictable, it has spawned a cascade of print, broadcast and social media headlines on climate change adopting the trope of anxiety, fear and terror. For example, the BBC’s headline: The IPCC Report is ‘Code Red for Humanity’. Yes, humans are changing the climate and this is creating discernible physical effects in the atmosphere, cryosphere and oceans. The IPCC has been reporting this for two decades now…
But even in the 1980s and 1990s, an argument could be made to reframe the issues raised by climate change not as those of climate change attribution and climate prediction, which are science-driven. Rather, the practical issues demanding a policy response were questions about sustainable energy and equitable development and about sustainable societal adaptation to extreme weather.
The case now for such a re-framing is even more powerful. The challenges are those around energy, land use and adaptation, long-standing political questions which a changing climate has brought into clearer focus. But they raise many questions which extend well beyond climate science to answer.’ https://mikehulme.org/the-ipccs-mistaken-science-first-approach-to-climate-change/
Pingback: Code Red Climate Hype | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*°C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*°C/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*°C)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet……Te…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…325,83 K…340 K
Earth…….255 K….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…….270,4 Κ…223,35 Κ….220 Κ
Mars…….209,91 K….213,21 K…210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33°C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please also visit the Ron Clutz’s blog:
Science Matters
Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Article
How to Calculate Planetary Temperatures
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Albert Einstein wrote this letter to Marie Curie.
It could have been written for Dr J Curry also.
Albert Einstein letter to Marie curie on 23rd November, 1911 telling her to ignore haters.
“Highly esteemed Mrs. Curie,
Do not laugh at me for writing you without having anything sensible to say. But I am so enraged by the base manner in which the public is presently daring to concern itself with you that I absolutely must give vent to this feeling. However, I am convinced that you consistently despise this rabble, whether it obsequiously lavishes respect on you or whether it attempts to satiate its lust for sensationalism! I am impelled to tell you how much I have come to admire your intellect, your drive, and your honesty, and that I consider myself lucky to have made your personal acquaintance in Brussels. Anyone who does not number among these reptiles is certainly happy, now as before, that we have such personages among us as you, and Langevin too, real people with whom one feels privileged to be in contact. If the rabble continues to occupy itself with you, then simply don’t read that hogwash, but rather leave it to the reptile for whom it has been fabricated
With most amicable regards to you, Langevin, and Perrin, yours very truly,
A. Einstein”
Pingback: Code Red Climate Hype – Climate- Science.press
“At the ocean surface, temperature has on average increased by 0.88 [0.68–1.01] °C from 1850-1900 to
19 2011-2020, ……….”
Chapter 9 page 5
Never mind that millions of square miles of the oceans surface had no coverage 1850-1900.
CKid wrote: Never mind that millions of square miles of the oceans surface had no coverage 1850-1900.
Nothing but an argument from ignorance and incredulity. No evidence you know the subject matter or studied the literature and have any clue what is or isn’t known about the history of SST measurements and how it has been factored into the published number. None whatsoever. All you’re able to do is cut-and-paste and say, gee, look at that, that can’t be true, because me, who has no credentials, says so. And then you won’t even sign your name to your opinion. You’re the perfect Internet creature.
David
Between 1981 and 2016 there were 4 Trillion SST data points. In the early years of using ship observations there were a few hundred per month. With 139 million square miles of oceans that is not enough to tell anything about the oceans temperatures. But it’s not just the average that was inadequate. The vast majority of the observations were in the shipping lanes. That means the most sparsely covered parts of the oceans, outside of the shipping routes, had significantly less data. That is millions of square miles.
But inferior spatial coverage is not the end of it. There were no quality control standards. No protocols. The methodology was all over the place. The depths varied. TIme of observation was random. Equipment changed.There is a reason why so much time has been spent trying reconcile the messiness of the early efforts with the much more technologically sophisticated and scientific data collected in the last few decades.
Interesting that Australia eliminated land temperatures data because it didn’t meet current standards but the establishment tries to rationalize using pre 1900 SST data. Massaging data is massaging data.
CKid commented:CKid wrote: Never mind that millions of square miles of the oceans surface had no coverage 1850-1900.
The historical data have huge uncertainties as a result. And data scientists spend huge amount of efforts trying to infill those by seeing how modern data in those areas compares to modern data in the areas where there were historical data. All documented, e.g.:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.2103
Scientists have thought very long and hard about all these issues.
And there were more data points than you claim. Look at Figure 3 in the second link, second row, left-hand figure titled “Release 1, 1880-1889 SST.” It shows 20% or more coverage in almost the entire ocean, not just shipping lanes.
In the same paper they write “Some new sources were specifically digitised for ICOADS, e.g. US Marine Meteorological Journals (MMJ), 1878–1894, 1.8M records….” If that could be averaged it would be 9,400 records a month, way more than the few hundred per month you claimed. And that’s just the records they added.
In climate science, or any observational science, you don’t usually get the data you want, so you have to make the best use of the data you can get. That’s what these scientists are doing and have done. Then everyone lives with the resulting uncertainties, and presents the them in the scientific literature.
The case for AGW hardly rides on SSTs in 1850-1900, nor does any of the concern. This is just another case of trying to manufacture doubt because you can counter the big picture.
David
Look at Table 4a where it shows in 1850 less than 10% coverage of the oceans. That is millions of square miles. Look at 1865 where it shows Less than 10% coverage. That is millions of square miles. Look at 1890, 1920 and 1945, where there is less than 20% coverage. In each case that means millions of square miles not covered.
Out of 139 million square miles at least 100 million square miles were without coverage.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/joc.4775
Such massive areas without data means there were only guesses.
“ The upper ocean has become more stably stratified since at least 1970 over the vast majority of the
globe (virtually certain), primarily due to surface-intensified warming and high-latitude surface
freshening (very high confidence).”
Chapter 9 page 5
Has it been proven that this is any different from the Roman and Medieval Warm periods?
IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread
A highly important topic.
Peters out after 779 comments with the usual sign, postscripts by Peter Lang, Christos Vournas and yours truly.
–
Why so few comments on the most earth shattering announcement from the IPCC.
The media is giving it cold love, yet another 5 years till doomsday for the last 30 years.
Could it be that giving odds on the likelihood of a fact being true makes it obvious that the facts are opinions, not facts?
What have they truly said about human causation other than that we are a small component of the many factors the put CO2 into the atmosphere?
Where have the explained the enormous cost of the actions they propose we should take?
Where is the realisation that it is both useless and futile to approach such grandiose ideas without the science being rigorous and exact and having people onside?
–
Judith, one of the failures of this report is to answer the two questions mentioned earlier.
Why is CO2 rise both significant and dangerous when we do not have a specified level of temperature that we as humans would welcome.
Nor a set level of acceptable CO2 for the world..
I have made a stab at answering the Temperature level which in itself raises all the issues of measurement , length of measurement and adjustments needed.
Could we please have a topic addressing these important points from some of the people of substance on either side.
–
I welcome anyone else who is prepared to make a comment on the levels of either to do so giving their reasons.
–
This thread is dying, not surprising given there is nothing new from the IPCC.
Please continue to commentate as the more genuine comments we get the more it will highlight the current inadequacies that need addressing.
–
angech
For those who asked the question “who’s talking about meters”, this is from Chapter 9 page 9.
“ By 2300, GMSL will rise between 0.3 m and 3.1 m under SSP1-2.6, between 1.7 m and 6.8 m under
SSP5-8.5 in the absence of Marine Ice Cliff Instability, and by up to 16 m under SSP5-8.5 considering
Marine Ice Cliff Instability (low confidence).
“…up to 16 m…”
The sole purpose is to give the media a catastrophic narrative for their ratings or clicks or subscriptions. Symbiotic relationship 101.
You missed the “low confidence” part, Kid.
Here are the relevant paragraphs:
Irrelevant. You missed the original context which was use of these astronomical numbers to frighten the public. Even the very use of such numbers was questioned, irrespective of probability. I provided evidence that the meters number, (meters plural) is used.
Follow the mainstream media narrative about many of the statements of IPCC6. The coverage will be devoid of the nuances in the report, including low confidence. The media have no interest in reporting facts. They are into eyeballs and shaping public opinion.
It’s not much different from the budget debate. They are all onboard with Biden increasing the top marginal tax rate from 37% to 39.6% to have the big bad rich pay their fair share and by implication reducing the deficit. What is never reported by the complicit economic illiterates in the media is that the increase generates only $35 billion in 2022 with a baseline deficit of $1 Trillion for years to come.
Facts are collateral damage in the war to sway the public.
The context is David calling your bluff, Kid.
Switching to “but the press” won’t work.
RTFR properly, and smile.
No, it was both. The literature and the press. I cited the literature and the press.
Keep up.
It’s getting embarrassing.
The point is about basic due diligence, Kid:
As some kind of accountant, you should be able to get it.
When we see the quotes in context, we realize they’re perfectly fine.
CKid wrote: For those who asked the question “who’s talking about meters”, this is from Chapter 9 page 9.
“ By 2300, GMSL will rise between 0.3 m and 3.1 m under SSP1-2.6, between 1.7 m and 6.8 m under
SSP5-8.5 in the absence of Marine Ice Cliff Instability, and by up to 16 m under SSP5-8.5 considering
Marine Ice Cliff Instability (low confidence).
“…up to 16 m…”
And what is so wrong with a projection of 16 m by 2300 under SSP5-8.5?
Appell ‘s comment – “And what is so wrong with a projection of 16 m by 2300 under SSP5-8.5?”
What is wrong is that 8.5 is not based on anything resembling reality.
Takeaway message 0.28 metres by 2100 or 0.3 metres per 100 years approx 3 mm a year is likely.
angech wrote: Takeaway message 0.28 metres by 2100 or 0.3 metres per 100 years approx 3 mm a year is likely.
Look at the data for once in your life — sea level rise is accelerating.
I’m not going to help you — go find the data. You gave a number, 3 mm/yr. Prove it by citing data.
Look at the data for once in your life — sea level rise is accelerating.
Prove it by citing data.
–
NASA SATELLITE DATA: 1993-PRESENT
–
Oct 3 1919 95.7 mm Oct 23 2020 97.4 mm
0.7 mm a year
September 3 2019 97.0 mm to March 21 97.6 mm
18 months 0.6 mm That ain’t no acceleration, Davy Jones , looker at sea level rise data.
Not accelerating for the last year is it?
Care to try again?
Beware your wishes:
[IPCC] relative to the period 1995–2014 GMSL will rise by 2050 between 0.18 [0.15–0.23, likely range] m (SSP1-1.9) and 0.23 [0.20–0.30, likely range] m (SSP5-8.5), and by 2100 between 0.38 [0.28–18 0.55, likely range] m (SSP1-1.9) and 0.77 [0.63–1.02, likely range] m (SSP5-8.5)
[DOC] Takeaway message 0.28 metres by 2100 or 0.3 metres per 100 years approx 3 mm a year is likely.
Likeliness is related to a scenario, Doc.
angech wrote: NASA SATELLITE DATA: 1993-PRESENT
–
Oct 3 1919 95.7 mm Oct 23 2020 97.4 mm
0.7 mm a year
September 3 2019 97.0 mm to March 21 97.6 mm
18 months 0.6 mm That ain’t no acceleration
What an incredibly…stupid…analysis. Just plain unscientific and stupid.
David Appell
“go find the data. You gave a number, 3 mm/yr. Prove it by citing data.”
–
I already cited the data. It was the lower level of the range given by the IPCC ANALYSIS. I thought you were aware of that.
–
“angech wrote: NASA SATELLITE DATA: 1993-PRESENT
18 months 0.6 mm That ain’t no acceleration”
–
What an incredibly…stupid…analysis. Just plain unscientific and stupid.
–
A stupendously stupid, cherry-picked bit of data put out by those idiots at NASA . What would they know? Unscientific scientists and all.
I agree with you David.
How dare they wreck a good diatribe with inconvenient facts such as the sea level has not been rising for 18 months.
Maths is your strong point?
angech wrote:How dare they wreck a good diatribe with inconvenient facts such as the sea level has not been rising for 18 months.
Go learn about analyzing a noisy time series and get back to us.
angech –
Unfortunately, you seem to have a pattern of making nasty and insulting comments and then going into hiding.
Sometimes you apologize after but then the behavior continues again somewhere down the line.
Joshua | August 16, 2021
“angech –
Unfortunately, you seem to have a pattern of making nasty and insulting comments and then going into hiding.”
–
You are a funny man , Joshua, judging by this comment, which shows that you are exhibiting all the behaviour traits your are attempting to foist on me.
–
Sarcasm is different to making nasty, insulting and intolerant comments as you have just done.
–
This is perfect in so many ways so thank you for the opportunity to comment on why you have popped up just now.
–
You are obviously reading the threads above..
You see someone making pertinent points and asking for opinion and help.
You reflect that your “side ” is struggling and jump into help by offering up a personal insult as a way of deflecting the conversation.
Congratulations on your success.
–
I actually went back through my comments on this blog
I will list some of them below.
As far as I can see I have been extremely patient and tolerant and nice.
Can you quote anything I said remotely nasty or insulting on this blog post?
I thought not.
Cheers.
Joshua
I have a life to lead away from blogs with a lot of issues that need dealing with.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice to others to whom you have been insulting and nasty, excoriating even]
“Geeze. Don’t take my critique so personally.”
–
Now Personally, I practice cognitive empathy – where instead of concluding that others are “obtuse” because they don’t agree with you, you try to understand how their perspective might be logical and reasonable even if you disagree with it.
An admirable sentiment you must admit but instead of admiring it I practice it. That is how I understand how deeply hurt your feelings must be at the moment.
–
Nasty insults
–
I “go to skeptical science when I want a good chuckle.[from there]”
Now this one must have really hurt, I guess, to get you so riled up.
–
To Willard “I’m not sure which of you is the most pedantic in the sense of picking up other people’s grammar.
I suspect you would edge David out.
No disrespect to David, or you, I like it as well
.
If I apologise, and I do, and write it as my comment on your comments
David Appell is scared of change”.
because of these comments that he wrote.
viz David Appell quotes–
That would makes us both feel better?”
–
To David Appell “I am bemused that someone with your history would suddenly get so stroppy about a little comment on the way that you feel about change? Indigestion or a struck nerve? Grammar?”
–
In reply to David Appell “Nothing natural is causing any net warming.” -mendacious?
–
General comment It’s like what other reason for existing does a climate alarmist have for existing [Willard, Zeke]] other than to promote climate alarmism.?
–
Joshua “I’m with Willard’ I have lots of opinions but no opinion on these questions. They hurt too much “. Sorry I apologise again, that was intemperate.
–
Again, I have no idea why you think valid criticisms of a vapid, weak and error laden, biased IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion is a nasty, insulting comment.
Monckton would say that the Truth is it’s own defense.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,Joshua.
–
Finally, as you say,
“It’s always interesting when an interlocutor crosses over from an online convo with me to a convo about me or about what I said with some putative online audience. It’s interesting to note exactly when it happened on the thread.”
–
“It’s a curious pattern” agreed.
> I have no idea why you think valid criticisms of a vapid, weak and error laden, biased IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion is a nasty, insulting comment.
Is that some kind of a joke, Doc?
angech –
I was referring to nothing other than our direct exchange.
I asked yo question. In return you were nasty, insulted me, and talked to a putative audience about me (which is also rude in itself).
And then when I commented on your response you didn’t respond. Now if that were merely because you missed it then I apologize. But it does fit in with a pattern as I see it, where you make insulting comments either toward me or others and then don’t respond when I engage with you about that behavior. I will acknowledge I’m mostly referring to ATTP and there’s always the complicating factor of moderation there.
Anyway why not just back on track? I asked you that question in a somewhat rhetorical fashion to make a point, to which I’d like you to respond.
Joshua. Thanks for clarifying.
If I have neglected to respond to you at ATTP it would most likely be either moderation or having to deal with other issues in my life.
I have not gone into hiding there but I find that when I do reply with information to requests or comments there that are pertinent, relevant and not convenient to the general discussion that they were not published.
This is an art form in itself that allows some of his posts to end with exchanges of mutual congratulation between like minded commentators combined with numerous put downs of anyone who has been commentating in an adversarial fashion.
The end result is that it looks like the commentators have run away when in reality they are being continuously gagged. Not every message I or others write gets the obligatory “out of line – mod” .
Usually that is reserved for the good commentators when they start disagreeing among themselves.
I think you get a fair share of those.
I hope I have explained that situation to your satisfaction and that you might understand my amused frustration at currently being denied comment there except when ATTP or his mod want an adversarial view to inject a bit of life into a topic.
It is a real shame as he does keep abreast of the current issues and introduces some before they reach the mainstream.
When you commented previously about my behaviour I took it badly because I thought two things.
One that I had been exceptionally polite on this post.
Two that you were having a cheap shot as you were calling me out for something that I had not done while other people at that site exhibited that sort of behaviour in spades.
Both against people like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry and Roger Pielke when they are not around to defend themselves.
Worse, as many commentators like Roger have found, when the do go on they are I Italy encouraged with flattery, quickly denigrated, then blocked from comment.
You should try calling out some of this behaviour over there but as you know boys have to have fun.
I will go back through the post as I have no idea of the question you asked me if it was here.
If it was elsewhere please put it up here and I will give my best shot at a thoughtful decent reply
Sincerely
Willard
> I have no idea why you think valid criticisms of a vapid, weak and error laden, biased IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion is a nasty, insulting comment.
–
Is that some kind of a joke, Doc?
–
High praise from a master of sarcasm.
–
I appreciate your comment.
In respect of your other role I think you should think about what I wrote to Joshua just now.
I doubt you can change or indeed want to change the current structure which has worked well for the ATTP ethos.
Despite the good articles that you and ATTP write it is just not a pleasant model at present.
Doc,
You’re just whining because your comments barely get through these days.
Your “I have no idea why you think valid criticisms of a vapid, weak and error laden, biased IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion is a nasty, insulting comment” was not sarcastic. It was at best ironic. For it was a nasty and insulting comment.
angech –
Suffice it to say, I think my I views on how you’re moderated at ATTP, and moderation there more generally, don’t quite line up with yours. And I also think that if you were more introspective about your approach over there you could well engage in meaningful critique of the “consensus” view over there while only rarely tripping moderation. If you want my views in more detail I could provide it – but the basic rule of thumb is, before posting ask yourself if you are ycommenting in a way your interlocutors would likely consider respectful and In good faith.
IMO, when people really want to avoid moderation they can usually do so and still express dissenting views. It’s mostly a matter I’d style and will (and willpower.
That said, I don’t think moderation is valuable in any meaningful sense except under rather specific circumstances. I think that’s true over at ATTP, or here, or pretty much anywhere else. Imo, if you’re relying on moderation you’re chasing your tail. The way to promote the best discussions is to run a blog in such a way that moderation rarely becomes needed.
Take a look at Andrew Gelman’s blog. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him moderate a comment. The most that happens is thsf he sometimes pipes up and asks people to stuff a sick in it. And yet there is high quality discussion on many polarized topics among people who strongly disagee.
Joshua angech
‘”Suffice it to say, I think my I views on how you’re moderated at ATTP, and moderation there more generally, don’t quite line up with yours.”
–
Fair enough, I have said and maintain that the reason for not replying to comments of yours and others there is that I have been cut off despite really want to avoid moderation by style and will (and willpower].
I usually give up after the third block.
–
And I also think that if you were more introspective about your approach over there you could well engage in meaningful critique of the “consensus” view over there while only rarely tripping moderation.
I try. We all get passionate. I hate introspection.
If you want my views in more detail I could provide it – but the basic rule of thumb is, before posting ask yourself if you are commenting in a way your interlocutors would likely consider respectful and In good faith.
I understand Thank you for the offer and that advice.
That said, I don’t think moderation is valuable in any meaningful sense except under rather specific circumstances. I think that’s true over at ATTP, or here, or pretty much anywhere else.
Specific circumstances would be the root issue.
ATTP and Willard have big shoulders and do not mind my views.
Willard | August 17, 2021 at 9:07 am |
> I have no idea why you think valid criticisms of a vapid, weak and error laden, biased IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion is a nasty, insulting comment.
Irony from me .
“Is that some kind of a joke, Doc?”
Sarcasm from Willard.
Your “I have no idea why you think valid criticisms of a vapid, weak and error laden, biased IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion is a nasty, insulting comment” was not sarcastic.
Correct.
Your comment was sarcastic.
Mine was ironic.
“For it was a nasty and insulting comment.”
The second time I have been accused of making nasty and insulting comments.
The first time, from Joshua, who thought in part I was rude for not answering him when I was blocked from doing so.
I hope my explanation had made a little inroad in that direction. On my part once I realized where he had been misled I backed off from being upset.
Willard,
This whole post is about the competence or otherwise of the IPCC process.
Others here have actually said uncomplimentary things about the IPCC.
We could go through the 3 terms I used ,
Vapid – Poorly designed , described and detailed with variable explanations and a refusal to commit to specifics. Using probabilities to confuse people [highly likely].
Weak – Refusing to put up alternative views, refusing to comment on clearly out of whack new climate model predictions. Using hackneyed revisions of totally unlikely scenarios as the most likely outcomes.
Error laden – referring to the spaghetti graphs, the hockey stick proxies [read McIntyre, the one you are always insulting by referring to him as the auditor] The positive imaginary feed backs, The missing heat in the ocean etc.
Whom did it insult if it is the truth?
Not the IPCC.
Pax.
Joshua said:
“What reason other than calling people “alarmist, ” as a way of demonizing those you disagree with, do you have for existing?”
Firstly I do not demonise those I disagree with.
Your perception that calling people alarmist is demonising is instructive, look at it closely, explain.
The first and most important one [meaning of life] [existing] is to be helpful to other people.
After the laughing and floor rolling this is still my view.
I may disagree with people, agreed? I may describe their viewpoints, agreed? None of this constitutes demonisation.
angech –
I responded over there. If you counter-respond and it doesn’t get through let me know over here.
Joshua says:| August 21, 2021
angech I responded over there. If you counter-respond and it doesn’t get through let me know over here.
> Your perception that calling people alarmist is demonising is instructive,..
It’s tribal. Pejorative. It’s in bad faith. It’s insulting. It disables good faith exchange. It’s playing the player, not the ball. It’s like me calling you a “denier,” which necessarily is a sign of bad faith exchange.
–
Alarmist is all of those things?
In your eyes?
It hurts that much?
Well, I just do not know what to say.
I should respect your feelings in this regard ,but really?
In my eyes , which have equal value I guess, alarmist is a word commonly used by most people to describe a person who over inflates problems.
Not pejorative.
Not in bad faith [more in pity].
Definitely not insulting.
Playing the player? I ask questions and try to answer them with science]
You respond with this comment and personal antipathy.
“Name-calling isn’t signaling disagreement. It moves from discussion of point of view to expressing personal antipathy.
What? Calling someone “alarmist” is describing their viewpoint? Only a denier could write something like that. (But I’m not being demonizing).”
I think you could reflect on that again but doubt that you are in the mood to do so.
By the way my comments to you and others there have been scrubbed yet again.
Just letting you know.
angech –
> I think you could reflect on that again but doubt that you are in the mood to do so.
I think you missed my humor.
How many thousands? of times have you read people in these pages or WUWT comments about “denier” from Judith or other “skeptics”?
Calling someone “denier” is no different from calling someone “alarmist.” And your justification is no different than the resonse of “I’m just being accurate” in defense of using “denier”
And angech, my feelings aren’t hurt. You can call me whatever names you like. That you do so and don’t see the difference between name-calling and discussing a viewpoint is information and instructive. Nothing more.
Joshua | August 22, 2021
angech > I think you could reflect on that again but doubt that you are in the mood to do so.
” I think you missed my humor.”
I may already have replied Joshua but sorry, cannot see it.
I would ask you to read the comment below headed
angech | August 21, 2021 at 8:50 am | Reply
Evolution takes time.
A poignant point.
A lovely bit of writing that was stirred up by an intemperate comment elsewhere and removed by the moderator to avoid hurt feelings at the site. I understand the need to protect valuable site members from seeing comments that disagree with their complex world view and status.
We may have something in common.
NTZ show that in Holocene proxy analysis, PAGES contradicts itself.
AR6?is cherry-picking the PAGES cherries that look alarming, and rejecting PAGES data that does not.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/16/the-ipccs-latest-pages-2k-2019-temperature-hockey-stick-is-contradicted-by-pages-2k-2015/
“ The spatial pattern of future change is consistent with observed SST change over the 20th
century, though with notable regional differences (Figure 9.3). Long-term change in SST patterns is
important for regional impacts but also affects radiative feedbacks, and therefore long-term change in
climate sensitivity (Section 7.4.4.3). In the Southern Ocean, CMIP6 models project that SSTs will eventually
consistently increase in the 21st century at a rate dependent on future scenario (Bracegirdle et al., 2020)
(Figure 9.3, Section 9.2.3.2). Yet, there is only low confidence that this Southern Ocean warming will
emerge by the end of the century (Section 7.4.4.1),
Chapter 9 page 16
The latest alternative view of why our planet is warming (from Soon et al) at least suggests science actually looks at all the potential suspects in the same light and not continue to focus the spotlight on its popular choice of villain (C02) because an agenda tells them they should do so, or else. So much of what we need to know depends upon whether or not humanity has indeed committed a crime, a misdemeanour or even a very minor offence by burning fossil fuel and, thus far, that is very, very, very far from clear.
At the moment the ‘trial’ is being dictated by, and chock full of, what should be classed as inadmissible evidence provided not by the unbiased but by well looked after followers of fashion who lost their right to be respected a long, long time ago. I don’t expect politicians to do any better but I do expect scientists to be much, much better.
Is it time to admit that science has never really had a meaningful understanding of randomness and/or infinite change and how it may govern just about everything we are and do? Even one hundred years of painstaking records isn’t going to tell us anything about what is going on unless we keep very open minds about all of it and everything else besides.
Is it time to admit that science has never really had a meaningful understanding of randomness and/or infinite change and how it may govern just about everything we are and do?
–
No, science tries.
Some scientists misuse science.
We are able to Theoretically calculate the planet mean surface temperature Tmean
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
The method we use in this research is the “Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method”.
The data available are from observatories and satellite measurements.
The data:
1). The solar flux’s intensity upon the planet surface “S”.
2). The planet surface average Albedo “a”.
3). Planet surface temperatures “T” K.
4). Planet rotational spin value “N” rotations/day.
5). Planet surface composition (planet average surface specific heat “cp” cal/gr.oC).
6). Planet surface Φ-factor – the planet surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient).
We have resulted to an important discovery:
The planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) according to their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
The consequence of this discovery is the realization that a planet with a higher (N*cp) product (everything else equals) appears to be a warmer planet.
We call it the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
…………………………………..
We are able to Theoretically calculate for the planet without-atmosphere the mean surface temperature.
For every planet without atmosphere there is the theoretical uniform surface effective temperature Te.
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
And for every planet without atmosphere there is the average surface temperature (the mean surface temperature) Tmean.
Thus we can write
Tmean = Te * X
where X is a coefficient which calculates the planet Tmean from the planet known Te.
The X is a different and very distinguished for every different planet number.
Notice:
The planet Te is theoretically calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, when the planet average surface Albedo, and the solar flux upon the planet surface are known.
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Now, we can accept that for every planet (ι) there is a Te.ι and there is a Tmean.ι
We can accept that for every planet (ι) there is a Xι, there is a Te.ι and there is a
Tmean.ι = Te.ι* Xι
So we have here
Tmean.ι = Te.ι * Χ.ι
or
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (X.ι)⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Conclusion:
We have admitted that for every planet (ι) there is a different for each planet (ι) a factor [(X.ι)⁴ ], which relates for the purpose to theoretically calculate for the planet (ι) the average (mean) surface temperature Tmean.ι
………………
by simply multiplying the X.ι with the planet (ι) the theoretical uniform surface effective temperature Te.ι
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
Also for every planet (ι) without atmosphere we have the planet (N.ι*cp.ι) product.
I have demonstrated in my website that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) according to their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
Thus we can in the equation
Tmean.ι = [ Φ (1-a) S (X.ι)⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the (X.ι)⁴ term to replace with the (β *N.ι *cp.ι) ¹∕ ⁴ term
where
a.ι – is the planet (ι) the average surface Albedo
Φ.ι – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (for smooth surface planets Φ = 0,47 and for rough surface planets Φ = 1)
N.ι – is planet (ι) rotational spin (rot/day)
cp.ι – is the planet average surface specific heat (cal/gr.oC)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
Consequently, for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Conclusion:
The above formula theoretically calculates the planets without atmosphere mean surface temperatures with very closely matching to the satellite measured temperatures results.
Planet……Te…..Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K..325,83 K…340 K
Earth……255 K….287,74 K…288 K
Moon……270,4 Κ…223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars…..209,91 K…213,21 K…210 K
Notice:
The planet mean surface temperatures Tmean are very much precisely being measured by satellites.
……………………………………
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
From the above…
for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or it can be re-written as
Tmean = Te * [(β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴
The Theorem:
The planet mean surface temperature Tmean numerical value will be equal to the planet effective temperature Te numerical value Tmean = Te only when the term
(β*N*cp) = 1
and, since the
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal
the planet N*cp product should be then
N*cp = 1 /β
or the numerical value of the product
N*cp = 1 /150
…………………………………….
The Theorem leads to the following very important conclusions:
1). In general, the planet effective temperature numerical value Te is not numerically equal to the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.
2). For the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature numerical value Tmean to be equal to the planet effective temperature numerical value Te the condition from the above Theorem the (N*cp = 1 /150) should be necessarily met.
3). For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .
Consequently, Earth’s effective temperature numerical value Te cannot be equal to Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Where is the calculation of the value of Φ?
Where is any mention of Venus?
We have resulted to an important discovery:
The planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) according to their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
The consequence of this discovery is the realization that a planet with a higher (N*cp) product (everything else equals) appears to be a warmer planet.
We call it the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: New Climate Report Got You Shakin’ in Your Boots?
Yet again Christos? It is complete nonsense that you repeat endlessly. You have discovered a new physical law. We get it.
Robert
“Yet again Christos? It is complete nonsense that you repeat endlessly. You have discovered a new physical law. We get it.”
No, you don’t.
You’re right. Sorry – you think you have discovered a new law of physics.
Isn’t it wonderful !
The temperature of the global surface can be broadly in one of three states, cooling, unchanged and warming. Each state requires an estimate of uncertainty – that is, is the present temperature really significantly different to a selected past temperature estimate? Maybe it is, marginally, but the change in the last century is small compared to its uncertainty and we might well be just wading around in the reeds of temperature noise.
Since most people now seem to believe that we are in a time of global warming, the next consideration is this: Is the alleged arming of natural origin, of anthropogenic origin, or a mix of both?
Following the logic trail, if people believe that the alleged warming is mostly anthropogenic, then it is required to postulate a mechanism(s) capable of causing such warming.
Greenhouse gases have been the popular choice by the IPCC. whose charter is “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” It is demanded that it consider anthropogenic effects, if any exist.
………………………
Thus, we have a structure that dominates the discussion, based on its requirement to research anthropogenic causes. Its progress over the last few decades has pointedly ignored or downplayed non-greenhouse gas mechanisms. It neglects natural causes of change – they are not in the charter. It neglects the uncertainty of temperature measurements when it would be inconvenient to its purpose to blandly state “Yes, there might have been a small quantity of harmless warming in the last century, but we are not sure if it means much and we are not sure if it is caused by the actions of man and we are not sure that it can be attributed to carbon dioxide or other GHGs.
On present scientific evidence, viewed neutrally, that is what AR6 should have stated, not the 4,000 pages of mostly poor-quality opinion dressed up as science that it has put into the public domain. It is quite a shame to good science as we used to practise. Geoff S
Geoff, here is what the AR6 says about natural and manmade forcings:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Effective-radiative-forcing-related-to-the-climate-drivers-assessed-in-the-AR6-report-with-the-total-ERF.jpg
What’s missing?
“What’s missing” is an admission that they are dicking around with aerosols to get the forcings they want. The 1910 to 1950 change to anthro ERF is a particularly obvious example. Why aren’t the uncertainties of aerosols reflected in any uncertainties in the totals?
Just further evidence that the CliSciFi UN IPCC and U.S. NCA reports are meant to convince (deceive) rather than inform.
Dave Fair, a few days ago you accused the hockey stick of deleting the MWP. But you never replied when I asked you for the data and evidence that a NH-wide MWP ever existed. You going to present that, or do you surrender?
Christ, David. You know damned well the MWP existed. Quit screwing around with me.
Dave Fair wrote:
“What’s missing” is an admission that they are dicking around with aerosols to get the forcings they want. The 1910 to 1950 change to anthro ERF is a particularly obvious example. Why aren’t the uncertainties of aerosols reflected in any uncertainties in the totals?
Would you please show me the uncertainty in the total forcing, in the figure I gave you?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Effective-radiative-forcing-related-to-the-climate-drivers-assessed-in-the-AR6-report-with-the-total-ERF.jpg
Well, David, there are uncertainties indicated in the aerosols, but not in the total. What would you have me say about the uncertainties in the sum of the underlying data of the total but not in the total? Is this the new world of CliSciFi?
Dave Fair wrote: Christ, David. You know damned well the MWP existed. Quit screwing around with me.
I don’t know that, Dave. Everyone who, like you, has insisted that there was one before the hockey stick has also never been able to produce the data when I’ve asked. Clearly you can’t either.
“David Appell | August 20, 2021 at 10:07 am |
Dave Fair wrote: Christ, David. You know damned well the MWP existed. Quit screwing around with me.
I don’t know that, Dave. Everyone who, like you, has insisted that there was one before the hockey stick has also never been able to produce the data when I’ve asked. Clearly you can’t either.”
Far too many proxies show a likely warmer or comparable warmth during the MWP to believe the shaft of the HS provides any meaningful insight into the MWP
mt reed,
oroko
law dome
dome c
yamal tree lines
retreating glaciers showing trees dating from the MWP,
in the columbia ice fields, mendenhal glacier,
to name just of few of the proxies showing warmer mwp.
joe – the non climate scientist wrote:
Far too many proxies show a likely warmer or comparable warmth during the MWP to believe the shaft of the HS provides any meaningful insight into the MWP
That’s just a list of a few proxies, not an scientific, analytical reconstruction of N. Hemisphere-wide temperatures during the purported MWP.
Where were these proxies and where was such a reconstruction before the hockey stick?
David Appell | August 20, 2021 at 12:14 pm |
joe – the non climate scientist wrote:
Far too many proxies show a likely warmer or comparable warmth during the MWP to believe the shaft of the HS provides any meaningful insight into the MWP
“That’s just a list of a few proxies, not an scientific, analytical reconstruction of N. Hemisphere-wide temperatures during the purported MWP”
David how about responding to the specific statement – ”
“Far too many proxies show a likely warmer or comparable warmth during the MWP to believe the shaft of the HS provides any meaningful insight into the MWP
mt reed,
oroko
law dome
dome c
yamal tree lines
retreating glaciers showing trees dating from the MWP,
in the columbia ice fields, mendenhal glacier,
to name just of few of the proxies showing warmer mwp.”
Again – those are just of few of the multitude of proxies that show a warmer MWP. yet, the HS reconstructions continue to use ex post screening to find the flat shaft and HS Blade.
Pages 2k still uses the bristlecone pines.
The HS reconstructions lose credibility, no matter how many times replicated when the same ex post screen proxies are used.
David – in your next response – try to provide a coherent reason that the multitude of proxies showing why low resolution proxies with ex post screening for hs dominate the HS reconstructions
joe – “the non climate scientist,” there have been dozens of reconstruction papers, multiple methods and statistics, that give a hockey stick, with all manner of proxies (more than tree rings) from all over the world. They hardly rely on bristlecone pines or yamal trees (one tiny location in the world), nor are you an expert in what proxies are suitable. Peer reviewed papers in the world’s best journals. When (as I’ve shown repeatedly) the hockey stick is required by basic physics. The only surprise would be if the hockey stick WASN’T in the data.
“ Christ, David. You know damned well the MWP existed”
But just not globally synchronous ….
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-medieval-period.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
“ Earth’s climate history is often understood by breaking it down into constituent climatic epochs1. Over the Common Era (the past 2,000 years) these epochs, such as the Little Ice Age2,3,4, have been characterized as having occurred at the same time across extensive spatial scales5. Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence6, the spatiotemporal coherence of climate epochs earlier in the Common Era has yet to be robustly tested. Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions. Furthermore, the spatial coherence that does exist over the preindustrial Common Era is consistent with the spatial coherence of stochastic climatic variability. This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”
David Appell: “…They hardly rely on bristlecone pines or yamal trees…”
You might be very surprised. There are several “tricks” the hockey team used but one was the creation of the blade by giving 32X weight to proxies that had the blade shape, like the Graybill strip bark bristlecone pines and foxtail pines. The majority of proxies used in MBH98,99 and later hockey sticks had no 20th century unique uptick. They were all used to create a self-cancelling chorus of noise creating the shaft of the stick.
The Graybill pines were explicitly cautioned not to be used as temperature proxies by Graybill in his publishing as he believed they were susceptible to CO2 fertilization effect. MBH98,99 fails to make their hockey stick without Graybill’s pines so they ignored his caution. In the later investigation that arose after the publication of McIntyre and McKitrick 03, 05, the National Academy of Sciences forbade the use of these pines in temperature proxies. The hockey team ignored the NAS also with complete impunity. Instead they celebrate their popularity to the youth culture with mass media books. A book you should read is by Andrew Montfort, aka Bishop Hill, is the true story.
https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-W-Montford/dp/0957313527
Climategate was breaking after the book was written but validated Montfort and much more. The “hide the decline” scandal was also revealed as the hockey stick was used by Phil Jones for the WMO conference and TAR by cropping off a key tree proxy in 1960 because it was declining. He replaced it with weather station global mean temps to get a correct answer, to sell the message. This was a huge scandal when found out 8 years later. It is part of the reason Judith Curry became more skeptical. But today 12 years later the incident has been erased from history and the AR6 is using bristlecone pines and apparently spliced thermometer temps to create a hockey stick graph.
David you keep stating that physics requires the HS. Maybe so maybe not.
The shafts of all the HS are heavily influenced by ex post screening and low resolution proxies, Ex post screening excludes multitudes of proxies which dont have the straight shaft as i listed just a few of the many, in my prior comments. The blade is derived from measurements using high resolution instruments. The measurements using high resolution instruments vs extremely low resolution proxies isnt even close to an apples to apples comparision.
Further there are far too many proxies that get screened out that directly conflict with the straight shaft HS studies.
David – how do the climate scientist get a colder mwp when the tree lines are 50-150km north of present day in yamal. Same question with the trees dating from the mwp being exposed by retreating glaciers in the columbia ice fields and the mendenhal glacier. They do it by screening out proxies they dont like using ex post screening.
Pages2k 2013/2017/2019 remains very guilty with the screening.
Natural planetary warming and cooling is centred on the eastern Pacific Ocean. That has been in a warming phase since the early 20th century.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-019-1401-2/MediaObjects/41586_2019_1401_Fig3_HTML.png
Tony Banton: “This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales.”
If the is proven where is their Nobel Prize, like the one they awarded the IPCC and Al Gore for using the hockey stick?
Gore’s Academy Award winning documentary featured the Mann/Jones hockey stick twice, once as a the multi-proxy reconstruction and once incorrectly labeled as Lonnie Thompson’s ice core proxy. Of course, the huge flaws in the hockey stick had yet to have been revealed to any but a tiny audience. Climategate email leak/hack was two years away. Thompson, being the technical consultant for the movie, suffered a double embarrassment and less apt to be heard pumping the Nobel Prize in the air like Mann and Gore.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/calibrating-dr-thompsons-z-mometer/
Here is an email from the Jonathan Overpeck, lead IPCC author, regarding strategy instructions to Keith Briffa, a tree ring investigator and Tim Osborn of CRU on how to handle the MWP and HO.
“Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700
Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish. [my bold]
So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.
Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.
Best, peck”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/
I view this email as completely inappropriate and flying in the face of everything science stands for in regards bias and duress toward directed outcomes.
This is the tribal mentality that Judith saw herself becoming a part of and needing to break away from.
Ah, the good ol’ days:
https://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/#comment-227298
Here is Judith Curry’s 2009 response to Climategate:
“….I became adopted into a “tribe” during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. [Despite her being a coauthor the paper she now disavows it’s conclusion as biased.] I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under [by skeptics], and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.
After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests….”
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-2/
Willard,
11 years ago you were young and foolishly believed that science is about directing the conclusions that are needed for the tribe and consensus enforcement.
Now you are much wiser we all see.
Ron,
The Deming Affair is older than that:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair
Contrarians already lost that one.
Why reopen that wound?
joe – the non climate scientist wrote: David you keep stating that physics requires the HS. Maybe so maybe not.
No — it is so. My logic has nothing whatsoever to do with proxies. It’s very basic science and math. Is there a logical error in my reasoning?
Physical laws require a hockey stick:
1) temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)
2) CO2_forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)
3) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.
Hence, if CO2 isn’t changing, as prior to 1850, CO2_forcing=0 and there is no temperature change — that’s the flat handle of the hockey stick.
If CO2 is increasing exponentially, as post 1850 during the industrial era, its forcing is changing linearly (ln of an exponential = linear) and hence so is the temperature change – which is the blade of the hockey stick.
QED
Is there a flaw in this proof? Michael Mann doesn’t think so. Neither does Sidney Crosby.
Appleman’s comment – “joe – the non climate scientist wrote: David you keep stating that physics requires the HS. Maybe so maybe not.
No — it is so. My logic has nothing whatsoever to do with proxies.”
Your ignorance and/or ignoring the proxies is precisely the problem with your analysis of the shaft of the HS. Far too many low resolution proxies dominate the shaft to the HS. Far too many higher resolution proxies are screened out because they dont give the straight shaft. Far too low resolution proxies get included even though the are in direct conflict with other known climate proxies and historical events.
Your rebuttal to my list including yamal demonstrates you knowledge and effect of the proxies is naive. “yamal is only a tiny Tree lines 100k north of present day tree line, while at the same time, receding glaciers in alaska mendenhal & columbia ice fields revealing forests dating from the MWP, elevated temps in the sequia’s.
Now if you believe the multitude of HS studies using weak low resolution proxies yield precision in the reconstruction of prior temps within 0.5c, more power to you.
Its similar to trying to measure mm with precision using a yardstick
Oh no, Joe’s resorting to juvenile name calling again, as he always does when he’s losing the argument.
Joe, again — my argument has NOTHING to do with proxies. Nothing.
It doesn’t depend on proxies in any way. Low resolution, high resolution, yamal, proxies on the moon — they’re all irrelevant to my argument. I don’t care what they say.
Joe, do you understand basic math? Logarithms and exponentials?
Because if not then you won’t understand my reasoning. Maybe that’s the problem here — you just can’t follow a simple little math problem.
My argument is just a little physics and a little math. Very simple. Utterly straightforward and solidly convincing.
Physics says there has to be a hockey stick. And, not surprisingly, there is!
David Appell | August 21, 2021 at 5:24 pm |
Oh no, Joe’s resorting to juvenile name calling again, as he always does when he’s losing the argument.
Joe, again — my argument has NOTHING to do with proxies. Nothing.
It doesn’t depend on proxies in any way. Low resolution, high resolution, yamal, proxies on the moon — they’re all irrelevant to my argument. I don’t care what they say.
Appell – Of Course Proxies are irrelevant to your argument -If you make the assumption that CO2 is the primary, if not the sole, reason for the warming.
Ron Graf wrote: David Appell: “…They hardly rely on bristlecone pines or yamal trees…”
Ron, you’re as bad as Joe.
For the last time, my argument about the inevitability of the hockey stick doesn’t rely on any proxies whatsoever.
It replies on pure physics.
If you can’t understand that, it’s because you don’t have enough education.
joey wrote: Appell – Of Course Proxies are irrelevant to your argument -If you make the assumption that CO2 is the primary, if not the sole, reason for the warming.
You are so tangled up in proxies it’s comical.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, joey baby. Not the only, but a biggie.
Denying that is pure bonkers, man. It doesn’t work anywhere.
Geoff wrote: Maybe it is, marginally, but the change in the last century is small compared to its uncertainty and we might well be just wading around in the reeds of temperature noise.
Put numbers to this claim. Prove it.
David, does this count as a citation?
One of your own.
AT ATTP paulski0 says: August 13, 2021
“”Seems to have gone slightly under the radar but there is quite a big change in assessed aerosol forcing strength, which was presumably a large factor in the ECS assessment update. -1.3W/m2 in AR6 for 1750-2014 compared with -0.9W/m2 in AR5 for 1750-2011. Within that the aerosol-cloud component estimate in AR6 is almost double that in AR5.”
Geoff wrote:
not the 4,000 pages of mostly poor-quality opinion dressed up as science that it has put into the public domain.
That’s truly a pathetic attempt to dismiss science you don’t like, Geoff, without confronting any of it. What a waste of time you are
Why don’t they publish the comments they received on the draft reports? When I was responsible for assigning comments on Bonneville Power Administration’s draft EISs to individual employees and contractor employees and reviewing their responses, I insured publication of all comments received and the official responses to them. The fact that CliSciFi practitioners don’t should be a warning to people reading their reports concerning the validity of those reports.
Ron Graf wrote: If the is proven where is their Nobel Prize, like the one they awarded the IPCC and Al Gore for using the hockey stick?
This continued obsession with the hockey stick is really hilarious. It’s like you all are obsessed with the Bohr model of the atom when the world has moved on to relativistic quantum mechanics.
The hockey stick has been replicated many times by many different proxies by many different statistical methods. The hockey stick is not a climate model. The hockey stick says nothing about the future. The hockey stick says nothing about carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. The hockey stick is obviously true on theoretical grounds — it’d only be surprising if it DIDN’T appear in the reconstructions. Michael Mann has won about every scientific prize in his profession. The hockey stick made Michael Mann famous. The attempts to smear and tear Michael Mann down made Michael Mann famous. Michael Mann expertly navigated and defeated all the political attacks and used them to become one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world. Michael Mann is quoted in the media every day. Michael Mann sells books and gives public lectures all the time. He appears on CNN and just recently one of the Sunday morning news talk shows. Michael Mann won.
So go ahead and argue endlessly about a tree on a peninsula in northern Russia.
Steven Mosher * has replied elsewhere to these questions.
I thank him for that
“What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?”
–
“There is no optimal temperature for life on earth. no single temp that will optimize some aspect of life. nevertheless we know -5C would be a bad thing. and 50C would be a bad thing. we know ranges and risks with extremes.
14C has been pretty good for us. if it ain’t broke!!”
–
Steven,thank you for your answer, the first real attempt by anyone to address this question sensibly.
Salient points you make.
There is a range of temperatures that suit different life forms differently.
Too cold -5C, or too hot 50C would be bad for most life forms that we recognize.
We have a good idea of the ranges, risks and extremes.
We also know that life has already adapted in the past to periods of cold,
more recently and heat before that and that our current forms are different to that of more ancestral life when it was not 14C.
There is nothing special about 14 C, the only reason you can say it is good for us is that we are currently surviving in a range in which the median in some parts of the world is 14C.
–
The use of the word optimal is deliberate.
It has a meaning that everyone understands even if no-one can agree on exactly where it is.
When we speak of temperature we can all, as you have done express an estimate centered on the middle of the range we would like to live in.
Life similarly is understood by all as is the earth.
14C is lovely as an average for the globe generally but allows the spread of temperatures seasonally plus day and night that we all enjoy.
I would go a little higher, seeing that more life was present on the earth in warmer millennia at least 2C warmer than the IPCC baseline , say 16 C?
–
We are all able to call an optimal temperature and have others disagree with us but you and I would certainly be in the same ball park on this one.
I would like to state that just because the IPCC works from a baseline of 14C and you happen to like it does not mean it is the optimal temperature for many reasons. Fear of change of the status quo by many [not on your part], or pushing one temperature as ideal because we can then fear departing from it are reasons for favouring 14 C.
But what are the benefits of change and what should the science say when pressed to justify this choice.?
–
He is one of the few people prepared to give answers to these questions on either side.
Thank you Steven.
–
Are any more prepared to come forward?
probably not.
Please also visit Ron Clutz’s blog:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Thank you all for your contributions.
Will follow David Appell”s advice.
“Go learn about analyzing a noisy time series and get back to us”.
Thank you Judith for putting up the topic.
Wish it had garnered more attention.
Prediction: By the time IPCC7 is released there will be 50 new peer reviewed studies released indicating geothermal activity under WAIS. But who cares. When a narrative is being promoted, the science is not important.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
CKid wrote: Prediction: By the time IPCC7 is released there will be 50 new peer reviewed studies released indicating geothermal activity under WAIS.
If they’ve been there all along, then they don’t probably contribute to the enhanced melting, do they?
I looked at several of the sections on Greenland melting. The discussions are about *enhanced* melting, not baseline melting. That’s why your obsession with geothermal is misplaced. Greenland melting is *increasing* in recent decades. Is geothermal melting increasing? If so, show us that evidence. But it’s definitely known that surface melting is increasing. It’s known that it’s warming on the surface of Greenland. In fact, just the other day it rained on the summit of Greenland for the first time ever recorded:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/climate/greenland-rain-ice-sheet.html
Scientists are well aware of geothermal under Greenland — far, far more informed than you are. Did geothermal melting lead to a net ice loss prior to the industrial era, or was it counterbalanced by ice gain from snow atop the ice sheet? Do you know? Have you even thought to ask? How has the situation changed with AGW?
Here are just a few of the statements in the AR6 WG1 about the melting in Greenland and Antarctica that show net melting, and net melting is the issue of concern, not a specific contribution from geothermal:
A.1.5
It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades
p TS-43
It is virtually certain that 48 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost mass since the 1990s, with human influence a contributing factor (medium 49 confidence).
There is high confidence that annual mass changes have been consistently negative since the 50 early 2000s.
TS 4.3.2.8
There is high confidence that both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets have lost mass since 31 1992 and will continue to lose mass throughout this century under all emissions scenarios.
So while you’ve think you’ve found some huge flaw in the AR6 it isn’t a flaw at all because you’re looking in the wrong direction.
Evolution takes time.
A poignant point.
Made well by Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin.
Evolution is a process of adapting where the most adaptable survive.
But it is not just a feature of the Biological Kingdom.
Evolution occurs in art and science, medicine and politics.
On the football field, in the classroom and in a galaxy.
Debating is an art of evolution as well.
A theory or argument is put forward and civilised debate follows.
The best argument wins the day.
No, only joking, evolution at work dictates the winner.
Locality determines the outcome, that is why a lot of boxers only fight in their home country.
To win a debate it is sometimes necessary to bare the teeth, bite the ears and land the low blows.
Survival of the fittest [to survive] encourages the development of the bully boy, the appeal to the umpire, the slow count.
Appeals to authority, rigging the ballot boxes and demonising the opponents, decrying others expertise.
My expertise is simple, It is called skepticism.
A trait everyone here used to aim for and admire.
Something now sadly trampled and abused by many of the people who once were its most ardent practitioners.
I have no need to fight to get my points across.
No Iwo Jima Flag to hold up in the air and bleed and die.
No heroism, mock heroism or the opposite.
No need for underhand tactics.
70 years has taught me two good lessons in life, as I said to Joshua.
One is to help other people [the meaning of life]
The second is to only help people when they want to be helped.
If people put up views on CO2, on warming, and evolution they have to get their facts straight and not let their beliefs overrule their common sense and innate skepticism.
If not then they will have to slowly learn to evolve to develop understanding.
Or not.
The two pertinent questions the IPCC does not consider and has never answered are
What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?
angech wrote: What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
Have you defined “optimal” yet in this context?
The question is better posed as the optimal range, distribution and mean. GHG, according to the physics, impedes winter cooling much more than it adds to summer (or tropical) warming. But the fact that you are willing to entertain that there is such and optimal, where benefits outweigh liabilities, and that optimal does not necessarily mean 1880s climate, is the main point I see Angech making.
The ideal would appear to me to be to expand the habitability zone of the planet by warming the temperate zones while not imperiling coastlines with SLR by increasing polar precipitation, (which would also increase polar albedo). Also if seeded precipitation could mitigate forest fires and tropical cyclones natural that would easily pay for a massive scientific investment necessary to accomplish such technology. Of course, there would have to be international cooperation in the development and use of such technology or geo-engineering. That is the more difficult part.
Ron Graf wrote: The ideal would appear to me to be to expand the habitability zone of the planet by warming the temperate zones while not imperiling coastlines with SLR by increasing polar precipitation, (which would also increase polar albedo). Also if seeded precipitation could mitigate forest fires and tropical cyclones natural that would easily pay for a massive scientific investment necessary to accomplish such technology.
It seems like your criteria are simply what are purportedly “optimal” for humans. (?)
Ron Graf wrote: But the fact that you are willing to entertain that there is such and optimal, where benefits outweigh liabilities, and that optimal does not necessarily mean 1880s climate, is the main point I see Angech making.
You seriously misread a simple question — I entertained no such thing.
angech | August 21, 2021 at 8:50 am says:
Your piece piqued ( as in 1.arouse (interest or curiosity) me . Here’s a different perspective.
‘Evolution takes time.’, but beware, change is abrupt.
‘Evolution is a process of adapting where the most adaptable survive.’ but periodically civilisations have repeatedly just collapsed.
‘My expertise is simple, It is called skepticism.’ Yes, very necessary. Science is questioning, cult accepts with a closed mind.
’70 years has taught me two good lessons in life, as I said to Joshua.
One is to help other people [the meaning of life]
The second is to only help people when they want to be helped.’ Quite so, I concur.
‘If people put up views on CO2, on warming, and evolution they have to get their facts straight and not let their beliefs overrule their common sense and innate skepticism.’ Yes, but so need to the skeptics. Skepticism is not the escapist’s art.
‘What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?’. Does the earth care about life? The frozen Yukon mammals seem to tell a story.
melitamegalithic | August 21, 2021
“Your piece piqued ( as in 1.arouse (interest or curiosity) me . Here’s a different perspective.”
“Evolution is purely the ability to survive challenging circumstances. These changes may be mild but devastating [cane toads] or abrupt and severe but overall unimportant [Krakatoa.
We see the world only from the perspective of survivorship bias.
All the losers have gone.
A lot of the survivors are maladapted in some way yet their other attributes get them through
The anthropomorphic view of the earth misses the point in that the inanimate earth cannot have feelings but Gaia as a gestalt of all life on earth [the biome] could be considered by some of more spiritual ilk to have consciousness.
It might be more appropriate to say that life cares about earth and the frozen Yukon mammals miss the point.
Life survives in the Yukon in under and above the ice and snow.”
Thanks for your comment
angech | August 21, 2021 at 8:54 pm
Thank you for the reply.
A short reply, with a different take on some points.
‘Evolution —‘ is also the earth cleaning out the garage and doing a good face-lift. Krakatoa was only a ‘stomach rumble’ (make no mistake there).
‘The anthropomorphic view of the earth’ is a dumbed version perverted by religions. We don’t own the earth, and we don’t dictate to its creator; and since it is the ‘we’ that matters most here, it is better to realise it.
‘Life survives in the Yukon in under and above the ice and snow.’ Yet ‘the frozen Yukon mammals miss the point.’ The Yukon mammals adapted as far as they could, without great needs and making any great demands. We have not, our needs are plenty, our pretensions to further goodies are even greater, and insist on not acknowledging our failings.
The first evolution threw out in its periodic clearing have always been the most rapacious.
melitamegalithic wrote: ‘Evolution —‘ is also the earth cleaning out the garage and doing a good face-lift…. The first evolution threw out in its periodic clearing have always been the most rapacious.
No, there is no “purpose” to evolution. Evolution has no goals, it has no future in mind. Evolution by natural selection just is. It doesn’t “clean out” anything or do a “periodically clearing” or do a “face-lift.” Nature isn’t aware of any of those words or concepts. Evolution isn’t pointing towards some future state of higher beings or higher intelligence or anything like that. Evolution doesn’t guarantee that intelligence will continue, or evolve again if humans go extinct. Or some kind of “improved” humans. Or better squirrels. Or whatever you think needs to be “cleaned out like garbage.” Evolution doesn’t know what “garbage” is or means.
Evolution has no goals.
David Appell | August 22, 2021 at 1:41 pm
Here ‘Evolution’ is a word that is given different meanings by different persons.
‘Evolution has no goals.’ It has not, it is just continual change, without any consideration to the effected.
Animate life has a way of proliferating the space it occupies and degrades it to the point that survival is impaired. One form of evolution. Those who like wine may find a parallel in wine yeast. It raises the alcohol level that eventually destroys the yeast itself. The yeast dies but the vintner keeps some of the evolved yeast. It makes a better wine. (androids with human minds? GHMOU)
But then there are the periodic changes. Vide the Yukon mammals, the forests in the coal seams, the ancient whale bones littering the Saharan desert. (to myself at home, the ancient cart-ruts ending in mid-air leading to a land now some 200m below sea level; science religiously avoids looking at that). Or the not so ancient ruins overtaken again by the jungle in South America. Or the 3.7kyr Kikkar Event, no asteroid because the tell-tales are global and evident, A cycle peak, 1750bce (we are at the fifth peak from that). See:
https://vnexplorer.net/bibles-sodom-and-gomorrah-destroyed-by-an-exploding-asteroid-says-archaeologists-a2021171564.html
several commentators elsewhere have used arguments along the line of the warming will be too rapid for species to survive
. Some of them even admit to expertise in their field.
They then go on to assert that while the poor little species are quite adaptable to changes of 20 C [summer to Winter] a small 1-2 C change spells disaster.
They also focus narrowly on the clime such species live in without admitting that species have an ability to move North or South to a new clime, generally with ease.
Such evolutionary blind spots [in the commentators] bodes poorly for their students and progress one fears.
angech wrote: several commentators elsewhere have used arguments along the line of the warming will be too rapid for species to survive…
They then go on to assert that while the poor little species are quite adaptable to changes of 20 C [summer to Winter] a small 1-2 C change spells disaster.
They also focus narrowly on the clime such species live in without admitting that species have an ability to move North or South to a new clime, generally with ease.
Such evolutionary blind spots [in the commentators] bodes poorly for their students and progress one fears.
It always amazes me when amateurs who believe they have found the simplest of arguments to, they think, disprove the claims of the experts and professional in the scientific community fail to understand that they ought to ask themselves how they could so easily have found such a quick and ready answer and that they ought instead to do a little research to see if maybe it’s they who are wrong and the scientific community just might (read: almost always) know what they’re talking about.
And that this ought to be their default position to learning in general — ask questions, go think and research and learn — then question and discuss. Or they will repeatedly look like fools.
They have experienced change before and survived or they wouldn’t be here.
Steve –
> They have experienced change before and survived or they wouldn’t be here.
Classic display of not understanding survivorship bias
stevenreincarnated wrote: They have experienced change before and survived or they wouldn’t be here.
Wholly mammoths.
Wholly mammoths aren’t here so they don’t need to worry about it but everything that was there with the wholly mammoth and survived should be just fine.
Joshua, classis example of vague classic examples. You have an argument as to why I’m wrong then spit it out. You certainly aren’t going to change my mind with one of your classic example comments.
Steve –
I already explained. Your thinking tests on a bias, survivorship bias. Google it if you must.
Further, just because a given species didn’t go extinct during a past period of change in climate wouldn’t mean that it wouldn’t go extinct during a future change in climate. That’s true for any number of reasons – not the least of which is if the change in climate were.more rapid than previous changes in climate.
Sheeece.
stevenreincarnated wrote: Wholly mammoths aren’t here so they don’t need to worry about it but everything that was there with the wholly mammoth and survived should be just fine.
You didn’t understand Joshua’s point at all, did you?
The world isn’t changing all that fast compared to regional changes that have occurred before and since life doesn’t care what the climate is on average but rather does care about the region it is located in the pace is sort of insignificant. For instance the polar bear doesn’t care if the Antarctic is warming or cooling, get it?
I don’t think you guys have thought this through very well is what I think.
stevenreincarnated wrote: The world isn’t changing all that fast compared to regional changes that have occurred before and since….
No? Let’s see your numbers….
You brought up the YD. How about those numbers for a start?
Steve –
Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
You argued that if a species survived a previous period despite climate change it would necessarily survive a period of future climate change.
The most obvious way that’s flawed would be if the change happened faster. But there are myriad flaws in your logic
For example, the species could be facing a series of other stressors now, like habitat change, or pollution, or over-fishing.
Quit while you’re behind.
So now if the climate changes and we hunt the passenger pigeon to extinction that means it went extinct due to the climate changing? Maybe you should be more worried about the hunting and less worried about the climate.
stevenreincarnated wrote: So now if the climate changes and we hunt the passenger pigeon to extinction that means it went extinct due to the climate changing? Maybe you should be more worried about the hunting and less worried about the climate.
If you’re not going to be serious what’s the point of continuing this discussion?
Regarding the Younger Dryas:
In this paper, we provide evidence for an extraterrestrial (ET) impact event at ≅12.9 ka, which we hypothesize caused abrupt environmental changes that contributed to YD cooling, major ecological reorganization, broad-scale extinctions, and rapid human behavioral shifts at the end of the Clovis Period.
“Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling,”
R. B. Firestone et al, PNAS October 9, 2007 104 (41) 16016-16021; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706977104
Steve –
> So now if the climate changes and we hunt the passenger pigeon to extinction…
Going the squirrel route, eh?
Lol.
I am being serious. If there are other stressors like loss of habitat due to human development or pollution or industrialized fishing, those aren’t things species have survived through before. The climate changing they have. If you want to point to a cause then at least pick the one that matters. There’s your real change.
Steve –
> There’s your real change.
Wow. A Climate Etc. denizen engaging in binary thinking.
Never see that before. 😉
stevenreincarnated wrote: If you want to point to a cause then at least pick the one that matters. There’s your real change.
Sometimes there’s one major cause, often there are multiple causes, some more important than others. That’s life; it’s complicated.
Joshua, the climate changes. Always has. Even if you only think it changes regionally and globally is fairly stable as an average, it still has as far as life is concerned because their concern is regional. That means all those stressors will be applied with climate change at some time or another. Call it binary if you want. That still gives me two options whereas you only have one and that is bad of any form is the fault of CO2.
Steve –
But anyway, at least we’ve gotten you to move off saying that if a species survived climate change before it will necessarily survivor climate change again, to agree that a species that could survive without climate change might go extinct becise of climate change.
That’s progress.
Now think of stressors over which we have no control.
You see. Steve, maybe some of the species that went extinct during previous periods of climate change were those that were facing stressors other than climate change, and the ones that didn’t go extinct wee those that were thriving at that time.
So then consider all the species that are under pressure now, whether human-caused or not. See where that leads you.
You may even make more progress. Ill check back in to find out.
stevenreincarnated wrote: Joshua, the climate changes. Always has.
In fact, we are right now in a period of enormously rapid climate change.
Prior to the industrial era the climate was remarkably stable over the Holocene — it is, literally, what allowed civilization to develop. The climate is even changing much faster than it did when it warmed after the Last Glacial Maximum 25,000 years ago.
Steve –
>… you only have one and that is bad of any form is the fault of CO2
Putting words in my mouth and assigning beliefs to me that I don’t haceve is poor form and it’s a very lame and transparent way to dig yourseld out from under bad logic.
You messed up. You kind of acknowledged that, even if in an indirect way. Run with that. Don’t keep making it worse by engaging in bad form.
I don’t think I’ve moved from my position. My position for a long time now has been regardless of your position on whether past climate change has been regional or global the life forms have lived through it. They will have to live through it again regardless of what we do.
David, where is the rapidity compared to past changes if you don’t average the temperature globally?
I’m sorry Joshua, you also have binary thinking. Bad CO2, good not CO2. Happy now?
Steve –
> I don’t think I’ve moved from my position.
Well, actually you did in your argument, indirectly – even if you don’t realize it (or insist on not acknowledging it).
But anyway, lets go over this again.
Just because a species survived climate change during previous periods doesn’t mean it would do so now.
That could be for a variety of reasons. The impact of current climate change could differ from the impact of previous climate change in myriad ways. Most obvious if it is more rapid – but there could be many other factors that would make it different as well
And along an entirely different track, it could be the species that were under survival stress in the earlier periods that couldn’t adapt to climate change and went extinct. That could mean that species that are under pressure now but weren’t then would go extinct this time because of climate change.
So your logic fails.
Anyways –
> They will have to live through it again regardless of what we do.
Yes, that is logically unassailable. The will have to live through [climate change] (if the climate changes in an unprecedented manner or otherwise) regardless what we do, if they aren’t going to go extinct.
And if they don’t live through it, they will go extinct. No matter what we do.
I can’t criticize that logic. lol.
Which of course isn’t really relevant to what we do or don’t do.
The question is whether what we do (re climate change or other human impacts) might make a difference as to whether species go extinct.
Anyways, we’re clearly not going to make any progress here. Have a good night.
Steve –
> Bad CO2, good not CO2. Happy now?
That you keep putting words in my mouth and attributing beliefs to me that I don’t have is unfortunate. It does neither of us any good.
stevenreincarnated wrote: I don’t think I’ve moved from my position. My position for a long time now has been regardless of your position on whether past climate change has been regional or global the life forms have lived through it.
But I just showed you evidence that many species went extinct during the Younger Dryas climate change.
Science knows that many species went extinct in past climate changes.
“Mass Extinctions Tied to Past Climate Changes: Fossil and temperature records over the past 520 million years show a correlation between extinctions and climate change,” Scientific American 2007
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes/
stevenreincarnated wrote: David, where is the rapidity compared to past changes if you don’t average the temperature globally?
In some places it will be higher than the global average, in some places it will be lower.
Joshua, let me explain it this way. If the climate changes regionally just as much or more as it would due to climate change then that is normal and if a species dies off because it is already under stress from other factors that is roughly the equivalent as if a normal winter killed off one of the last two birds left alive after being hunted to near extinction. Are we then going to say they went extinct because of winter? Technically I suppose you could but is it really?
Don’t really see a region to point to, do you? I didn’t either.
Well Joshua, I don’t really see myself as engaging in binary thinking so if you want to point out your view of my thinking then I’m only happy to return the favor.
Yes David, climate change can kill things but right now we are talking about anthropogenic climate change and there is no evidence it is anywhere close to being able to do that or we would see extinctions at regional levels already. Have a list made of all the climate change extinctions handy?
stevenreincarnated wrote: Yes David, climate change can kill things but right now we are talking about anthropogenic climate change and there is no evidence it is anywhere close to being able to do that or we would see extinctions at regional levels already.
“Climate change is currently affecting 19% of species listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, increasing the likelihood of their extinction. The Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola) is the first mammal reported to have gone extinct as a direct result of climate change. Previously found only on the island of Bramble Cay in Great Barrier Reef, its habitat was destroyed by rising sea levels.”
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/species-and-climate-change
The mammal I’m not familiar with but coral reefs? Really, coral reefs? How many millions of years has coral been around? How many climate changes have they survived through? You might get a redistribution of species but you aren’t going to wipe out coral or eliminate species. It will still be here long after we are gone. They have already been through all the natural selection processes to guarantee that.
steve, it doesn’t matter if you’re familiar with the mammal that went extinct. You asked for an example. Now you completely dismiss it as if you never asked and as if it doesn’t counter your point.
Corals? There are 6,000 species of corals. “An estimated 25 percent of all marine life, including over 4,000 species of fish, are dependent on coral reefs at some point in their life cycle.” So when individual species of corals start to go due to climate change, so do other individual species. But something tells me you’ll find a way to deny and dismiss this as well.
https://www.epa.gov/coral-reefs/basic-information-about-coral-reefs
That’s right I asked for an example and you gave one. Good job. A small mammal that lives on one coral reef wasn’t likely to have long term survival anyway but an example was asked for and supplied.
stevenreincarnated wrote: A small mammal that lives on one coral reef wasn’t likely to have long term survival anyway but an example was asked for and supplied.
How do you know? You constantly shoot from the hip without providing any evidence.
I knew you’d find a way to dismiss this. You ignored the 19% figure as well. You have preconceived notions sans evidence and no amount of data, evidence and information from experts or science are going to change them.
David, how do I know that a mammal has a short species life expectancy when it lives only on one coral reef? I’m prophetic? If you insist on an appropriate response then can you find something that has been peer reviewed instead of referencing some alarmist web site? Like that response better? I was just tired of the ridiculousness and thought I’d quit.
Steve, you asked for an example of an extinction due to AGW, and now you dismiss it. You ignore the 19% figure. You simply don’t care. You display no empathy. If this mammal went extinct, are others are risk? What about the thousands of species that rely on corals? What about the species that rely on those species? You don’t see any connections here? You can’t see a larger picture? What about the moose that are being annihilated because they’re being swarmed by ticks that no longer die because northern winters aren’t as cold? Any empathy there? Moose are a charismatic species. Is this a sentinel issue, or just another problem to ignore in a world of problems that will go away?
“As New England Winters Warm, Ticks are Killing Moose at High Rates,”
12/18/20.
https://www.outdoors.org/resources/amc-outdoors/conservation-and-climate/warming-winters-and-moose-ticks-the-domino-effect-killing-an-iconic-northeast-mammal/
I’m sure the mammals were quite cute. Doomed but cute. I’ll take your response as a negative for the list I asked for in peer reviewed form.
David
Your mammal is described in much more detail here
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4fe332f4-f2d3-4d41-ae39-2d3ed467966a/files/bramble-cay-melomys.pdf
The cay appears to be growing not reducing in size or at the least has been stable in overall size since the 70’s.
Back in 1845 many of these creatures were killed for fun thereby reducing their viability. The report says they may have become extinct due to inbreeding and the introduction of unsuitable vegetation and also diseases.
Tonyb
angech –
I’m impressed that you’re knowledgeable enough on so many topics to the point where you can suss out blind spots in the vision of people who dedicate their lives to the relevant study.
>… without admitting that species have an ability to move North or South to a new clime, generally with ease.
Now I’m certainly not in your class but it seems to me that there are prolly some species who live in fairly specific conditions, that might actually have some difficulty just packing up their stuff and moving to a new clime.
You know, like maybe species that have adapted to particular islands?
Are there no island species that might find changing climes a bit of a challenge?
Wow, now this is a fun thread at last.
Kudos to stevenreincarnated who has steadfastly resisted the terror tag team of David and Joshua and also to Ron Graf’s comments including
The question is better posed as the optimal range, distribution and mean.
Hopefully Willard is asleep and will not object to much if I describe David’s and Joshua’s arguments as the most limp and insipid I have seen at this site for a long while on the question of optimal temperatures and beneficial effects of climate change.
First though I must admit I am impressed by this attempt to appeal to authority, with a backhander to the value of anyone other than a true blue expert ever daring to utter an opinion on a blg.
Joshua “I’m impressed that you’re knowledgeable enough on so many topics to the point where you can suss out blind spots in the vision of people who dedicate their lives to the relevant study.”
Josh is referring to these comments
Angech, let me respond to your rather simple post.
‘I come in here and see non-ecologists debating and discussing what their limited understanding of the field perceives to be ‘optimal temperature’ for biodiversity. As always, as someone who does possess the relevant expertise, I find some of the comments disturbing, lacking an appreciation of the importance of scale. As someone qualified to comment on this issue, etc etc.”
angech wrote: First though I must admit I am impressed by this attempt to appeal to authority, with a backhander to the value of anyone other than a true blue expert ever daring to utter an opinion on a blg.
Instead of immediately getting defensive and insulting, why don’t you go learn why scientists are concerned about extinctions with a few degrees of climate change when they well know that animals exist daily and annually in a 20 C or so temperature range?
Go do something like that for once instead of embarking on an endless thread full of more ignorance and insults and defensiveness.
In other words, go learn something.
Advice to David Appell from the man himself
David Appell | August 22, 2021 at 10:18 am
–
“Instead of immediately getting defensive and insulting, why don’t you…”
“Go do something like that for once instead of embarking on an endless thread full of more ignorance and insults and defensiveness”.
–
Does he ever listen to himself or follow his own advice?
Look at his thread above for examples.
–
This is priceless
” learn why scientists are concerned about extinctions with a few degrees of climate change when they well know that animals exist daily and annually in a 20 C or so temperature range?”
–
Just listen to what you just tried to say and see why it is wrong.
–
If animals exist daily and annually in a 20 C or so temperature range how could they possibly become extinct with only a few degrees of change”?
–
Answer they could not.
-Your statement is wrong.
Some scientists are worried about some extinctions in some localized and specific places and some animals live in some regions of 20 C or so
would be an improvement but still wrong.
Happy to go into the detail if you do not understand.
There are far more serious threats to wildlife populations than even worst case estimates of climate change impacts suggest. This is a case of a broader framing required to deliver rational policy.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/threats_lpi_populations_11.png
Robert I Ellison wrote: There are far more serious threats to wildlife populations than even worst case estimates of climate change impacts suggest.
Since your graphic isn’t sourced to the original material it’s impossible to interpret it. Thanks for your contribution.
The source is clearly stated on the ‘infographic’. The 2014 WWF Living Planet Report. That and subsequent reports are based on the IUCN red list of endangered species. The latter is of course a more serious contribution.
> There are far more serious threats to wildlife populations than even worst case estimates of climate change impacts suggest.
That may be true. But even if true it wouldn’t mean that climate change isn’t a significant threat to species’ survival.
Not is it relevant to the fundamentally flawed logic from our friends angech and Steve.
That may be true… but even if true? The fractured logic of fitting facts that don’t quite fit to a scary story of climate change is Joshua’s and David’s.
Shorn of dross .
Joshua states
“Climate change is a significant threat to species’ survival.”‘
The corollary is that Climate change is a significant advantage to a species survival.
The card has two sides.
Why can you not see that instead of doom and gloom all the time.
Hint Cold
Woolly mammoths and bacteria and an arthropod expert
Warmth, an explosion of life and species and skeptics everywhere.
Climate change is good for us Joshua. It is the reason, you were looking for one, for you to be here blogging.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: The source is clearly stated on the ‘infographic’. The 2014 WWF Living Planet Report.
It’s standard, not to mention decent and polite, to give a link to data one cites, so everyone can quickly and easily jump there to understand what is meant by words on the graphic like “climate change,” “exploitation,” “pollution,” etc. That way readers don’t have spend their collective time hunting for what they think you mean, or guessing, and the discussion can proceed smoothly and with understanding. Thank you for your contribution.
It’s decent – not to mention polite – to ask politely if you really want to go deeper. Not that I have seen much of that from you.
angech –
I’m impressed that you’re knowledgeable enough on so many topics to the point where you can suss out blind spots in the vision of people who dedicate their lives to the relevant study.
>… without admitting that species have an ability to move North or South to a new clime, generally with ease.
“It seems to me that there are probably some species who live in fairly specific conditions, that might actually have some difficulty just packing up their stuff and moving to a new clime.
You know, like maybe species that have adapted to particular islands?
Are there no island species that might find changing climes a bit of a challenge?”
–
Even lemmings that run en masse out of clifftop due to climate change erosion generally tend to survive, Joshua.
This little known fact of evolution, called dispersion, means that nearly every species tends to inhabit as much of the globe as they can tolerate and that tolerates them. Consequently when one lot suffers a poor evolutionary outcome others of the species quite happily keep breeding and spreading elsewhere. I say little known because the self admitted expert did comment on how this would lead to coping with a warmer world. Poor form.
Further your Island question seems a little naive but, as a first thought do you understand how the species got to the island in the first place?
Swimming, on logs, dropped from a waterspout, flying and seeds born by the wind or sea to their new evolutionary challenge.
Clue , usually from the mainland from a larger supply of said species who will quite easily keep spreading as I put it North or South.
Amaurosis is not something that just afflicts experts but can also affect the layperson. I don’t have to be that knowledgeable to see a problem when someone walks into a door in broad daylight.
angech –
> Further your Island question seems a little naive but, as a first thought do you understand how the species got to the island in the first place?
Non-sequitur.
Species adapt to the specifics of an island environment, after the for there whether by log are airline.
But sorry fory naivite.
Definition
In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring,
agreed?
But sorry for naivete.
Don’t be too hard on yourself.
Leaves less for the rest of us.
–
Islands occur either due to separation from the mainland or, in the cases we are talking about due to formation of new islands.
Such new islands, coral atolls etc are then populated over time by birds and plant seeds and some ants and spiders which can travel by air on inside an air flying creature. [sequitur]
Some mammals can swim there . others have to go on a raft of vegetation or by boat or ship.
All the species are a microcosm of real species in the real world.
They adapt to the island but remain for the most part the same species with different attributes.
If the island is annihilated those that can migrate do those that cannot drown but the species is still surviving elsewhere in the world.
It is said that over 99% of all the species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. Yet the world is full of life. Ten foot gum trees Tasmania [Island cold]
100 foot gums in Victoria warm same species, now also extant in Greece California and helping bush fires. Tell me did they suffer undergoing climate change forced on them more rapidly than anything DA has put up?
angech –
Why are you looking to agree on a technical definition of “species.”
> They adapt to the island but remain for the most part the same species with different attributes.
Obviously, there are species that have adapted to very particular attributes of the specific environment in which they live.
Think of Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos, and his finches and all the other species there.
All the eons so many lived there, there and nowhere else.
Methinks log or airplane will not enable them to move to a new “clime.”
And think of just how many species are adapted to very specific environments in very specific ways.
angech –
Trust me – you calling me native bothers me not a bit.
Here’s the thing. I’ve watched so many times over at ATTP where you weighed in on topics where you have no expertise and were told by people with expertise that your opinion was necessarily a result of your inexpertise (or some more devious reason)….
But because you were discussing technical issues, I couldn’t judge. It would be theoretically possible that someone with no expertise would have an advantageous angle from which to spot blind spots.
It’s always a matter of probabilities. And here you stack on a whole other set of probabilities where you claim marvelous insight – that people who have studied these issues for years, conducted experiments and observations in the field for years, read the relevant literature for years – are blinded to.
Sure, no doubt you might be able to see around corners in a vast array of dimensions.
It’s possible. And it’s possible that I’m naive for doubting that. I’m certainly naive in many ways. My ego isn’t so delicate that I need to kid myself about that.
But then you make arguments that have gaping logical holes in them.
So we stack probabilities on top of probabilities on top of probabilities. But yeah, one never knows, do one?
angech wrote: They adapt to the island but remain for the most part the same species with different attributes.
So I’m wondering, just how is it you think new species form?
angech –
> I don’t have to be that knowledgeable to see a problem when someone walks into a door in broad daylight.
Of course not, but as I said before it’s very impressive, the sheer number of times and the number complex fields in which you can see obvious blind spots that are missed by people who spend years and years studying and experimenting and reviewing the relevant literature, even though you yourself have zero relevant expertise.
angech wrote: Further your Island question seems a little naive but, as a first thought do you understand how the species got to the island in the first place? Swimming, on logs, dropped from a waterspout, flying and seeds born by the wind or sea to their new evolutionary challenge.
Clue , usually from the mainland from a larger supply of said species who will quite easily keep spreading as I put it North or South.
Actually what typically happens is the individuals that get to the island eventually form a NEW species.
As individuals of a species spread they encounter change and stress, may get separated from their flock or pack or herd, and via natural selection they adapt into a new species. That’s why there’s a radiation into so many species.
By your logic there’d only be one species, spreading North and South and swimming to islands on logs. But no.
Urgent Wikipedia alert
Warning, Warning,
David Appell
“Actually what typically happens is the individuals that get to the island eventually form a NEW species”
What typically happens is that the individuals who get to a new island die.
eg carnivores. as the newer the island the less hospitable it will be.
Eventually some animals will find that there food has got there before them and they will be able to survive.
Typically they will stay the same species for the next million years [DA’s view] if they survive that long with adaptations in their ability to cope with the new conditions. This is not a new species.
The formation of new species is not due to evolutionary pressure, the need to survive but rather by error mutation as an side issue of the evolutionary process.
New species do not have to be on a desert island ever as a condition of formation.
This is cute
“For example, the species could be facing a series of other stressors now, like habitat change, or pollution, or over-fishing.”
But there are myriad flaws in this logic.
The first thing about stressors is that there are a heck of a lot of them occurring all the time to all species.
Even in your optimum habitat there are an optimum number of predators who will take you apart. No one puts a cast on a broken leg or a broken wing for an animal or bed who misses a step. Birds fly thousands of miles to avoid or welcome seasonal changes but the insects do not approve.
You chuck in 3 stressors when there are thousands upon thousands every day for every animal and plant on the earth.
What are 3 more?
angech –
The specific ones I mentioned isn’t the most relevant point. My point is that a species might be under stress now when it want during a previous period of climate change, thus, surviving climate change previously does not guarantee surviving climate change in the future – particularly if that change is different in any of myriad ways.
angech –
> Even in your optimum habitat there are an optimum number of predators…
Predation will occur often with no threat of extinction, obviously. The point is that a given species be might be under or near “existential” threat from other factors such that their ability to adapt to something like climate change is more limited than it might have been previously. If a species is under a greater threat from than previously, to the point of it becoming a threat in survival (say, because a non-native predator has moved into the area), climate change could push that species to extinction wwhile it survived climate change previously.
Given that humans undoubtedly change the natural environment more quickly on a massive scale than has typically happened before, even if current climate change were exactly the same now as it has been previously ( a dubious speculation, imo), it will come during a period where species (on the whole) are possibly struggling to adapt to more (or at least different) stressors than during previous periods of platen change.
All to say, the logic of “they adapted to compare change before, which proves they’ll adapt tonclokate change now” is specious.
That would only be true if their existing conditions as well as the climate change they’ll be facing are exactly the same.
How likely is that?
If a species is under a greater threat from than previously, to the point of it becoming a threat in survival (say, because a non-native predator has moved into the area), climate change could push that species to extinction while it survived climate change previously.”
–
All species are under the boon and the threat of climate change which can be good or bad.”Plus a myriad other daily stresses.
Nearly all species. 99%+ become extinct eventually.
You are not allowed to sit on your laurels and say predators bad , climate change bad, Please do not change the climate. Please get rid of predators. Without stress an organism becomes lazy and unadaptive and
extinct when any stress comes along.
angech –
> Without stress an organism becomes lazy and unadaptive and
extinct when any stress comes along.
Still stacking argument fallixiss one in another I see. How high can you go
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/09/ipcc-ar6-wg1-discussion-thread/#comment-958417
“So we stack probabilities on top of probabilities on top of probabilities. But yeah, one never knows, does one?”
–
Are you referring to why the Antarctic sea ice refuses to melt > 100 reasons so far
Are you referring to climate models ramping up ECS with every new iteration?
angech –
> Are you referring to why the Antarctic sea ice refuses to melt > 100 reasons so far
I”m referring (in part) to how you’re running away from the logical holes in what you posted, via such tactics as straw men, false dichotomies, squirrels, and the like.
Why are you doing all of that?
There are many species that have adapted to very specific environments and likely can’t just move to a new clime as you hand-waved to.
Notice how many routes you’r’e trying to take to get away from that nonsense?
squirrels or red herrings. Kind of hard to choose.
angech, Judith: Manabe predicted increasing Antarctic sea ice in 1991:
…prediction of increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and global warming by Manabe et al in 1991:
“Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2: Annual Mean Response,” S Manabe et al, J Climate v4, Aug 1991 p785-818. (pg 795 in particular)
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf
“The increased supply of fresh surface water from both land-bound ice melt and increased precipitation increases the halocline gradient, which reduces upwelling of warmer bottom waters, decreasing sea surface temperature, and thus leading to more sea ice.”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/antarctic-sea-ice-gain/#comment-80113
Joshua,
I”m referring (in part) to how you’re running away from the logical holes in what you posted”
Happy to keep discussing the issues with you.
Are you happy to attempt an answer to the two questions instead of refusing to try like Willard?
–
I will restart this at the bottom of the thread so that you can have unimpeded access to pointing out these logical holes.
Go for it if you can.
angech wrote: You chuck in 3 stressors when there are thousands upon thousands every day for every animal and plant on the earth.
What are 3 more?
We’re talking about species, not individuals.
Species typically last ~ 1 Myrs. Less for some, more for others. With all the stress on them. Then change(s) causes extinction. The study of paleobiology shows that mass extinctions often occur nearly simultaneously with climate change. There is copious literature on this so I don’t feel the need to cite anything specific — it’s easily researched via Google (as a start). This is true for all five mass extinctions in the past. Scientists have already been warning that we’re in the sixth mass extinction, and that climate change will only augment that. 3 C warming in a century or two is HUGE, climatologically. In a time when many nonhuman species already have massive stress on them from other anthropogenic activities, it’s a major addition that makes adaptation much more difficult. Species get trapped on mountains and eventually can’t go any higher in search of cooler temperatures. Species can’t move north/south as fast as the climate is shifting, perhaps 70 miles in 30 years:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/redrawing-the-map-how-the-worlds-climate-zones-are-shifting
It’s even harder for species to move now with so much human infrastructure — highways, towns, cities, infrastructure — in their way.
There’s a beautiful hickory tree outside my front window. Can its descendants move 70 miles north in the next 3 decades? That seems to be asking a lot.
“The study of paleobiology shows that mass extinctions often occur nearly simultaneously with climate change.”
Yawn.
You have just stated that mass extinctions do occur without climate change.
Therefore you now have to explain how those mass extinctions that occurred without climate change occurred.
Secondly you now have to explain why if several mass extinctions did occur without climate change [your words above interpreted correctly]] what is the connection is between the ones that did occur with climate change. No IPCC ratings, they were not around then.
Can you actually attribute the climate change to the mass extinction with certainty?
Or, there not having been a lot of mass extinctions, were there other reasons and this was just coincidental.?
Finally have you put the cart before the horse [nearly simultaneously]
Did the mass extinctions [super corona virus or predator] cause the mass extinction and the lack of animal and or vegetable life cause the climate change?
Can Paleobiologists ever really know? answer usually not guess hypothesis and theories since they wer not there.
I’ve known about mass extinctions for most my life. It being blamed on warming from CO2 I never heard of until CO2 became a political issue. The crisis du jour one might say.
Angech, climate scientists would have you believe that life survived the blocking of the sun by aerosols followed by acid rain and cold temperatures followed by runoff from land and the resulting eutrophication of the oceans, only to then be killed by the warming temperatures from CO2. Sounds logical to me (cough).
stevenreincarnated wrote:I’ve known about mass extinctions for most my life. It being blamed on warming from CO2 I never heard of until CO2 became a political issue. The crisis du jour one might say.
“Coal-Burning Contributed to End-Permian Mass Extinction”
Jun 23, 2020
“An international team of geologists has found the first direct evidence that volcanic eruptions in the southern part of the Siberian Traps region 252 million years ago burned large volumes of coal and vegetation.”
‘The end-Permian extinction, also known as the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Great Dying, is the Earth’s most severe mass extinction that peaked about 252.3 million years ago.
“The catastrophe killed off nearly 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species on the planet over the course of thousands of years.
“Calculations of sea water temperature indicate that at the peak of the extinction, the Earth underwent hot global warming, in which equatorial ocean temperatures exceeded 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit).
“Among the possible causes of this event, and one of the most long-hypothesized, is that massive burning coal led to catastrophic global warming, which in turn was devastating to life.
“To search for evidence to support this hypothesis, Arizona State University’s Professor Lindy Elkins-Tanton and colleagues looked at the Siberian Traps region, where it was known that the magmas and lavas from volcanic events burned a combination of vegetation and coal.
“They focused on the volcaniclastic rocks — rocks created by explosive volcanic eruptions — and collected over 500 kg of samples.
““We found towering river cliffs of nothing but volcaniclastics, lining the river for hundreds of miles. It was geologically astounding,” Professor Elkins-Tanton said.
“As the samples were analyzed, the authors began seeing strange fragments in the volcaniclastics that seemed like burnt wood, and in some cases, burnt coal.
“Further field work turned up even more sites with charcoal, coal, and even some sticky organic-rich blobs in the rocks.
““Our study shows that Siberian Traps magmas intruded into and incorporated coal and organic material,” Professor Elkins-Tanton said.
““That gives us direct evidence that the magmas also combusted large quantities of coal and organic matter during eruption.”
…
article:
https://tinyurl.com/3mfajer2
RESEARCH ARTICLE| JUNE 12, 2020
Field evidence for coal combustion links the 252 Ma Siberian Traps with global carbon disruption
L.T. Elkins-Tanton; S.E. Grasby; B.A. Black; R.V. Veselovskiy; O.H. Ardakani; F. Goodarzi
Geology (2020) 48 (10): 986–991.
https://doi.org/10.1130/G47365.1
stevenreincarnated wrote:I’ve known about mass extinctions for most my life. It being blamed on warming from CO2 I never heard of until CO2 became a political issue. The crisis du jour one might say.
“Coal-Burning Contributed to End-Permian Mass Extinction”
Jun 23, 2020
“An international team of geologists has found the first direct evidence that volcanic eruptions in the southern part of the Siberian Traps region 252 million years ago burned large volumes of coal and vegetation.”
article:
https://tinyurl.com/3mfajer2
stevenreincarnated wrote:I’ve known about mass extinctions for most my life. It being blamed on warming from CO2 I never heard of until CO2 became a political issue. The crisis du jour one might say.
RESEARCH ARTICLE| JUNE 12, 2020
Field evidence for coal combustion links the 252 Ma Siberian Traps with global carbon disruption
L.T. Elkins-Tanton; S.E. Grasby; B.A. Black; R.V. Veselovskiy; O.H. Ardakani; F. Goodarzi
Geology (2020) 48 (10): 986–991.
https://doi.org/10.1130/G47365.1
stevenreincarnated:
RESEARCH ARTICLE| JUNE 12, 2020
Field evidence for coal combustion links the 252 Ma Siberian Traps with global carbon disruption
L.T. Elkins-Tanton; S.E. Grasby; B.A. Black; R.V. Veselovskiy; O.H. Ardakani; F. Goodarzi
Geology (2020) 48 (10): 986–991.
https://doi.org/10.1130/G47365.1
stevenreincarnated:
“Coal-Burning Contributed to End-Permian Mass Extinction”
Jun 23, 2020
“An international team of geologists has found the first direct evidence that volcanic eruptions in the southern part of the Siberian Traps region 252 million years ago burned large volumes of coal and vegetation.”
article:
https://bit.ly/3Dd7wPY
And so, if I read Mr Appell’s attempted logical explanation correctly, nature’s infinite and random actions cause climate change (and many other changes he doesn’t even bother to contemplate) regardless of the presence of certain or particular species..
And so, by basic reasoning alone, species have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change via whatever means because nature isn’t ever settled about anything.
David Appell | August 21, 2021
“”we are right now in a period of enormously rapid climate change.”
Really? Let’s see your numbers Citation needed
Prior to the industrial era the climate was remarkably stable over the Holocene — it is, literally, what allowed civilization to develop. The climate is even changing much faster than it did when it warmed after the Last Glacial Maximum 25,000 years ago.
–
So North America and Europe under ice blocks 3 kilometers high and life was flourishing on earth as Woolly pineapples and Tropical jungles massed on the ice.
Whoops, I meant 25,000 years ago when life was pretty suppressed but rapid climate change went ahead and melted all those iceblocks turning it into the lush jungles growing pineapples in the 1850’s which is where our temperature range should be
angech wrote: So North America and Europe under ice blocks 3 kilometers high and life was flourishing on earth as Woolly pineapples and Tropical jungles massed on the ice.
Whoops, I meant 25,000 years ago when life was pretty suppressed but rapid climate change went ahead and melted all those iceblocks turning it into the lush jungles growing pineapples in the 1850’s which is where our temperature range should be
I don’t know what your point is, or are you just acting silly because you don’t have one?
It took about 15,000 years for the world to warm 5 C after the Last Glacial Maximum and the 3 km high glaciers to retreat. That’s an average warming rate of 0.003 C/decade. The world is now warming at over 0.2 C/decade, about 60 times faster. See what I mean — we’re in a period of extremely rapid climate change.
David
The world did not warm at a convenient average rate though did it?
It sometimes warmed quickly sometime slowly and sometimes not at all. Sometimes as in the LIA it went backwards.
Doggerland between Europe and Britain saw a 20 foot sea rise in 100 years which cut europe off from us and forced the prehistoric people to abandon their lands. Artifacts are regularly dredged up from there during the construction of off shore wind turbnes.
CET shows a rise from 1700 to 1740 every bit as fast as the last few decades the bronze age was demonstrably warmer .
Tonyb
Climatereason: As is usually the case with these kind of rapid, local events, there was likely a special, abnormal reason for the Doggerland sea level rise:
“A recent hypothesis suggests that around 6200 BCE much of the remaining coastal land was flooded by a tsunami caused by a submarine landslide off the coast of Norway known as the Storegga Slide.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland#Disappearance
climatereason wrote: CET shows a rise from 1700 to 1740 every bit as fast as the last few decades the bronze age was demonstrably warmer .
It’s well known and completely expected that some local temperatures will change and fluctuate faster than global temperatures. There are hot and cold spots in a swimming pool, that arise here and there temporarily, even though the average temperature of the pool stays pretty constant. That’s basic thermodynamics of a gas or liquid.
What’s very unusual is for the *global* temperature average to rise at such a rapid rate of about 0.2 C/decade, for about 5 decades now.
David
A tsunami doesn’t permanently raise the sea oevel by 100 feet. Yes, there was à tsunami but it left most of the area intact which was later flooded as the climate warmed. The prehistoric people had time to move their settlements and recommence their farming
https://www.bradford.ac.uk/news/archive/2020/scientists-find-new-evidence-of-massive-tsunami-that-devastated-ancient-britain-in-6200bc.php
“I don’t know what your point is”
As .a scorpion fancier…. once said it is a matter of scale.
Or the sting in the tail.
The simple answer is that minute temperature changes over extremely long periods can cause a very uninhabitable earth
Moderate temperature changes over a minute time period amount to nothing more than a minor scald at the worst.
Your perception of time and scale is at fault.
Human fossil fuel consumption until it starts to run down can never give more than a minute change in temperature of a couple of unimportant degrees
over a few hundred or thousand years, Something that happens to most surface creatures every day between 10 and 12 in the morning.
Thanks Tonyb, for clarifying that about the tsunami. Of course. So the sea level rise was just from the end of the glacial period.
angech wrote: Human fossil fuel consumption until it starts to run down can never give more than a minute change in temperature of a couple of unimportant degrees over a few hundred or thousand years
Prove this with numbers and calculations.
Define “minute” and “unimportant.”
“Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say,”
Stanford Report, August 1, 2013
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
“The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.”
8 years old David, and no one did nothing.
So the IPCC ramps the models up to predict even more warming.
Why stop at 10 times when you can scare people with 20 times.
–
Now for some maths to help you with the rates of changes of systems.
Do you care what the rate of change was 10000 years ago, a million years ago, 65 million years ago?
Did those climate scientisaits tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Well , no.
Statistically speaking the amount of error, or standard deviation and the time that that deviation lasts for goes up at an alarming rate. 2C for a century error in 10000 years, 4C for a thousand years and 6 C for 5000 years in 65 million years.
They would not be able to observe a 5C rise in 100 years 64 million years ago.
Yet they pontificate about 10 times faster than any change they can record in the last 65 million years when they know, or should know, or maybe one of J’s blind spots that the are not able to discern changes of such small magnitude over that large time frame.
What that arachnid specialist expert calmly covered over in his comments on scale and warming.
Not that such chutzpa in a zealot is exceptional as you would know.
angech wrote: They would not be able to observe a 5C rise in 100 years 64 million years ago.
And THAT’S what you get from this? Not that the world would be in a whole lot of trouble if we replicated the PETM in a mere century????
You thought the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum was “rapid climate change,” until I showed you that our current rate is 60 times faster. No comment on that correction, angech? No admission you were wrong? No reevaluation of your ideas and beliefs? You’re just going to ignore it?
Of course the Stanford scientists are talking about the best paleoclimate data they have. That’s what climate scientists do — they use the best data they can get. Yes, it will give average rates of warming over, often, more than a century in time. But instead of thinking, OMG, we’re warming at a fantastic rate compared to anything else, you’d rather quibble about so many C of warming in so many millennia and, as always, accuse scientists of dishonesty instead of for once thinking about what exactly our current rapid rate of warming means for us, here and now.
angech wrote: They would not be able to observe a 5C rise in 100 years 64 million years ago.
And THAT’S what you get from this? Not that the world would be in a whole lot of trouble if we replicated the PETM in a mere century????
You thought the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum was “rapid climate change,” until I showed you that our current rate is 60 times faster. No comment on that correction, angech? No admission you were wrong? No reevaluation of your ideas and beliefs? You’re just going to ignore it?
” if we replicated the PETM in a mere century????”
–
That is a big statement.
–
Laughable but big.
Reminds me of many Maxwell Smart jokes,
you know like
“well how about if we start instead by heating up California in a mere winter with solar panels?”
Or ” sorry Chief, Would you believe if we turn on my BarBQue we can get it 60 times hotter than the PETM in 5 minutes”
The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C. in 20000 years and stayed at that level for 200000 years. That’s a lot of volcanic heat
–
David,you need to understand time and energy
How long will human warming last?
How long did the PETML last ?
Leave the horror stories to Stephen King
Appell comment – “You thought the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum was “rapid climate change,” until I showed you that our current rate is 60 times faster.”
Appell comment – “Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say,”
Seriously – you think the resolution of the proxy data is even remotely high enough to reach a such definitive conclusion. The resolutio of the proxy data from just the MWP is too low to provide a definitive assessment of whether today’s warming is greater or less than the MWP.
You seem to be overly impressed with climate scientists ability to ascertain the global temp from 100k years ago within .1C.
Joe – the non climate scientist
“The resolution of the proxy data from just the MWP is too low to provide a definitive assessment of whether today’s warming is greater or less than the MWP. ”
Great comment
Should be understandable to to most people if they thought about.
JC has had a number of contributors now showing flaws like this of statistical accounting that people wanting to promote fear ignore.
angech wrote: David,you need to understand time and energy
How long will human warming last?
You mean you don’t know? Everyone should know this by now. I suggest you read
“The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html
It’s only a short book.
As an ideologically loyal channel surfing sycophant, the local DA reads a book and is convinced that humanity has reached peak technology! Actually it’s the default sensibility for all CAGW disciples, those whom build scenarios extrapolating the future without consideration of technological progress. All disciples need a book it seems.
On the bright side, at least 100k years offers plenty of runway to install high tech wind generators and solar panels across the fruited plains.
jungletrunks wrote:
On the bright side, at least 100k years offers plenty of runway to install high tech wind generators and solar panels across the fruited plains
But almost everyone here constantly denies that burning carbon is a problem, that global warming is a problem, that sustainable energy is necessary, that it’s affordable, that it will ever be affordable, they claim it’s a sin against liberty, motherhood and apple pie, and that anyone saying otherwise is a dangerous crackpot who deserves scorn and ridicule.
Now you’re saying there’s lots of time to put in renewable energy, except maybe after global warming and climate change are in place and causing lots of damage. OK.
Nature takes 100k years to remove carbon from the atmosphere. It will cost us money to do it more quickly.
Rattan Lal – 2020 winner of the World Food Prize – says that the carbon content of 157 ppm could be sequestered in soils and ecosystems by 2100. This is a critical project for food security, development and biodiversity conservation.
Wind and solar have inescapable limitations in intermittency and available energy density. Advanced nuclear engines are safe, produce much less and much more tractable waste, are proliferation resistant and first engineering principles must have reduced costs compared to previous generations.
We would prefer a smooth transition.
The local DA demonstrates his typical lack of deduction skill.
I’m referring to technology as a driving force of change that’s beyond engagement within warmist machinations as they prognosticate future doom. The CO2 hockey stick is an exploited fuzzy predictor of the future; the 20th century technology hockey stick provides much more clarity, yet isn’t embraced by ideologues in broad context except for mindlessly lobbying for pouring massive capital into wind and solar. The growth of technology is demonstrable, discernible in its effects. Technology is advancing exponentially, reliably, and allows great foresight in terms of expectation; not so for CO2, beyond that it has risen, what this translates to is highly questionable. Regardless, there’s a point in time not too terribly far off when the CO2 equation becomes irrelevant as technology rolls it over, by way of consequentially depleting it as a risk.
You whine that “almost everyone” here constantly denies that sustainable energy is necessary; what nonsense. We must have energy for the long-term, correct? Energy production in some form must be “sustained”. An all the above hybrid transitional approach for energy production, near-term, until newer technologies advance enough to introduce better, cost effective solutions over carbon based fuels should be the goal. These ideas are generally closer to capturing the “skeptic” mindset relative to energy production. Capitalists only care about fossil fuels superficially, they’re just products until creative destruction diminishes their market viability, they’ll eventually be replaced with something better. There’s no harm in an all the above, no regrets approach until this time comes.
Viability is the operative word, economically, productively, and to protect the most lives. The cultists myopic focus on wInd and solar tech to replace the power grid isn’t workable; bankrupting the world to bend down a tiny fraction of the CO2 footprint by the end of the century is needless, it’s draconian, it’s politically tactical. But you’re correct in one thing, a fragility to how others perceive the CAGW religion: as one who is a “dangerous crackpot who deserves scorn and ridicule”; your antenna is finally tuned to when your mindless ideological pursuits are dismissed.
The tech curve will reveal new technologies sooner rather than later, there will be good surprises. Robert presents a couple things here that can be exploited to great effect for energy sustainability and efficiency. There’s many more things advancing. We all have one thing in common, we want a thriving planet. We depart from this common want when it’s leveraged divisively, as a path to be exploited for fascist ideology.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Rattan Lal – 2020 winner of the World Food Prize – says that the carbon content of 157 ppm could be sequestered in soils and ecosystems by 2100.
If CO2(2100) appx 800-1000 ppm, 157 ppm is basically nothing. So, so what.
Wind and solar have inescapable limitations in intermittency and available energy density.
Now. Fossil fuels were once intermittent too.
Advanced nuclear engines are safe, produce much less and much more tractable waste,
People swore Chernobyl was safe. Fukushima too. LOL. Not really. anti-LOL. Sad sad sad.
It’s always a terrible waste of time to guess what words Judith won’t allow to be posted here. It’s never worth it.
A thanks to Thomas Fuller and others who have supported the raising of these important questions.
“I think Angech’s questions are reasonable and important because it’s good to have a positive goal, rather than just a ‘do not exceed’ limit. I’m not suggesting there’s a Nirvana or Utopian level of temperature, CO2, etc., but, if I can borrow the term, an optimum range for the principal actors involved.”
Judith, if the thread can get up to near a 1000 comments mostly on the back of the IPCC report but also as a small segment on what the optimal ranges should be could you do a follow up on this.
The amount of discussion and the number of people attracted to defend the indefensible means it is of importance in the debate.
A thanks to Ross McKitrick for his articles expanding on the IPCC problems as well.
Judith –
This thread is now almost as long, and almost as impenetrable, as the IPCC report itself. To save us having to wade through it, please can we have a Summary for Policymakers?
My latest on AR6:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/21/the-ipccs-deliberate-co2-deception/
The IPCC’s deliberate CO2 deception
By David Wojick
Some excerpts:
“Many of my disagreements with the IPCC AR6 science Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) are just that, disagreements. I think their reasoning is faulty but at least I understand it. See my last article “The UN IPCC science panel opts for extreme nuttiness“. One SPM section, however, is so wrong that it must be a deliberate deception. The purpose seems to be to make the atmospheric CO2 increase look like a simple accumulation of our emissions. I call this the pollution model of CO2 and it is extremely misleading. The truth is well known so this must be a deceptive act on the IPCC’s part.”
“The idea here is that some fraction of our emissions is absorbed by land (the biosphere) and ocean. The remaining fraction stays in the atmosphere, creating our cumulative emissions, which is the (supposedly very bad) CO2 increase. Given that the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than our annual emissions, this simple story works well. So we find it is a common theme in ordinary discourse. But the scientists who oversaw the writing of the SPM are experts on this stuff and they know it is wildly false. Our CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere.”
“The point is that given this huge flux our emissions do not stay in the atmosphere very long before they are absorbed. The standard estimate (well known to the IPCC) is that fully half of our emissions are gone in less than 3 years from their time of emission. Almost all are gone in less than 8 years.”
“In plain language this is a hoax. There is no scientific issue here, no disagreement or argument. They are saying something important that they know perfectly well to be false. They are lying to the policy makers, deliberately perpetuating the myth that the CO2 increase is just our cumulative emissions building up over time. It is nothing of the sort and they know it.
Shame on the IPCC!”
There is a lot more in the article.
Pine Island glacier (PIG) contribution to GMSLR from 1979 to 2017 averaged 0.003 inches per year. Rignot 2019 Appendix.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2019/01/09/1812883116.DCSupplemental/pnas.1812883116.sd01.xlsx
Such a paltry contribution, in spite of the highest levels of geothermal activity in the same area.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Pine_island_glacier.png
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suze-Guimaraes/publication/340086938/figure/fig2/AS:878416169549825@1586442143439/New-heat-flow-map-of-Antarctica-based-on-revised-data-sets-For-details-see-the-text.jpg
Maybe that’s why no mention of a possible connection to Pine Island in IPCC6.
But DeRydt et al 2021 and others have found more complex mechanisms affecting both the glacier and ice shelf influencing ice loss and acceleration of glacier movement. The conditions affecting PIG, apparently initiated during the 1939-42 El Niño, are not unprecedented but they are rare. Shifting winds now push more warm water onto the Amundsen Sea shelf and depending on the variability of hundreds of meters of the thermocline (Jenkins et al 2016), affecting the basal ice of the glacier and ice shelf. Arendt et al 2018 found that the bathymetry has a greater effect on mass loss variability than was believed.
DeRydt identified more complex mechanisms and interrelationships between the glacier and basal melting and ice shelf and bathymetry than had been identified previously. This includes addressing temporal variability of acceleration and deceleration of the glacier, which has been an issue with the role of geothermal activity, notwithstanding the finding of Schroeder 2024, that identified such temporal variability.
“ GHF can strongly influence the basal temperature of the ice sheet. As a consequence, it is a key contributor to basal melt- water production, ice rheology, basal friction, basal sliding velocity, and erosion (Fahnestock et al., 2001; Goelzer et al., 2017; Hughes, 2009).”
“ Even beneath the comparatively thinner ice of West Antarctica, the sensitivity of basal temperature to heat flow is enhanced (Llubes et al., 2006). There is evidence that this region, dominated tectonically by the West Antarctic Rift System (Jordan et al., 2020), exhibits very high values of basal heat flow and resultant basal melting (Schroeder et al., 2014). Above 85 mW m−2, the basal temperature of much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will pass its pressure melting point (in agreement with radar evidence for extensive basal melting; Llubes et al., 2006; Rémy and Legresy, 2004; Schroeder et al., 2014). Consequently, enhanced basal heat flow in West Antarctica can have a large effect on its basal melt rates, although the thinner ice sheet in West Antarctica compared to East Antarctica makes it more sensitive to surface parameters (advection and conduction of the surface temperature, itself influenced by the accumulation rate; Llubes et al., 2006).
In addition to enhancing basal melting and reducing basal friction, increased GHF enhances ice flow by increasing the englacial temperature and thus reducing the ice stiffness (Larour et al., 2012). Because the heat produced by basal friction and viscous deformation can be orders of magnitude greater than from GHF in fast-flowing ice streams, this effect is only significant in upstream, slow-flowing areas (Larour et al., 2012). In these regions of thick, slow-flowing ice, even local high heat flow anomalies of insufficient heat for basal melting can result in the development of accelerated, channelized flow for hundreds of kilometres upstream and downstream of the GHF anomaly through the effect of GHF on the ice rheology (Pittard et al., 2016a). Regions along ice divides and adjacent to ice streams are particularly sensitive to enhanced GHF (Pittard et al., 2016b).”
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/14/3843/2020/tc-14-3843-2020.pdf
In Greenland the researchers are catching on to the necessity of understanding the total system. It’s too bad some denizens aren’t able to get it. I couldn’t have said it any better.
“Mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet is determined via one of three methods: through estimates of ice volume change from satellite altimetry1,2, by directly measuring mass changes using gravimetry3 or by differencing between solid ice discharge and surface mass balance4,5 (the “input–output” method, the term solid ice discharge refers to the ice mass that exits through flux gates at the margin). The average mass balance of the ice sheet between 2005 and 2015 is −254 ± 18 Gt per year with a spread between different mass balance estimates of 36 Gt per year6. Gravity methods implicitly include basal mass loss, while altimetry methods attribute all mass loss to either ice discharge or surface mass loss. Either method provides limited insights into the physical processes leading to the observed change in mass. In contrast, the input-output method relies on accurate process representation of the climatic and dynamic mass-loss terms and thus provides the possibility of predicting future changes. To date, the input-output method has overlooked basal mass balance entirely. Constraining basal melt is important for three reasons. Firstly, uncertainty in the partition of ice-sheet mass loss between surface mass balance and ice discharge, including the failure to acknowledge the basal mass balance term, limits our understanding of changes in ice-sheet mass budget in response to recent climate change. This impedes our ability to capture complex interactions and feedbacks between ice sheets and the climate system. Secondly, the presence or absence of basal meltwater is important for the evolution of the subglacial system7,8, and recent studies have highlighted the importance of subglacial discharge for modifying the mass loss from marine-terminating glaciers9,10, it therefore plays an important role for Greenland outlet glaciers’ contribution to future sea-level rise11,12. Finally, discharge of subglacial water modifies circulation in the fjord systems and may impact nutrient mixing13,14.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23739-z
CKid, read the abstract of Karlsson et al.
Basal melting is less than 10% of total Greenland melting.
That means almost all the melting is taking place on the surface or at the ocean edges. Again showing you’re barking up the wrong tree.
From the very beginning I said it was not about the significance, it was simply part of the total system and as eloquently explained by the authors that is why it is important to know and why it should have been in IPCC6. An extremely simple concept.
Stick with your 5th grade equations. You’ve shown us why the control knob theory is all you can handle.
CKid wrote: From the very beginning I said it was not about the significance,
This is oh, oh, oh, oh so typical of you, that when you get annihilated on scientific grounds, you completely back down, exactly like this.
This, and your juvenile little insults, are why I filter your comments straight to Trash.
I didn’t back down at all. Your problem is you can’t read. Either you can’t read or your reading comprehension skills are woefully inadequate.
David Appell | August 22, 2021 at 5:16 pm |
“It’s well known and completely expected that some local temperatures will change and fluctuate faster than global temperatures. There are hot and cold spots in a swimming pool, that arise here and there temporarily, even though the average temperature of the pool stays pretty constant. That’s basic thermodynamics of a gas or liquid.”
Translation
Whats good about it is that in a giant swimming pool we can find local fluctuations and promote everyone of them as an example of global warming.
“What’s very unusual is for the *global* temperature average to rise at such a rapid rate of about 0.2 C/decade, for about 5 decades now.”
A rise of 0.2C for 5 decades is extremely usual for any complex climate system like the earth.
It can be waved away as a 1% decrease in cloud cover over that time.
Perfectly natural
See Roy Spencer for details.
Look at the historical record .
It would happen at least 5 times each 2 millennia.
Why now?
And there you are running an anti pause argument because it is in your favour this time.
Cherry picking.
angech wrote: A rise of 0.2C for 5 decades is extremely usual for any complex climate system like the earth.
“Extremely usual?”
When is the last time it happened?
David Appell | August 24, 2021 at 3:04 pm | Reply
angech wrote: A rise of 0.2C for 5 decades is extremely usual for any complex climate system like the earth.
Appell’s comment – “Extremely usual?”
When is the last time it happened?”
Appell – when was the last time the resolution of the proxie data was even remotely high enough to ascertain whether it happened or didnt happen.
Hint the resolution of the data doesn’t exist to prove or disprove the point.
Pingback: The Media Balance Newsletter August 23, 2021 - Australian Climate Sceptics blog
CO2 fertilization effect not working out so well this year:
https://twitter.com/davidappell/status/1430242838705364992
https://twitter.com/davidappell/status/1430242838705364992
More frostbitten Appell fun
“Actually what typically happens is the individuals that get to the island eventually form a NEW species”
“Not that the world would be in a whole lot of trouble if we replicated the PETM in a mere century?”
“Prove this with numbers and calculations.”
Species can’t move north/south as fast as the climate is shifting, perhaps 70 “miles in 30 years:”
“Don’t be so sure that warmer temperatures are better for plant growth or growing season:”
“Who dies from the cold?”
“Instead of immediately getting defensive and insulting,”
“Wholly mammoths.” One is tempted to ask where.
“”The IPCC’s case hardly rises or falls on whether they can explain trends in Antarctic sea ice”
“Tony Heller is a joke. He has no clue about adjustments, isn’t trained in the science of them and has been caught muffing it all up. I don’t take my science from people like him, I take it from experts who publish in the peer reviewed literature.”
“the professionals climbing all over the ice and writing the reports how to do their job.”
“Besides no one believes that unpublished, unpeer-reviewed Christy graph.”
angech, your task was to quantitively prove your claim:
Human fossil fuel consumption until it starts to run down can never give more than a minute change in temperature of a couple of unimportant degrees over a few hundred or thousand years
You did not.
Can you? It appears not. Numbers and calculations aren’t your strong suit.
David Appell
Your task was to show you understood time and energy.
You made a statement that shows a lack of basic understanding in these important areas.
Numbers and calculations aren’t your strong suit either.
Take this statement
” if we replicated the PETM in a mere century?
The PETM a massive volcanic event for 50000 years
55 million years ago.
It lasted from 20,000 to 50,000 years.
The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years.
Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C.
There is no way mankind can produce the enormous amounts of energy that poured out in that 50,000 years in one year.
The PETM emitted 12000 Gt of carbon were released over 50,000 years
Humans emit about 10 Gt of carbon per year, and we will have released a comparable amount in about 1,000 years.
Not 1 year.
Leave the horror stories to Stephen King
My claim is proved, 1 year to 500000 is minute.
Your task might take considerably longer than the PETM
angech, your task was to quantitively prove your claim:
Human fossil fuel consumption until it starts to run down can never give more than a minute change in temperature of a couple of unimportant degrees over a few hundred or thousand years
What is “minute?”
What is “unimportant?”
You still haven’t defined these.
Humans are easily capable of causing 5 C of warming in 200-300 years.
We’ve already caused 1.5 C of warming. (0.5 C is being suppressed by aerosols.) The carbon-climate response function is 1.0-2.1 degC per trillion tons of carbon emitted.
So by continuing to burn 10 GtC/yr, we’re looking at another 0.8-1.7 C by 2100, for a total of 2.3-3.2 C by 2100.
By 2200, we’ll be at 3.3-5.3 C.
There you go.
Now keep going to 2300.
Natural warming in the modern era was a substantial part of the total.
e.g. http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1432459/FULLTEXT01
Sulphate cooling is overestimated and black carbon warming underestimated. Mixed species emissions result in sulphate lensing increasing the warming potential of black carbon by more than double.
e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4243
Robert Ellison wrote: Sulphate cooling is overestimated and black carbon warming underestimated.
The PNAS paper is about black carbon. What says sulphate cooling is overestimated?
Joshua,
Happy to keep discussing the issues with you.
Are you happy to attempt an answer to the two questions instead of refusing to try like Willard?
–
You posted
I”m referring (in part) to how you’re running away from the logical holes in what you posted.”
There are no logical holes in what I have posted that I can see but perhaps you could list a couple that you can see and I will address those and then we can move on to the others that you can see etc
I am not running away from from my arguments whatsoever.
Unlike some others here I want to learn and if there are errors I want to know about them so that I can improve.
I am listening.
Can you hear me ?
Over.
angech –
To take just one of the inane comments you made, the first one where we entered this exchange.
You hand-waved at the ease with which species can just up and move climes.
There are many island species, or species that have evolved to some very specific environments, that likely won’t survive with significant and/or rapid climate change.
You responded with irrelevancies, such as how a species could travel on a log. Or straw men and red herrings, such as warming in specific areas, or arguments about the rate of warming, or arguments about whether warming might also be beneficial.
And the thing is, in all of this, you’re saying that you know better than people who spend years reviewing the literature, studying the issue, and doing work in the field. And maybe you do. I doubt it, but it’s theoretically possible. But you don’t help your case when you argue nonsense and then distract or duck when called on it.
So offer something new, that’s actually relevant.
Joshua “offer something new” No let us stick to script.
I made a statement that species can just up and move to more suitable climates easily when they have to.
Correct ?
“You hand-waved at the ease with which species can just up and move climes.”
My statement is very correct and is not hand waving in any shape or form.
Evolution is a process that has been going on for eons. Life has had to adapt to survive constantly.
Each life form has had to adjust its shape and form in an effort to survive at whatever environment is thrown at it.
Evolution goes on daily, old predators to beat off, new prey to catch, new pesticides to adapt to.
Evolution goes on by genetic adaption and developing new species.
This adaption can take 20 generations in a day by billions of bacteria [think antibiotic resistance].
Adaption could take 50 years of yearly generations in roses or wheat.
It could take a million years in terms of developing a new species.
But life is alive because it is animate, it is capable of movement and it is not just the province of fins gills feet and wings.
Life’s purpose is to reproduce and spread as far and wide as it can to give itself the best chance at coping with whatever misfortunes happen.
It loves to be able to move fast an easily.
That is why my statement is correct.
The ability of species to travel is not an irrelevance, to quote Greta Thunberg. It is a vital part of all species makeup.
Most mammals get to islands by logs or log rafts as most cannot swim to islands. The log itself may carry its own and other seeds or in the case of a mangrove just lodge in the mud and grow.
They also carry vital bacteria and worms needed to produce fertile soil.
Plants are extremely mobile due to their mobility being constrained to the reproductive part of their cycle. Seed, birds and wind. Capable of travelling from Siberia Russia to Victoria, Australia and beyond.
So how do you try to breakdown my argument about an increase of warmth being countered by mobility.
You make up the most restrictive place you can think of. A prison island where the inhabitants are so weak that they cannot travel or live anywhere else forgetting that they came there form much more hospitable climes.
Forgetting that any species that got there is only a small part of the vast diaspora of each individual species.
Evolution granted mobility to get them there but it doesn’t need them to keep them there.Mobility keeps the species alive elsewhere. They may still migrate from your prison.
If the best argument you have is to stack probabilities on top of probabilities on top of probabilities, as you put it, straw men and red herrings, as you put it, then you have lost this round.
angech –
Once again, there are many species that have evolved in very specific ways in response to specific features of specific environments. Island species ate just one, obvious example. Such as the many species that adapted to the specific environment in Hawaii, and live nowhere else.
.http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150625-islands-where-evolution-ran-riot
I don’t need you to condescending ‘splain evolution to me. I’m asking you to address how the logic if your handwave to species’ ability to just move climes in resonse to climate change speaks to the many species whose survival likely depends on their environment remaining relatively unchanged.
This will be my last attempt. If you don’t address it in your next comment, without handwaves and straw men and red herrings and non sequiturs and squirrels and irrelevancies and skeptasplaining evolution, etc., I’ll have to assume that you’re specifically avoiding addressing it, and while I can’t know the reason why with certainly, indeed certain answers seem most likely.
Joshua | August 25, 2021
“”
“I don’t need you to condescendingly explain evolution to me.”
I explained evolution to you.
No condescension attempted or implied.
I cannot infer your interpretation a priori.
I cannot understand it a posterior.
You asked a question.
I answered it with straight forward facts and logic which you could either accept or counter argue, not shoot the messenger.
Claiming condescension as a way of denigrating the answer is your privilege but it does not provide an answer, just fabricates an excuse not to answer .
” I’m asking you to address how the logic of your hand wave to species’ ability to just move climes in response to climate change speaks to the many species whose survival likely depends on their environment remaining relatively unchanged.”
I did that.
Let us break it up into the steps involved.
“You hand-waved at the ease with which species can just up and move climes.”
I. e. I made a statement that species can just up and move to more suitable climates easily when they have to.
Is this correct ?
I then stated “My statement is very correct and is not hand waving in any shape or form.”
Doe’s that answer your question as whether I was hand waving at facts or not?
Part of your evasiveness on accepting this answer is due to your stubbornness to review what you in fact wrote and what I in fact answered. My answer was, is and still will be to this
“to species’ ability to just move climes”
N.B. species plural and unspecified. Species in general.
I explained, in great detail, exactly how species developed and how they always have an ability to move quickly.
This was my claim and I answered it.
You then, having the right answer, jumped queues and changed the question to asked how this answer could be right in view of the fact that
” many species survival likely depends on their environment remaining relatively unchanged.”
and
“Once again, there are many species that have evolved in very specific ways in response to specific features of specific environments. Island species are just one, obvious example. Such as the many species that adapted to the specific environment in Hawaii, and live nowhere else.”
First up a species is defined by its ability to reproduce with others of the same species.
If one group develops red hair in one location and then dies out in that location the species is not lost.
It does not matter if every adapted iguana in Hawaii or wherever dies there are still plenty of the same species in South America.
Your argument about loss of the species focusing on small subsets is specious and wrong.
Second if you used the right word [not species by the way] and considered the species that reached the island and adapted and survived you are still wrong to say that they cannot move quickly.
As I explained to David above species movement is not restricted to just feet, Seeds, pollen, wings [including winged insects and parachuting spiders. Log rafts and grass rafts if there are trees and grass [almost a necessity. Driftwood from other islands re drifting.
All of them can leave and move elsewhere and most have already had individuals who have done so or are doing so.
Just because they seem well adapted or solely adapted to particular living conditions does not mean that they cannot move and survive somewhere else and even meet up with their same species.
All the birds can fly elsewhere.
All the plants can easily move their species away.
A few land bound mammals, Usually brought by human ships, a few reptiles not many, on most islands Predators eat out their prey and both die without the need to invoke climate change
See for instance modern New Zealand, where bats and seals are the only non-introduced mammals in the otherwise bird-dominated terrestrial faunas. Two very large islands , no native mammals.
This will be my last attempt.
Interesting as it implies you do not want to continue a simple and logical argument to its logical conclusion.
Still, your loss and mine.
“I’ll have to assume that you’re specifically avoiding addressing it,”
Another wrong assumption
“and while I can’t know the reason why with certainly, indeed certain answers seem most likely”
?
angech –
Approximately 95% of the same type of irrelevant nonsense. Which aggregated with all the other irrelevant nonsense puts you at maybe 0.5% relevant and on point responses in total.
This part, however, was actually tangentially relevant – for which I congratulate you.
>… and considered the species that reached the island and adapted and survived you are still wrong to say that they cannot move quickly.
I didn’t say that “they” can not move quickly – “they” being the species (insert correct term here if you wish) that one way or the other wound up on and survived and reproduced on those islands.
And of course island species are only one example of species (or insert whichever word is the correct one here) which are very specifically adapted to a very specific and unique environment, and which would not likely be able to adapt to a rapidly changed environment. For example fauna that live in extreme conditions in the Arctic.
And hereby I give up. It seems quite apparent to me you’re clearly not interested (or perhaps not capable of) for whatever reason of actually having a conversation. You’re more interested in squirrels and irrelevant responses and splainin’ stuff and the like. Which is too bad because I have gotten the impression at some points in the past that you might be interested in doing so.
I’m done with this. It’s tedious.
angech wrote:
I made a statement that species can just up and move to more suitable climates easily when they have to.
Correct ?
No, not correct.
I wrote about the hickory tree in my front yard.
With climate moving 70 miles north in 30 years.
Explain how this hickory tree’s descendant’s move north 2.3 miles EVERY YEAR.
Animal dispersal of the hickory nut. It’s an effective adaptation mechanism.
Explain how this hickory tree’s descendant’s move north 2.3 miles
Why just North?
–
The distance from Nuuk to Boston is about 2697* Kilometers.
Hickory pollen can be blown 2700 kilometers.
Proven.
Look it up.
So in any one year genetic material from a hickory plant can travel up to 900 times as far as you thought.
And re propagate that particular species
Bees carry pollen but it is a shorter distance less than a kilometer.
Birds can carry seeds hundreds of kilometers
Cuttings can be transported any distance you like as can seedlings transported by botanists or plant nurseries.
The David Appell Hickory tree in the New South Wales Botanical Gardens say or that seed bank in Svalbard.
Animal dispersal of the hickory nut. It’s an effective adaptation mechanism.
People carrying them in cars and throwing them out the window.
How did your tree get into your backyard.
Basic Botany propagation of plants.
I’m sure there are other mechanisms.
It moves even when it is not warming
Correct ? Yes
angech wrote:
I made a statement that species can just up and move to more suitable climates easily when they have to.
You/some may find this interesting.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227538423_A_major_widespread_climatic_change_around_5300_cal_yr_BP_at_the_time_of_the_Alpine_Iceman
Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Palaeoenvironmental and archaeological data from Arbon Bleiche, Lake Constance (Switzerland) give evidence of a rapid rise in lake-level dated by tree-ring and radiocarbon to 5320 cal. yr BP. This rise event was the latest in a series of three successive episodes of higher lake-level between 5550 and 5300 cal. yr BP coinciding with glacier advance and tree-limit decline in the Alps. This west-central European climate change may have favoured the quick burial and the
preservation of the Alpine Iceman recently found in the Tyrolean Alps. It has possible equivalents in many records from various regions in both hemispheres dating to 5600–5000 cal. yr BP and corresponds to global cooling and contrasting patterns of hydrological changes. This major mid-Holocene climate event marks the Hypsithermal/Neoglaciation transition possibly resulting from a combination of different factors including orbital forcing, changes in ocean circulation and variations in solar activity.
5500BP (3550bce) is the abrupt drying of the Sahara. Besides other evidence of a global event. Tree line are indicative of much greater change than just CO2 or ~3degC. Include major tectonic change.
angech wrote: The distance from Nuuk to Boston is about 2697* Kilometers.
Hickory pollen can be blown 2700 kilometers.
Proven.
Look it up.
So in any one year genetic material from a hickory plant can travel up to 900 times as far as you thought.
One time?
And what does it do when it lands there, in a completely foreign climactic zone?
Does it fluorish?
Robert I. Ellison wrote:Animal dispersal of the hickory nut. It’s an effective adaptation mechanism.
How far poleward, per year, on average?
angech wrote: Explain how this hickory tree’s descendant’s move north 2.3 miles. Why just North?
Because my hickory tree lives in the Northern Hemisphere.
Animal hickory nut dispersal by animals is random. So the question David is asking now is how far animals can transport nuts – either internally or externally – rather that the mechanism he asked for originally. How long is a piece of string?
Finally someone like RIE catches on!
Of course I’m asking how far a species can travel in a year, a decade, three decades. By poop or wind or alien spaceship.
Is it faster than climate is moving poleward and upward?
What I was wondering about was the range of animals that disperse hickory nuts. 2.3 miles/yr in David’s inexact estimation is not very far.
Climate always changes – abruptly warmer or cooler – and species survival depends on tolerance and dispersal. Pollination by wind is a survival strategy for hickory trees – in that genes from successful individuals are widely dispersed.
angech wrote: I made a statement that species can just up and move to more suitable climates easily when they have to.
Correct ?
No!
If so the world would be covered with all species who all exist all over the globe.
But they don’t. So clearly your claim is false.
David Appel
“If so the world would be covered with all species who all exist all over the globe.”
A wonderful word, if.
The Appell et al word
It means Fear.
Fear of the unknown.
What if something changes and what if it is bad.
Over and over again.
Here it has a different meaning.
If as an escape mechanism.
I said.
” species can just up and move to more suitable climates easily when they have to.”
David, unable to cope with a perfectly logical statement,
engages his survival mechanism.
If, if ,if.
I argued it out with Joshua, pointing out that species have to be mobile to survive in changing circumstances.
Survival is the emergent property of evolution.
In other words if you cannot survive you will become extinct.
Life moves because it is forced to.
To survive.
Take your if away and consider your statement
“the world would be covered with all species who all exist all over the globe.”
What world does an Appell want to live in or believe in?
A world with one beautiful 15 C over the entire world from pole to pole which never changes. Where the lion lies down with the lamb?
Eden.
The world is covered by all species,David, but living in their preferred habitat or forced habitat.
Species do exist all over the globe, David, living in their preferred habitat or forced habitat.
But all exist all over the world? No, David. They exist where they can.
Eden yes.
The real world with warm equators and Cold poles. No
Yes they can move easily if needed.
Proven by the fact that so many exist, all over the world.
Happy to keep discussing the issues with you.
Are you happy to attempt an answer to the two questions instead of refusing to try like Willard?
If you ever actually write an on topic response, I’ll consider addressing your questions, although I have no idea why you’re interested in my opinion on those topics.
Joshua
Your opinion is important to me on many but not all topics.
You provide a sounding board of pro global warming views which I can try to address in my own way.
I do try to stick to the topics you introduce.
Thank you for all the interaction and I would appreciate if not an answer to those two questions of mine, some observations on them from you if you do not actually want to attempt an answer to them.
angech –
Not interested.
At this point I’ve decided that you’re not engaging in good faith. Which still might merit sarcastic responses in the future, but unless you actually address the problems above AND ACTUALLY RESPOND ON POINT, I’m going with the (unusually) good sense solution of not wasting my time with you. I like having convos with people when we can exchange differing viewpoints in good faith.
Here’s an example of a rare place where I can do that:
:
markbofill.wordpress.com
That decision might change in the future, of course – many such a promise has been made in the interwebs only to be broken shortly thereafter. But that’s where I’m at now.
“At this point I’ve decided that you’re not engaging in good faith.”
My loss.
Thank you for trying as long and hard as you did.
angech –
> My loss.
Just to add, since you feel it’s your loss.
In the chance that I’ll try again to engage you in a good faith exchange of differing viewpoints.
When you used the term “alarmist” and then said there wasn’t either intent on your part to use a pejorative or any particular reason to consider it a pejorative term, I think you’re just digging in, in actual resistance to good faith exchange. It sends a clear signal to me (just as it would be if I used the term “denier.”) of bad faith. It isn’t the use of the term, I don’t care about that (someone on the internet insults me? Who cares?); it’s the resistence to acknowledging the signal that it’s use sends that’s the problem.
So in the future, if we exchange views again, if you want to avoid a loss consider before you post something whether you are sending signals signals of what I consider to be bad faith exchange. Whether you intend that in some manner or are just failing to control for an intent or just not aware of ways that I’m overly sensitive doesn’t really matter in the long run. I belive that you have control, if you really think it through, in the majority of cases whether what you say will be received as a signal of bad faith intent. Even if such a signal gets through (its hard to control for that 100% for sure) there are obvious ways to compensate and maintain/repair an atmosphere of good faith exchange.
Sort of got it.
If I post to you or regarding you [only] I will do my best to take your possible views of my terms into consideration.
Please do not take my use of such terms elsewhere when addressing other people or topics.
If other people feel offended then it is up to them to complain or ask me to refrain [with them].
You mentioned “it’s the resistance to acknowledging the signal that it’s use sends that’s the problem.”
This is very difficult in any polemic.
I remember working with a person that I had trouble coping with due their reliability.It was like walking on eggshells.
If other people did not follow through on a needed task and I got on with them I did not notice it.
For most of us communication is a one way issue in a two way situation.
We feel that what we are saying is always right, and normal and what everyone else would think in the same situation.
The other person though is looking for signals as well as messages.
The person sending is just sending a message and not expecting the recipient to be looking for extra “signals”.
This applies equally to you as well as me.
On one side it is “it’s the resistance to acknowledging the signal that it’s use sends that’s the problem.”
On the other side its the inability to perceive any lack of intent or signal
because of the assumption of bad faith implicit in merely having a discussion with someone of the other faith or persuasion.
I reserve my right to speak my mind in plain English without having to walk on eggshells except where otherwise constrained. I’m sure you do the same. If I use a term I use it in its normal meaning without meaning to send out any signals I am unaware of. I am not responsible for someone else’s world view being out of kilter with the normal world view.
If they inform me that they take exception then I can have a choice of the language I use with them, as you have indicated.
Thanks for setting me straight on future communication and potentially offering an olive branch.
angech –
Thank you for an actual on point response. That’s all I’ve been asking for. As such, I will respond to the on point part. It’s going to be long.
> This applies equally to you as well as me.
Of course. I was neglectful in not saying that explicitly. Apologies
> On one side it is “it’s the resistance to acknowledging the signal that it’s use sends that’s the problem.”
I didn’t assume bad faith. In fact, I continuously looked optimistically for good faith. But at some point I gave up. I’d have to go back and check for sure, but probably there was kind of step change in that trajectory when you argued that “alarmist” isn’t a pejorative (with total certainty). That’s as obviously wrong as it is if someone says that “denier” isn’t a pejorative. Just even at the most basic level of playing the man and not the ball, it’s clearly not a piece of good faith exchange.
Now I can’t know for sure how you got there. Are you just weirdly unaware? Or are you aware and just refusing to admit it?
Of course, maybe I’m just being overly sensitive and/or just seeing patterns where they don’t really exist.
What you may not know is that I interrogate those questions. And I’m always (well, usually), respectful of the limits of what I can know. I can’t mind probe. I can’t know exactly where my biases interfere.
But as I keep saying to you, I evaluate the probabilities. I’m stuck someplace in between you being weirdly unaware, and trying to deliberately hide antagonism for some reason.
But yeah, I’ve pretty much ruled out that I’m being overly sensitive (in part because I really don’t care if you call me names). And the patterns are just too well-engrained and too ubiquitous in the context (online exchanges, particularly in the “alarmist” vs. “denier” climate-o-sphere”) for the to be just a pattern I made up.
> On the other side its the inability to perceive any lack of intent or signal
because of the assumption of bad faith implicit in merely having a discussion with someone of the other faith or persuasion.
You can think I’m paranoid. But I know that I’m not. It’s possible that you didn’t intend bad faith, but that’s my point. I told you that your use of “alarmist” necessarily signals bad faith. Not only did you NOT say “my bad.” You went on to act as if it doesn’t necessarily signal bad faith. At some point your intention becomes basically irrelevant. I’ll explain below.
Sorry, some things just aren’t reasonably plausible to me – that you could logically believe that “alarmist” signals bad faith is one.
I suppose it’s theoretically plausible, but if you don’t see that is signals bad faith, I’m like 99.9% sure it’s because either you’re weirdly unaware or just don’t really care.
But holding on to that 0.1%, I hung in there and tried to have a discussion with you about the extinction thing nonetheless. In response you heaped onto me all kinds of beliefs I don’t have, and you threw squirrels and red herrings around the room. You played the “expert” ‘splaining stuff to me. It was alike a textbook of bad faith instruments. I made it clear that’s what I thought you were doing, and you just continued.
At some point it just becomes too trivial and too mundane and too tedious for even an Internet comments section addict (which we all are) to hang in there with.
> I reserve my right to speak my mind in plain English without having to walk on eggshells except where otherwise constrained.
An “alarmist” calling someone a “denier” SAYS EXCTLY THE SAME THING.
I didn’t say you don’t have a “right” to call me a name. Of course you do.
And I wouldn’t be here if I had some expectation it wouldn’t happen, or if it actually bothered me. How many tens of thousands? of times have people in these threads called me names? To expect otherwise would fit the definition of insanity.
> If I use a term I use it in its normal meaning without meaning to send out any signals I am unaware of. I am not responsible for someone else’s world view being out of kilter with the normal world view.
As I explained, that’s wrong in two ways. The first is it’s just ridiculous that you’re saying that the “normal” usage of “alarmist,’ PARTICULARLY IN THIS CONTEXT, doesn’t send a signal of antipathy and bad faith.
And even if you slipped into it unintentionally for one reason or another (a lack of awareness or just a slip), when it’s pointed out, then you just say “my bad” and then move on. You don’t double down (actually now triple down) and say that “alarmist” doesn’t imply bad faith. It would be EXACTLY like me calling you a “denier” and they with a straight face trying to tell you there’s no signal of bad faith.
Again, in an existence where we have multi-versus, I guess it’s possible. But it’s just not plausible.
But even further, if you’re intent is on establishing good faith, then what comes along with that is that you don’t really care whether the bad faith signal was INTENDED on your part anyway. You back up and say “my bad” anyway.
Your intent isn’t really what’s most relevant. It has some relevance in the sense that you can say “Sorry I delivered that signal, but it wasn’t my intent. My intent was to…….” That can be useful information for me. But that language is contained in the act of you being accountable for sending a. pejorative signal. Because that’s the point. That’s what good faith means. It means, among other things but this is one of the primary ones, that you get out of your own self-absorption enough to realize that what most important is the signal that I get. You don’t have to quibble about who’s right. (in fact, we could both be right anyway).
In a good faith exchange, we each say, “Ok, let me see if I got this right, so you’re saying that XYZ, did I get that right?” And then I can confirm or add or correct something that you perceived. You don’t say “So, this is what you thought I said and well, that’s wrong, that’s not what I said.”
> Thanks for setting me straight on future communication and potentially offering an olive branch.
Please feel free to inform me of what you’d expect from good faith exchange.
[you couldn’t logically believe]…that “alarmist” signals bad faith”
should be
[you couldn’t logically believe]…that “alarmist” DOESN’T signal bad faith.
angech | August 27, 2021 at 5:37 am |
Naive may be a better word to describe my attitude.
I expected when I was explaining things at ATTP that if I tell things like they are and people disagree they will take it in good faith as an opinion honestly put forward with an expectation that people will take it on its merits.
Obviously I am a little wiser these days.
But still naive. When I put forward an argument I believe in or make a statement I believe in I feel it should be considered seriously.
Once I realize that people are not playing fair then I have to adjust my response.
Quite happy to point out the inconsistencies of others in the same terms they use, if necessary.
I cannot make you accept me and my choice of words, ever.
But I am not locking you in.
You on the other hand can catalogue the good and the bad and decide if
you wish to engage with someone who believes in a different world view.
The choice of engagement if what I have to say may be relevant is yours.
You have set some terms on it ,fine.
Now that I know I can try to avoid trigger points that you have made me aware of.
Generally these things do not work because of the hidden tensions.
Trust no one but treat everyone with as much trust as you can give unless that trust is broken.
angech –
Using whatever bizarre moderation criteria Judith uses, she deleted my response. I’m not going to bother re-writing because your a “denier” and you simply won’t own up to your bad faith interaction.
If you think I’m wrong about “alarmist,” consider your reaction when just you read that I called you an “denier.”
It’s the same thing.
I will repeat something that was in the comment that Judith deleted.
You think that my reaction to you is because you disagree with me.
You’re wrong about that. But you won’t understand because you can’t get out of the way of your antipathy.
Joshua | August 27, 2021 at 9:32 pm |
” I’m not going to bother re-writing because your a “denier” and you simply won’t own up to your bad faith interaction.
If you think I’m wrong about “alarmist,” consider your reaction when just you read that I called you an “denier.”
Joshua, please call me a denier as much as you believe and wish to.
and whatever else you want to.
I was most amused to read your interactions with Mr Mallen Baker where you behaved just as you have here. The poor man had no need of your pile on, and, not knowing you, tried to have a civilized discourse with the usual outcome.
The resident entomologist had a pleasant chat with him as well, I understand, displaying his vast knowledge, as a leading specialist in the field of course.
Mr Baker perforce had to admit that he could not find him when he googled him for research.
It is unequivocal that the boy who cried wolf and death trains are morally equivalent.
Have Afghanistan’s ruling Taleban announced yet their target date for net zero?
Would net zero carbon include opium? It’s got carbon in it.
They are catching up with the modern world one millennium at a time. First things first. The next goal is to stop stoning women buried up to their necks.
Students and parents stranded in Afghanistan. What parent in their right mind would put their child in harms way.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/569307-dozens-of-california-students-parents-stranded
But the climate emergency is the world’s most urgent issue by far, innit?
So none of those things in Afghanistan matter really except their net zero target. Carbon first, the children can wait.
(/sarc)
Phil Salmon wrote: Carbon first, the children can wait.
Silly.
More than one problem can be solved at a time.
Very, very silly.
From Chapter 2 IPCC6 on sea level rise. “The acceleration rate very likely was 0.094mm/yr from 1993 to 2018. For the 20th Century the rate was 0.053.
Meanwhile in reality.
“ Individual century-scale acceleration values derived from this new extended data set tend to converge on a value of 0.01 ± 0.008 mm/yr2” Hogarth 2014
In 5 LTT tidal gauges in Oceania “ the average acceleration is +0.00490” Boretti 2020.
“ An analysis of 149 tide gauge records with lengths at least 75 years (average of 106 years) that extend through 2017–19 show that sea level has accelerated at a mean rate of 0.0128”…” mm/y2 that is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.” Houston 2021
“ It is clear from the analyses of the tide gauges of the “NOAA-120”, “US 39”, “PSMSL-162”, “Mitrovica-23”, “Holgate-9”, and “California-8” data sets and the United States Pacific and Atlantic coasts that the sea level has been oscillating about the same almost perfectly linear trend line all over the 20th century and the first 17 years of this century.” Parker and Ollier 2017
From Boretti 2020 the following:
“Authors of references [34, 35] recently reported as the latest average acceleration of worldwide data sets is still remarkably close to zero.
The “Mitrovica’s 23” tide stations have aave = +0.0020 ± 0.0173 mm/yr2.
The “Holgate’s best 9” tide gauge records have aave = +0.0029 ± 0.0118 mm/yr2.
The “NOAA’s 42 U.S. LTT” tide stations have aave = +0.0025 ± 0.0308 mm/yr2.
The “California-8 LTT” tide stations have aave = +0.0014 ± 0.0266 mm/yr2.”
“ Although the acceleration found for the global mean, 0.0042+-0.0092mm/yr is not significant…..” Wenzel 2014. The level of uncertainty is perhaps the most significant of this statement.
“…… externally forced and thereby the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry.” Palanisamy 2015
“ Our results suggest that due to the naturally pronounced mountain valley structure on all scales, a stochastic acceleration in sea level could be wrongly interpreted as deterministic, leading to biased extrapolation of the present SLR into the future.” Dangendorf 2014
In Visser, 2015 they found 30 trend methods and concluded:
“ One of our findings is that contradictory trend estimates can be found, based on the same data.”
Zeke Hausfather
believes “low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out
As can the very high sensitivity outcomes of 5C+ as is found in some of the new CMIP6 models, they are very unlikely”
Because after 40 years, “combining three different independent lines of evidence – from paleo climate, observations, and physical process models – narrowed the large range of likely sensitivity to a slightly less large range.”
·
He then slams the AR6 IPCC models,
“And speaking of the new climate models, the new AR6 report takes a novel approach here. the AR6 combines two separate approaches to project future warming. In the first, they use CMIP6 models weighted by how well they agree with observations.” Despite ” very high sensitivity outcomes of 5C+ as is found in some of the new CMIP6 models being very unlikely”
they persist in using models which are manifestly wrong.
Including ” SSP5-8.5 (RCP8.5’s successor), which the AR6 suggests “has been argued to be implausible to unfold”.
And praises their wise choice to throw out all the physics and instead use a Monckton box model or is it a Willis box model or a Spencer box model.?
Who cares?Throw out all the necessary physics, plug your ECS in at the start instead of waiting for it to evolve.
Wait, was that what all that complicated physics did, embed ECS so it could emerge manifestly high?
Hold on they do use the “very unlikely” model ECS after all.
Zeke “At the same time, the AR6 uses a simple energy balance model (e.g. emulator) tuned to the new climate sensitivity values featured in the report to create a set of future projections somewhat independent from the CMIP6 models.”
and he claims that by using them the projections are somewhat independent.
This sensitivity revision [ High sensitivity models tend to do poorly in reproducing historical temperatures, so get less weight in the resulting analysis] used to be known as a hockey stick,
When some of your data does not fit the narrative replace it with data that does.
Zeke argues this “cuts the legs off the lukewarmer argument: ”
What it does do, as McKitrick suggests, is call into question the use of either data set by the IPCC.
It should also call out Zeke’s role as a scientist if he supports such mangled use of data and any role he had in getting this through the IPCC.
How can anyone use or defend these facts if they are as Zeke has said.
Appell?
“ How can anyone use or defend these facts if they are as Zeke has said.”
When our belief system replaces all logic and rational thought, anything is possible. That apparently has happened with you know who.
angech wrote:
How can anyone use or defend these facts if they are as Zeke has said.
Appell?
I don’t know — you didn’t include a link or citation.
I don’t know — you didn’t include a link or citation.
I got it of this tweet feed you linked
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1430237442234146820?s=11
Did you forget to read it all?
Box modellers like the IPCC , have they been plagiarized?
Lord Monckton Responds
March 23rd, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Spencer NOTE: In fairness to Lord Monckton, I have accepted his request to respond to my post where I criticized his claim than an “elementary error of physics” could be demonstrated on the part of climate modelersRoy is quite right to point out that the general-circulation models do not use the concept of feedback directly. However, there is a handy equation, with the clunky name zero-dimensional-model equation (lets call it ZOD) that allows us to diagnose what equilibrium temperature the models would predict.
Monckton All we need to know to diagnose the equilibrium temperature the models would be expected to predict is the reference temperature, here the 255 K emission temperature, and the feedback fraction.
Spencer on Willis So, examining how clouds and temperatures vary together locally (as Willis has done) really doesn’t tell you anything about feedbacks. Feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems, which are ill-defined (except in the global average).
And we already knew that clouds, on average, cool the climate system, as described almost 25 years ago from the first Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data.
angech wrote:
And we already knew that clouds, on average, cool the climate system, as described almost 25 years ago from the first Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data
That’s not the issue — the question is, what is their feedback?
Because as we should all know by now, clouds are a feedback on global warming, not a forcing.
No David,
Clouds are a forcing.
Wrong again.
Are Clouds Capable of Causing Temperature Changes?
At the heart of this debate is whether cloud changes, through their ability to alter how much sunlight is allowed in to warm the Earth, can cause temperature change.
We claim they can, and have demonstrated so with both phase space plots of observed temperature versus Earth radiative budget variations here, and with lag-regression plots of the same data here, and with a forcing-feedback model of the average climate system in both of those publications. (The model we used was suggested to us by Isaac Held, Princeton-GFDL, who is hardly a global warming “skeptic”.)
The Dessler and Trenberth contrary view – as near as I can tell – is that clouds cannot cause temperature change, unless those cloud changes were themselves caused by some previous temperature change. In other words, they believe cloud changes can always be traced to some prior temperature change. This temperature-forcing-clouds direction of causation is “cloud feedback”.
Put more simply, Dessler and Trenberth believe causation between temperature and clouds only flows in one direction :
Temperature Change => Cloud Change,
whereas we and others believe (and have demonstrated) it flows in both directions,
Temperature Change Cloud Change.
Clouds are really difficult to measure, so there is a “cloud” of uncertainty about clouds.
Satellite numbers are about as good as we get, but watch clouds form and dissipate to remember that they can be quite small, have numerous
shapes and constituencies, and they last sometimes only a few minutes.
The morphologies make cloud radiance ‘anisotropic’ meaning different clouds reflect differently in different directions. So a single satellite observation point will necessarily have a large uncertainty, maybe much larger than any trends.
That said, the CERES data, if accurate, (and it was intended to measure such things), indicates that the radiative effect of cloud reflectivity decrease in the last twenty years has been about twice as large as the forcing from carbon dioxide!
Most of the warming over the past two decades is from increased solar absorption, -not- from decreased outgoing longwave.
This is not modeled to occur with global warming.
Is it accurate? If not, then we really have no clue.
Is it ‘natural’?
Will it ‘revert to the mean’?
Or, is it a ‘new normal’?
Is there not one Zeke apologist/ IPCC apologist out there to take my views to task?
It’s barely readable, Doc.
angech –
> Is there not one Zeke apologist/ IPCC apologist out there to take my views to task?
lol.
Once again your antipathy and bad faith are on display. Or will you pretend that calling people “apologists” is just a neutral and accurate description?
Not addressed to you, Joshua. Not about you, Joshua.
We agreed on that earlier, remember.
The meaning of an apologist is quite clear.
Is it neutral?
Is it accurate?
Well let’s say the description is accurate.
Zeke has praised the IPCC for using models which Zeke himself has said are wrong.
Anyone who cares to support his view would accurately be seen as an apologist for his views.
The view would need an apology because it is plainly wrong to support the IPCC recommendations when he knows they are based on wrong and flawed data.They run too hot.
Feel free to offer an opinion.
Let’s say the description is not accurate.
The reported facts are wrong.
Then they would not be apologists as he would have nothing to apologise for.
I have explained why he does.
As to is it neutral?
Take “Once again your antipathy and bad faith are on display”
Is that neutral?
Ten times in this discussion yet I have not taken issue with your displays of non neutrality until this gem.
You cannot have a discussion unless people are allowed to express opposing viewpoints which you obviously seem determined to prevent.
I can put my views up with whatever language I choose in keeping with good taste, not antipathy and bad faith.
You read signals into anyone and anything that that people say when they were obviously merely putting forward a point of view.
My choice of words was not about neutrality, what has neutrality got to do with anything in this setting?
I was putting forward a point of view pointing out that someone had expressed a view that I thought was scientifically repugnant.
People could be an apologist if my view is correct or correct me if they can in which case they would not be apologists.
angech –
Disagreement /= antipathy and bad faith. Not in the least.
> You cannot have a discussion unless people are allowed to express opposing viewpoints which you obviously seem determined to prevent.
If your opinion of someone is that they’re an “apologist” as opposed to someone who agrees with Zeke and disagrees with you, then you can’t have a good faith discussion with them.
It’s unfortunate (and I have to say strange to me) that you can’t see the difference.
I’m not at all interested in “preventing” you from expressing disagreement. In fact, I very much like exploring differences of opinion with people.
It’s unfortunate that you misinterpret my view in that regard.
I’ve tried to explain. At this point it’s beyond tedious.
angech –
As it happened I just listened to this pod where at one point they discuss people who conflate disagreement with “bad faith.”
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4qwQ4FFU9qkafMnN3cE87N?si=WyjmP9_JRfarB_cyzLfnZA&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
So at least you’re not alone.
Thanks Willis.
It is only you and I keeping this important discussion alive.
Zeke Hausfather is a respected scientist who seems to carry a lot of weight in his field. ‘It would not be easy to disagree with him as an underling.
He gained and lost my respect a few years ago on this site when he published an article on warming adjustments.
He gained my respect by explaining how the adjustment were made and are continuing to be made to this day.
He lost my respect because he took a partisan view to only use one of the two possible methods.
He used one which by force always lowered the temperatures in the past.
Quite valid for its purpose.
Quite wrong for any accurate discussion of past temperatures forever unless the caveat of this is one of two equally valid methods and the other one does not lower past temperatures is always mentioned.
Now he comes out in a tweet praising the IPCC for using models that they know to be fatally flawed.
For using predictions based on those that they admit are unrealistic.
For using a less alarmist simple box model to disguise how horrendously wrong the new models are.
Who says they are wrong?
Zeke Hausfather.
Paraphrased he has said “We have a problem, Houston.”
angech thinks Zeke H cares about his opinion. LOL. angech likes what ZH says when ZH agrees with him, and dislikes ZH when ZH disagrees with him. Which is intellectual infancy.
Here’s what ZH wrote the other day:
“It seems like we’ve recently crossed a perceptual climate tipping point, with climate-driven extremes like heat waves, wildfires, and torrential rains impossible to ignore. We used to think it was mainly a problem for our children; we are starting to realize its a problem for us.”
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1430237442234146820?s=11
Can’t wait to hear the opinion of the expert angech on this, a man too afraid to sign his name in public to his opinions.
I googled this comment.
“It seems like we’ve recently crossed a perceptual climate tipping point, with climate-driven extremes like heat waves, wildfires, and torrential rains impossible to ignore. We used to think it was mainly a problem for our children; we are starting to realize its a problem for us.”’
Despite being up on his twitter feed no one has gone near it with a barge pole, except for you and me, David We have to help him get the message out before it is too late.
Actually all we hear in Australia is Covid.
Low level marine stratocumulus is a feedback to sea surface temperature. That changes most dramatically over the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Low level marine stratocumulus is a feedback to sea surface temperature.
Yes, it’s a feedback.
What’s causing the SSTs to warm?
(Answer. Don’t skip_out/flake_out on answering as you usually do.)
Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
SST changes occur with shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation as seen in ocean and atmospheric indices over millennia at least. It is all part of the grand climate system – with cloud effects changes dominating the global energy dynamic.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC AR4 s3.4.4.1
The evidence is no longer equivocal – if it was then. And some people still haven’t caught up. It is neither forcing or feedback as commonly understood – but simply natural variability.
Robert Ellison wrote: ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC AR4 s3.4.4.1
The evidence is no longer equivocal – if it was then. And some people still haven’t caught up. It is neither forcing or feedback as commonly understood – but simply natural variability.
Decadal changes.
Changes in global ocean heat-storage data.
“When estimated over the entire historical period (1850–2020), the contribution of natural variability to global surface warming of -0.23°C–0.23°C is small compared to the warming of about 1.1°C observed during the same period, which has been almost entirely attributed to the human influence.”
IPCC AR6 WG1 FAQ 3.2 p 3-102
Robert Ellison wrote: ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC AR4 s3.4.4.1
The evidence is no longer equivocal – if it was then. And some people still haven’t caught up. It is neither forcing or feedback as commonly understood – but simply natural variability.
Decadal changes.
Changes in global ocean heat-storage data.
Robert Ellison wrote: The evidence is no longer equivocal – if it was then. And some people still haven’t caught up. It is neither forcing or feedback as commonly understood – but simply natural variability.
Decadal changes.
Changes in global ocean heat-storage data.
Robert Ellison wrote: The evidence is no longer equivocal – if it was then. And some people still haven’t caught up. It is neither forcing or feedback as commonly understood – but simply natural variability.
“When estimated over the entire historical period (1850–2020), the contribution of natural variability to global surface warming of -0.23°C–0.23°C is small compared to the warming of about 1.1°C observed during the same period, which has been almost entirely attributed to the human influence.”
IPCC AR6 WG1 FAQ 3.2 p 3-102
Sea surface temperature variation in the eastern Pacific is a cloud effect driver that changes over moments to millennia. It is seen in ERBE and CERES data over the past 40 years. A FAQ from AR6 doesn’t invalidate the data.
Sea surface temperature variation in the eastern Pacific is a cloud effect driver that changes over moments to millennia. It is seen in ERBE and CERES data over the past 40 years. A FAQ from AR6 doesn’t invalidate the data.
Yet again you’re falling for short-term, regional variations that of course can vary naturally — lots of energy flows in and out of the region from elsewhere in the global system.
SSTs also increased by AGW.
See the AR6 statement — no net global natural variation since 1850, plus or minus.
This regional phenomenon over a good part of the global tropics and subtropics has global effects. He is wrong.
Short term:
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
And long term:
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/vance-2012-e1520868687324.jpg
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
David repeating himself doesn’t add anything – and lapses into nasty little fanatical rants are unforgivable.
The short term reference: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/htm
Repeating myself? You cite the same four papers over and over, and still don’t understand what they mean.
The AR6 finds no net global natural variability since 1850. Global. You’re forever stuck in regional energy accounting, when the topic du jour is global warming.
Yes David – repeating yourself. I have discussed hundreds of papers here. What bit of this don’t I understand.
‘We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.’
Deal with the data rather than deflect.
I have discussed hundreds of papers over the years.
‘We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Deal honestly with the data rather dishonestly deflecting.
David Appell | September 4, 2021 at 10:29 pm |
“When estimated over the entire historical period (1850–2020), the contribution of natural variability to global surface warming of -0.23°C–0.23°C is small compared to the warming of about 1.1°C observed during the same period, which has been almost entirely attributed to the human influence.”
IPCC AR6 WG1 FAQ 3.2 p 3-102
Does the IPCC provide an explanation why there was a shift from a 300-400 year cooling trend to a 180 year warming trend circa 1850.
The CO2 concentration went from 285ppm to 286-288ppm when the shift occurred. Can you or anyone else provide an explanation for a shift from cooling to warming when CO2 only increased by 2-3ppm?
David Appell | September 4, 2021 at 11:49 pm |
“See the AR6 statement — no net global natural variation since 1850, plus or minus.”
Is that credible?
2-3 million years of massive natural variation – but human activity stopped all natural variation for the last 180 years!
Robert Ellison wrote: ‘We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system.
Three years
A fluctuation.
And in other periods there will be an opposite fluctuation, because since 1850 the net natural variability is zero.
The mechanism is what is revealed. That its cloud effect feedback sums to zero over the 20th century – or ever – is wrong.
‘Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad.’ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
Robert Ellison wrote: The mechanism is what is revealed. That its cloud effect feedback sums to zero over the 20th century – or ever – is wrong.
Says what?
‘Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad.’ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
You make the same basic mistake every time. And again you confuse a natural cycle for a long-term climate driver.
That paper is about a regional area over just one season of the year. It doesn’t make conclusions about the global climate system, but about a teleconnection.
“Here, we describe a teleconnection linking ENSO with a seasonally resolved sea salt record from the summit of Law Dome (LD), East Antarctica…. This study investigates a mechanism linking the equatorial western Pacific and Law Dome and explores changes in ENSO and rainfall variability in eastern Australia using a 1010-yr record of LD summer sea salts.” [end of section 1]
There is a cloud effect mechanism related to sea surface temperature seen in satellite data.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
And a proxy of Pacific Ocean states over a millennia.
That is what the science is about – but we do not see that simple truth in David’s incoherent muttering.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
There is a cloud effect mechanism related to sea surface temperature seen in satellite data.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
Since you didn’t have the courtesy to cite the source of this image, it’s impossible to interpret it.
I have – several times. Go away.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: I have – several times.
No you haven’t. You inevitably present some regional place over a short time period. Never global. Then you get frustrated when someone expects you to prove your claim about the last 40 years, with data.
The CERES data relates Pacific Ocean states to global energy dynamics. It is the Loeb et al 2018 paper – David whines that it is one of the 4 papers I cite, that I don’t understand it, or whatever else comes into his pointy little head and then lies about it and repeats incessantly his truculent snark and groupthink memes. It’s a sort of madness.
The powerful driver in ocean and atmospheric circulation varies over decades to millennia. Here’s a dramatic image from 2008.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cropped-unstable-fig-3-jpg.jpg
Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 11,000 years. It shows periods of high and low El Niño frequency and intensity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high El Niño activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity at times exceeded 200. For comparison, red intensity in 1997/98 was 99. It shows ENSO variability considerably in excess of that seen in the modern period.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/moys-2002-2.png
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/ocean/eas3530/papers/Dynamical%20changes%20in%20the%20ENSO%20system%20in%20the%20last%2011,000%20years.pdf
Lacking any education or interest in physical oceanography or hydrology leaves David with a narrow view that doesn’t encompass what climate is fundamentally – a complex and dynamic physical system with a naturally variable albedo.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability.
ENSO isn’t a climate forcing!!
Why can’t you understand this?????
Changes in sea surface temperature drive large changes in albedo and the global energy dynamic. It quite obviously is a large contribution to warming over the past 40 years. And if he asks yet again where that result comes from I’ll scream.
Robert Ellison wrote: It is the Loeb et al 2018 paper – David whines that it is one of the 4 papers I cite, that I don’t understand it, or whatever else comes into his pointy little head and then lies about it and repeats incessantly his truculent snark and groupthink memes. It’s a sort of madness.
You don’t understand.
You perpetually misunderstand energy accounting for climate forcings.
You clearly do not know what climate forcings are.
I’m done trying to teach you.
No David you can’t bring yourself to understand that it is ‘accounting’ for natural variability.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
David doesn’t do complicated.
Robert Ellison wrote: There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high El Niño activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation
ENSO is internal variability, not external forcing!!!!!!!!!!!
As such it doesn’t add energy to the climate system, it just redistributes it.
OMG, when are you going to understand this?????
Ocean and atmospheric circulation resulting in SST variability in the eastern Pacific modulate the cloud effect and global energy dynamics over decades to millennial. Warm SST result in considerable decreases in reflected SW. Just like in positive feedback to AGW – except there the changes have been much more modest and short term.
David Appell | September 9, 2021 at 8:20 pm |
“Robert Ellison wrote: There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high El Niño activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation””
You wrote “ENSO is internal variability, not external forcing!!!!!!!!!!!
As such it doesn’t add energy to the climate system, it just redistributes it.””
Robert I. Ellison | September 2, 2021 actually wrote
“Low level marine stratocumulus is a feedback to sea surface temperature. ”
So no need for all those exclamation marks.
You misunderstood what he was saying.
Things can be feedbacks, forcings or replacements*.
Sometimes they can be all three.
One of the confounding things that you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that some features of the physics can be both feedback and forcing.
In the cae of H20,it is most prolific GHG and therefore the most prolific forcing
It also uniquely possesses great variability which the other GHG lack and in one of its many forms, clouds it actually reduces the amount of energy the earth absorbs due to reflection.
Which means that as a forcing it can influence feedbacks in other forcings plus feedback on itself.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Lacking any education or interest in physical oceanography or hydrology leaves David with a narrow view that doesn’t encompass what climate is fundamentally – a complex and dynamic physical system with a naturally variable albedo.
LOL. Because all you know is hydrology you think that’s all that climate science is.
How wrote.
Oceanography or hydrology is not climate science, in any way at all.
Climate science is about external forcings.
Perhaps Judith could ask Zeke to explain the changes to 1980, 1998, 2012 maximum temperatures when they were listed at the time and what they are listed as today?
angech commented: Perhaps Judith could ask Zeke to explain the changes to 1980, 1998, 2012 maximum temperatures when they were listed at the time and what they are listed as today?
You can document these changes?
If so, let’s see it.
You could begin by simply saying what database you’re talking about.
If only Zeke had said this in 2015 rather than what he did say.
“Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to [do this to ] large datasets
[by] numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and [any ] other so-called inhomogenities that we can [find to use ] over the last 150 years.”
“Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy”
This would seem to be true, but “grand conspiracy” shouldn’t include the more mundane – confirmation bias, white hat bias, etc. etc.
Perhaps the grand conspiracy is not of a human conception, but in nature’s construction of motivated reasoning.
That said, global warming appears in the broad range of measurements and the patterns are roughly consistent.
The bias may be not in global warming, but rather in exaggerating the significance of global warming.
TE
“That said, global warming appears in the broad range of measurements and the patterns are roughly consistent.
The bias may be not in global warming, but rather in exaggerating the significance of global warming.”
Well expressed. Hard to have a conspiracy when all the changes are out in the open. Global warming, with or without adjustments is real. Whether it can have any important significance in such a short time frame is debatable
angech commented:The bias may be not in global warming, but rather in exaggerating the significance of global warming.”
Do you by any chance follow national and international news?
angech wrote:
If only Zeke had said this in 2015 rather than what he did say.
“Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to [do this to ] large datasets
[by] numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and [any ] other so-called inhomogenities that we can [find to use ] over the last 150 years.”
That is a ugly, rotten distortion of what Zeke actually said, and if Judith were fair you would be banned from this group immediately for purposely manipulating what a scientist said to imply he said the opposite.
This is utterly shameful.
Such pure dis-honesty.
Here is what Zeke Hausfather actually wrote. So all can see how angech manipulated the quote to imply he meant the opposite:
“Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data – Berkeley Earth
“Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.”
https://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
And angech is someone who accuses people he disagrees with of “bad faith” arguments.
That’s as bad faith as they come.
Never again, buddy.
“The bias may be not in global warming, but rather in exaggerating the significance of global warming.”
Do you by any chance follow national and international news?
You are welcome to consider events x,y, and z.
What evidence would convince you that these events were part of normal variation?
David
I haven’t been following this but isn’t angech in 3.03 in his initial sentence merely posing a rhetorical question as to what he wished zeke had said back in 2015 ? He is surely making no claim that this is what zeke actually did say?
Tonyb
No, Tony, that’s not how I read it at all. I take it that that’s what Zeke should have said were he forthright (in angech’s eyes).
Tonyb | August 30, 2021 David
“I haven’t been following this but isn’t angech in 3.03 in his initial sentence merely posing a rhetorical question as to what he wished zeke had said back in 2015 ? He is surely making no claim that this is what zeke actually did say?”
Thanks TonyB.
It was rhetorical.
“I said If only Zeke had said this in 2015 rather than what he did say.”‘
It was what I wished Zeke had said.
It is clear to anyone who followed up on what Zeke had said, here, in 2015 and which I gave a reference to so everyone could look up what he actually said about how he adjusted temperatures and why.
Compared to what I wished he had said.
angech | August 28, 2021 at 3:21 am |
“You could begin by simply saying what database you’re talking about”.
NDC
“You can document these changes?”
Read Zeke below and weep*
It’s Zeke.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Posted on 26 February 2015 by Guest Author
This is a guest post by Zeke Hausfather.
Note the date 2 days before David bothered to read [or reread] it.
I presume he read it in 2015.
No apology from him for his doubting the validity of my comments on Zeke at al manipulating data
No comment on the fact that there are no present historical records that match the historical records of 1 5 10 or 20 years ago rendering all data comparison irrelevant.
“That is a ugly, rotten distortion of what Zeke actually said”
No David.
The Truth hurts.
When you resort to personal attacks and use hurtful language the only gauge it shows is how upset you are about a bit of truth getting out that you cannot afford to look at or defend.
angech | August 28, 2021 at 3:03 am |
If only Zeke had said this in 2015 rather than what he did say.
“Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to [do this to ] large datasets
[by] numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and [any ] other so-called inhomogenities that we can [find to use ] over the last 150 years.
David Appell | August 30, 2021 at 10:51 am |
Here is what Zeke Hausfather actually wrote.h
“Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.”
David
“That is an ugly, rotten distortion of what Zeke actually said.”
Ugly? Rotten? Why ?
Not at all, Good humored fun.
I merely had him say there was no grand conspiracy.
Fantastic news.
Then I interpreted his comments as to why.
Because the scientists interpret the data bases. He said that.
They use biases on the data.
Either you report the data straight.
Zeke refuses to do so.
Or you alter and bias the data.
Claiming to remove biases by changing data is biasing data to a new set of rules governed by your own bias.
Got it.
Want global warming?
Bias the data to fit it.
Is it ugly or rotten to say that scientists adjust data?
Would you say that to use the term adjusting data is pejorative, ugly, rotten and nasty?
Zeke said the data was adjusted [biased] in numerous ways.
I agree with a lot of those ways.
I am glad he said it.
I find nothing ugly or rotten in either his serious explanation or my light hearted ad lib.
Admit you were wrong, data is adjusted.
Oh sorry you did.
“BTW the same thing happens with UAH monthly data — months back to 1979 can change by small amounts with each new monthly update.”
What a funny fellow, you knew it all the time and never let on.
angech wrote: Admit you were wrong, data is adjusted.
Oh sorry you did.
“BTW the same thing happens with UAH monthly data — months back to 1979 can change by small amounts with each new monthly update.”
What a funny fellow, you knew it all the time and never let on
Frankly I’m not interested in your uneducated opinions, your overly long ramblings, your constant act that you know as much or more than the experts, your smarmy insinuations that are in fact easily seen to be loaded with ignorance. You go on and on as if your words are so so precious, yet you rarely manage to say anything of significance, and certainly nothing of scientific value. You don’t seem to know much science, is the truth, but like many such people on these forums you’re convinced you know more than just about anyone else. Most of all you’re verbose and vapid and tiresome and you soon run out of any points worth debating. That happened here awhile ago so you resorted to manipulating the words of a scientist then using them to imply you were somehow right all along, when clearly you know almost nothing about how data homogenization is done, or why. You’re done.
Turbulent Eddie wrote: What evidence would convince you that these events were part of normal variation?
Peer reviewed scientific evidence published in legitimate scientific journals.
I’m quite sure that isn’t so.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#comment-958828
David
As I say I have not been following this sub thread but it surely only takes a quick read to see that this was a reotorical ‘ I wish’ posting by angech?
I think you went somewhat over the top in your response, obviously believing he had deliberately distorted zekes words, when he hadn’t. A link by him to the original quote wouldn’t have gone amiss though..
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
I’m quite sure that isn’t so.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#comment-958828
For the Nth+1 time: Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
Advances in the field since your 2009 paper:
“Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming”
Paulo Ceppi and Peer Nowack
PNAS July 27, 2021 118 (30) e2026290118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
“…we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 ± 0.35 W⋅m−2⋅K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K.”
David Appell | August 31, 2021 at 9:39 am |
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
I’m quite sure that isn’t so.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#comment-958828
For the Nth+1 time: Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
Advances in the field since your 2009 paper:
“Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming”
Paulo Ceppi and Peer Nowack
PNAS July 27, 2021 118 (30) e2026290118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
“…we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 ± 0.35 W⋅m−2⋅K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K.””
Hmm!
Peer reviewed as they say.
Questions worth asking – but apparently not asked by the peer reviewers.
The study concludes that clouds are a positive feedback but The study doesnt say if more clouds are a positive feedback or if fewer clouds are a positive feedback or if either more or less clouds are a positive feedback. Which is it?
If clouds are one of the many of the multiple positive feedbacks, why didnt those positive feedbacks kick in during prior warming periods? such as the roman warm period, etc?
The 2009 study by Amy Clement and colleagues reported on surface cloud observations in the north-eastern Pacific.
It is consistent with ERBE, ISCCP and CERES satellite observations.
The cloud effect is a feedback to sea surface temperature – that varies with shifting patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation. And is not notably a feedback to AGW.
e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
Robert I. Ellison wrote:The cloud effect is a feedback to sea surface temperature – that varies with shifting patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation. And is not notably a feedback to AGW.
Quoting from the Clement et al paper:
“The question of whether low-level clouds act as a positive or negative feedback to climate change has been an issue for decades. The analysis presented here provides observational evidence that this feedback is positive in the NE Pacific on decadal time scales.”
David can contemplate cloud feedback to AGW but not to natural variability. He is resolutely one eyed. Clearer eyed fanatics – such as the IPCC – dismiss natural variability as summing to zero. Over any period it does not in accordance with the Hurst phenomenon in geophysical processes.
e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.48.1.3.43481 – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351081149_Stochastics_of_Hydroclimatic_Extremes_-_A_Cool_Look_at_Risk – https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/htm
‘The decadal changes in NE Pacific clouds and climate are linked to well-known basin wide climate shifts (25–30). This is illustrated in Fig. 2, A and B, which shows that the regression patterns of SST, SLP, and ERA-40 surface winds on the NE Pacific SST time series resemble the now familiar pattern of Pacific Decadal Variability…
We emphasize that the NE Pacific cloud changes described above are tied to cloud changes that span the Pacific basin. Despite much less surface sampling in the Southeast (SE) Pacific, cloud and meteorological changes in that region generally occur in parallel with those in the NE Pacific (Figs. 2 and 3). Also, we find that the leading mode in an empirical orthogonal function analysis (15% of the variance) of global cloud cover (fig. S3) has a spatial pattern similar to that in Fig. 3 and the time series shows the same decadal shifts as in Fig. 1, indicating that the changes in the NE Pacific are part of a dominant mode of global cloud variability.’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26692146_Observational_and_Model_Evidence_for_Positive_Low-Level_Cloud_Feedback
Robert Ellison wrote: We emphasize that the NE Pacific cloud changes described above are tied to cloud changes that span the Pacific basin.
You constantly confuse energy conservation accounting and closing of energy budgets, especially at regional levels over decadal time periods, with anthropogenic and natural forcings.
The papers you always cite are about energy flows into and out of a region over a few decades. They say nothing about the presence or absence of AGW or global natural variability and their forcings — aGHGs, solar intensity variability, manmade and volcanic aerosols, volcanic and other GHGs, changes in orbital forcings, continental rearrangements over geologic time periods, etc.
Regional SSTs can obviously vary over a few decades due to natural cycles like ENSOs, PDOs/AMOs, and the like. Over the long-term these average close to zero, and it is the external forcings that determine temperatures and the climate. A PETM isn’t going to be caused by the spontaneous rearrangement of clouds, even if slowly — something has to account for added energy to the global climate system.
So you can cite all the short-term, regional energy balance papers you want. They prove or disprove nothing about the presence or absence of AGW, but can provide useful information about feedbacks on climate change, as the Clement et al paper says.
We have a robust mechanism understood from diverse science sources for modulation of the global energy budget over moments to eons. More or less cloud over a large portion of the global tropics and subtropics. And a large number of references dealing with long term change in those patterns. It is nor random. It does not sum to zero despite David’s waffle.
e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
Tapio Schneider – btw – might disagree about marine boundary layer stratocumulus and the PETM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnGQkT0rQs
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Tapio Schneider – btw – might disagree about marine boundary layer stratocumulus and the PETM.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
That is explicitly about cloud feedbacks to CO2 greenhouse warming.
Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: We have a robust mechanism understood from diverse science sources for modulation of the global energy budget over moments to eons.
Modulation, yes.
More or less cloud over a large portion of the global tropics and subtropics.
More or less. Caused by what?
And a large number of references dealing with long term change in those patterns. It is nor random.
If it’s not random, then what’s causing it?
Something’s causing it. Forcings. Ultimately, external forcings.
Yet again you confuse internal oscillations and modulations and changes for forcings. I honestly don’t think you know what the word ‘forcing’ means.
‘A PETM isn’t going to be caused by the spontaneous rearrangement of clouds, even if slowly — something has to account for added energy to the global climate system.’ DA
Some oddball distinction if changing SST causes a reduction in low level marine stratocumulus which added more energy to the system and resulted in the PETM. As suggested by Tapio Schneider. Over more recent periods SST changes as a result of shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
It is quite evident – but as I said originally he is quite incapable of processing cognitively dissonant, peer reviewed evidence.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Some oddball distinction if changing SST…
Why is SST changing?
As suggested by Tapio Schneider.
Learn to read. Tapio Schneider:
“Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region. In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics. Once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially below the level at which the instability first occurred. Climate transitions that arise from this instability may have contributed importantly to hothouse climates and abrupt climate changes in the geological past. Such transitions to a much warmer climate may also occur in the future if CO2 levels continue to rise.
Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
(emphases mine)
So we are back to Tapio Schneider and the cloud tipping point at high CO2 concentrations. Levels we may approach late this century with high economic growth powered by fossil fuels. That was the message of the video I linked.
Within that is large natural variability in ocean and atmospheric dynamics driving large change in global energy dynamics.
e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1 – http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
You could begin by simply saying what database you’re talking about.
NDC
“Perhaps Judith could ask Zeke to explain the changes to 1980, 1998, 2012 maximum temperatures when they were listed at the time and what they are listed as today?
–
You can document these changes?
Read Zeke below and weep*
It’s not me , Dave.
It’s Zeke.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Posted on 26 February 2015 by Guest Author
This is a guest post by Zeke Hausfather
there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record.
ecause the biases are large and systemic, ignoring them is not a viable option. If some corrections to the data are necessary, there is a need for systems to make these corrections in a way that does not introduce more bias than they remove.
groups, start with raw data and use differing methods to create a best estimate of global (and U.S.) temperatures. perform additional adjustments, like GISS’s nightlight-based urban heat island corrections.
NCDC’s four major adjustments (including quality control) performed on USHCN data, and their respective effect on the resulting mean temperatures.
The impact of QC adjustments is relatively minor. Apart from a slight cooling of temperatures prior to 1910
The gradual network-wide switch from afternoon to morning observation times after 1950 has introduced a CONUS-wide cooling bias of about 0.2 to 0.25 C.
PHA adjustments. are positive adjustments in maximum temperatures to account for transitions from LiG instruments to MMTS and ASOS instruments in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
infilling has no real impact on temperature trends vs. not infilling
Changing the Past?*
Diligent observers of NCDC’s temperature record have noted that many of the values change by small amounts on a daily basis*. This includes not only recent temperatures* but those in the distant past* as well, and has created some confusion about why, exactly, the recorded temperatures in 1917 should change day-to-day*.
When breakpoints are removed, the entire record prior to the breakpoint is adjusted up or down depending on the size and direction of the breakpoint. This means that slight modifications of recent breakpoints will impact all past temperatures at the station in question though a constant offset*
There’s no confusion about why past temperatures change if you understand the data homogenization process.
BTW the same thing happens with UAH monthly data — months back to 1979 can change by small amounts with each new monthly update.
David Appell | August 30, 2021 at 10:53 am |
“And angech is someone who accuses people he disagrees with of “bad faith” arguments. That’s as bad faith as they come.”
Shome mishtake Shurely?
You are confusing angech with someone called Joshua [It’s OK, you can stop your piling on David Mallon and come back over here, Joshua].
Interesting that you all share the same language and fears.
The same bully boy tactics instead of ever talking about the science.
I rarely never use the term, unless replying to someone who uses the term.
I prefer to argue rationally with some humor, more the Dad Jokes and puns so a little old hat.
It is a lovely trick to accuse someone else of doing exactly what you do all the time, here and on countless other blogs.
Just reread your and Joshua’s comments. Start with this comment. do a word check to see how many times you and he have thrown those accusations at others, a perfect example of what I have just said.
Earthworms attack!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/earthworms-climate-change-carbon-research-1.5370724
Hatter Eggburn | September 1, 2021 at 1:13 am | Reply
Earthworms attack!
No fair, play nice, leave David alone.
At least they don’t go around driving 4X4 SUV’s.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Zeke Hausfather
Posted on July 7, 2014 by curryja
2,044 Comments
One of the biggest blog replies of all time and not even a once in 5 years IPCC report.
We have to get a better response than this so only 800 to go,
Jan P Perlwitz David Springer Don Monfort, A fan of *MORE* discourse
sunshinehours1
Zeke Hausfather
“If you average absolutes and the composition of the network is changing over time you will be absolutely wrong because the change in underlying climatology will swamp any signal you are looking for.”
“”ttp://www.skepticalscience.com/how_global_warming_broke_the_thermometer_record.”
Steven Mosher
“I don’t think it fosters a good discussion to allow people to insinuate”
“Climategate is not an indictment of the whole profession.”
“Smoothing is not tampering.”
“Roy Spenser does the same thing for UAH, ask him how it works”
“Lewandowsky loves skeptics like you.”
climatereason Scottish Sceptic Ron C. Steve Fitzpatrick Frank
Matthew R Marler Joshua Tom Fuller
et al
Zeke on why the past is lost forever.
“They are only applied when and where the breakpoint is detected. However, because these breakpoints tend to add a constant offset going forward (e.g. 0.5 C max cooling when switching to MMTS), you need to either move everything before the breakpoint down 0.5 C or everything after the breakpoint up 0.5 C. NCDC chooses the former as they assume current instruments are more accurate than those in the past, though both approaches have identical effects on resulting anomaly fields.””
Zeke Hausfather
Aug 9
The new IPCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6) provides an unprecedented degree of clarity about the future of our planet, and the need to reduce – and ultimately eliminate – our emissions of greenhouse gases.
The future of our planet seems to rest with AI, military might, and overpopulation.
Real problems which need real but complex solutions.
I must admit to being impressed by the community and personal support and interaction in recent stressful Covid times here.
A shame that people waste what would have been good concern on real issues on imaginary and self perpetuating fears.
David Appell | August 27, 2021 took issue with this comment
“angech wrote:And we already knew that clouds, on average, cool the climate system, as described almost 25 years ago from the first Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data”
Writing
“That’s not the issue — the question is, what is their feedback?
Because as we should all know by now, clouds are a feedback on global warming, not a forcing.”
To which I replied
” No David, Clouds are a forcing. Wrong again.”
He persisted in refusing to discuss forcing v feedback.
As he has to because if he or any other warmist admitted water vapor can be a forcing his argument is severely injured.
Robert I. Ellison tried to point out to him ” We have a robust mechanism understood from diverse science sources for modulation of the global energy budget over moments to eons.”
which he took to mean as RE agreeing with the forcing comment [I don’t think that he does but would leave that up to him].
David Appell replied “Modulation, yes.”
then
RE “More or less cloud over a large portion of the global tropics and subtropics.””
DA “More or less. Caused by what?”
Agreeing yet pretending not to understand cloud causation factors in the tropics.
RE commented “And a large number of references dealing with long term change in those patterns. It is nor random.”
DA “If it’s not random, then what’s causing it? then decided RE meant forcings.
Yet again you confuse internal oscillations and modulations and changes for forcings. I honestly don’t think you know what the word ‘forcing’ means”
David provides a good example of the thought processes that go into this IPCC thread.
If his views are correct then the IPCC is correct.
Hence the need to rebut any errors, or incomplete or misleading statements
if they exist.
angech wrote: As he has to because if he or any other warmist admitted water vapor can be a forcing his argument is severely injured.
Prove water vapor is a forcing not a feedback to AGW.
Prove that there is no internal signal in water vapor variability.
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
I did but my comment is not showing. I will do it again for you today if it is not cleared by this pm here
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Prove that there is no internal signal in water vapor variability.
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
It doesn’t work that way, Bubbi. Prove that there is.
Remember, we’re not talking about a water vapor signal in the greenhouse effect — obviously that exists — we’re talking about its existence in industrial era warming.
There is the problem off distinguishing natural variability from anthropogenic sources of change.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
Large natural variability is a problem for David and his ilk. So it just doesn’t work that way does it?
Robert I Ellison wrote: There is the problem off distinguishing natural variability from anthropogenic sources of change.
Define “natural variability.”
It would be best for your progress – seen more in its absence – if you could work that out for yourself David.
Hint:
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ghil-sensitivity-e1529103720204.png
Robert I. Ellison wrote: angech wrote: As he has to because if he or any other warmist admitted water vapor can be a forcing his argument is severely injured. Prove water vapor is a forcing not a feedback to AGW.
It would be best for your progress – seen more in its absence – if you could work that out for yourself David.
Look at you, balking at a crucial step in the science.
Why am I not surprised.
You, Robert, have had a smart aleck mouth here until someone comes along here who actually challenges you, who isn’t afraid of you, and then you fold like a cheap chair. You cite the same few papers over and over again, as if they’re supposed to be intimidating, all the while not being able to show you understand a single thing about them, like being able to calculate the Hurst exponent of the HadCRUT5 time series. You can’t even begin to do that. You’re just hot air, full of yourself. You don’t even know what a forcing is. You don’t know what natural variability means. You think energy accounting is climate science. You hide in this blog and don’t dare venture anywhere else where other knowledgeable people will clip your wings even shorter.
LOL.
angech wrote: I did but my comment is not showing.
Try to reduce your habitable verbosity.
David thinks he knows climate science, asks me to define natural variability and then lapses into his habitual nasty little fanatical ways. What a bore.
And you never did define natural variability. Yet you use the phrase all the time
Or calculate the Hurst exponent of HadCRUT5.
Natural variation is of course everything other than AGW – that is about half the warming of the past 40 years. Calculating the Hurst exponent is a simple statistical procedure. It shows the tendency for sequences of similar sized (high or low) hydroclimatic events.
Applying it to a temperature series is
misguided – there one would look for inflection points -around 1910, mid 1940’s, late 1970’s and 1998. Changes in the trajectory of the temperature record.
But this is really just another of David’s silly little games.
There is more discussion here.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#comment-959093
DA: “You, Robert, have had a smart aleck mouth here until someone comes along here who actually challenges you, who isn’t afraid of you, and then you fold like a cheap chair…..And you never did define natural variability.”
Oooh boy, the DA lays down the gauntlet against smart alecks. Ironies aside, we’re awaiting with bated breath for the local DA’s definition of natural variability. Up to now many thought this required no calculus skill; but such is apparently too much in the way of a leap in judgement for the DA’s hardwired sensibilities. Objections, or befuddlement aside, it would please the court, and bemuse denizens, if the DA could disentangle his charges.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Natural variation is of course everything other than AGW – that is about half the warming of the past 40 years.
Says what?
Calculating the Hurst exponent is a simple statistical procedure. It shows the tendency for sequences of similar sized (high or low) hydroclimatic events. Applying it to a temperature series is
misguided – there one would look for inflection points -around 1910, mid 1940’s, late 1970’s and 1998. Changes in the trajectory of the temperature record.
Misguided why?
The Hurst exponent can be calculated for any time series:
“The Hurst exponent is used as a measure of long-term memory of time series. It relates to the autocorrelations of the time series, and the rate at which these decrease as the lag between pairs of values increases. Studies involving the Hurst exponent were originally developed in hydrology for the practical matter of determining optimum dam sizing for the Nile river’s volatile rain and drought conditions that had been observed over a long period of time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurst_exponent
I have provided the references and answered the questions. I have better things to do than jump through the same hoops repeatedly.
But I suggest this reference to the scientific legacy of Harold Hurst – rather than Wikipedia.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2015.1125998
Robert I. Ellison wrote: I have provided the references and answered the questions. I have better things to do than jump through the same hoops repeatedly.
You’ve never shown that natural variability is responsible for half of GLOBAL WARMING over the last 40 years.
Robert Ellison wrote: But I suggest this reference to the scientific legacy of Harold Hurst – rather than Wikipedia.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2015.1125998
This isn’t about his scientific legacy. It’s about you being able to calculate the thing you like to throw around as oh-so-important and show the practical importance of its value.
“Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans,” CarbonBrief, 12/13/17.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
David Appell | September 6, 2021 at 3:14 pm |
“Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans,” CarbonBrief, 12/13/17.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans”
David – do you seriously believe that is credible
100+ million years of natural variability, yet Humans somehow stopped the natural variability for the last 170 years.
Tell us again how the humans stopped a 300+ year cooling trend circa 1850 and started a warming trend when CO2 went from 285ppm to 288/290ppm. Tell us again how 3-5ppm of CO2 caused that massive shift from cooling to warming.
If they haven’t ruled out a long term trend in ocean heat transport then they are clueless as to how much internal variability there is and they would garner respect by just coming out and admitting that they have a job to do before expecting the world to jump through hoops. Of course that would require admitting they already set the hoop jumping up prematurely. Fingers crossed and full speed ahead seems to be their tactic.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
If they haven’t ruled out a long term trend in ocean heat transport…
The transport of heat isn’t an addition of heat into the climate system. That is, it’s not a forcing.
joe – the non climate scientist | September 6, 2021
“100+ million years of natural variability, yet Humans somehow stopped the natural variability for the last 170 years.
CarbonBrief, 12/13/17.-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans”
So not only in 2021 but in 2017 the whole of the warming for a measured report, this time of 100 years, has no variation due to natural variability.
“David – do you seriously believe that is credible”
This is how they find people are cheating with their figures, David.
Analysis shows a perfect record where statistics insists that if natural variability exists it is rare after any reasonable period to find that the mean is actually the average.
Accountants find fraud this way. analysts pick up dodgy school test results and and as for scientific experiments….ditto.
David, you just said the climate models are complete garbage. I expect you to stick with that opinion now.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
David, you just said the climate models are complete garbage. I expect you to stick with that opinion now.
Steve, of course I know you don’t believe that, and you know I don’t either.
Then don’t make arguments where that would have to be true in order for you to take your own argument seriously.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
Then don’t make arguments where that would have to be true in order for you to take your own argument seriously.
Steve, I have no idea what you mean, and buddy, it’s not at all worth my time to try to figure you out.
Let’s move one.
David, I’m pretty easy to figure out. I’ve been arguing a long term trend in ocean heat transport can cause a long term trend in the climate. The models support the argument. If my argument can be casually dismissed then the models have to be garbage. If the models aren’t garbage then the argument has to be taken seriously. A lot of people would rather just move on rather than face that problem head on. That won’t work.
stevenreincarnated wrote:
David, I’m pretty easy to figure out. I’ve been arguing a long term trend in ocean heat transport can cause a long term trend in the climate.
Why? When there’s no net heat into or out of the climate system?
David, I’m not going to keep giving you the same references over and over for you to either ignore or pretend to have never seen. Which are you doing?
Steven, it’s a 2005 paper, which is ages ago. What does the AR6 say?
So now your position is the models are good now but complete garbage in 2005. When did they fix them? How did they fix them? After what date can I no longer find any model exercises showing changes in poleward ocean heat transport changes the energy balance? When do they start conforming to your two dimensional argument?
stevenreincarnated wrote:
I’ve been arguing a long term trend in ocean heat transport can cause a long term trend in the climate.
Look at your HERWEIJER et al 2005 paper:
“Observational and modelling evidence suggest that poleward ocean heat transport (OHT) can vary in response to both natural climate variability and greenhouse warming.”
That is, this is, again, a FEEDBACK, not a forcing.
They aren’t excluding anything like natural variation. They are only including forced changes. As we all know long wave slows poleward ocean heat transport and that is a negative feedback. I suspect that solar increases ocean heat transport and that would be a positive feedback. You know, that could be the long lost solar mechanism people say they have been looking for.
But Steven, both are FEEDBACKS, NOT FORCINGS.
The models create natural variation and most people think the amount of variation they create is too small yet here you are arguing there isn’t any at all. Thanks for the laugh.
stevenreincarnated wrote: The models create natural variation….
No, models don’t create natural variation.
Natural variation — forcings — are drivers like solar variability, orbital forcings (Milankovitch factors), volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, etc.
I tell you what, David. I did a search for climate models produce natural variability on Google Scholar and only got 2,450,000 hits so maybe you’re right. Let me know..
To David Appell | September 11, 2021 at 9:48 pm |
“stevenreincarnated wrote: The models create natural variation….
No, models don’t create natural variation”.
Sorry, David.
They incorporate natural variation
It is written into the programs.
When they run them they then “create “natural variation” for each model run.
Good try at diversion though.
For clarification.
” vapor is a gas state of a substance at a temperature where it can co-exist with its liquid or solid state so for a liquid or solid to become vapor it does not have to first boil.”
In the atmosphere water vapor means H2O as a gas.
Water vapor is one of the gaseous constituents of the atmosphere.
H2O as a gas has variable concentration in the atmosphere because of ability to transfer between states depending on the usual range of temperatures on earth.
Whereas most of the other gases on earth have a more stable concentration though it is still temperature and pressure dependent.
The amount of water in the atmosphere depends on its evaporation rate alone.
It precipitates out only when the pressure/temperature variables force it out because there is too much in the air to remain as a gas.
In other words the air does not become less moist for its temperature and pressure. The right amount of water vapor remains in the air after any excess goes out.
Hence, like other GHG it always has an effect on the atmospheric temperature.
Of note other gases do dissolve in the ocean , particularly GHG CO2 which has a quasi liquid state in water as it varies between the different H2CO3 H20, CO2 and the various ionic states.
If one chooses to use GHG as a forcing then water vapor is the major forcing GHG that exists, albeit the only one with significant variable forcing at different temperatures.
A particularly annoying view of GHG states that without CO2 the H20 could never have become warm enough to develop an atmosphere on its own.
This blinkered and false statement rests on two false assumptions as David is well aware when he supports this view.
The first is [was it Mike Flynn? among others} that the world formed from a hotter to a cooler environment and initially did not need GHG at all to melt and put water into the air and have liquid seas.
Granted Ice Ages dropped the Temp, say 10 C, but never enough to freeze the oceans or take water out of the atmosphere.
The second is that we do not have a uniformly heated world due to its rotation. If there was water on the moon it would be a gas on the hot side if the moon > 100 C. Similarly ice will always melt and form a liquid sea and gaseous water atmosphere on over half the world without any need for GHG.
In this view of the world H20 GHG is a forcing agent, not a feedback.
Feedback anyone?
angech commented: A particularly annoying view of GHG states that without CO2 the H20 could never have become warm enough to develop an atmosphere on its own. This blinkered and false statement rests on two false assumptions as David is well aware when he supports this view.
You’re wrong — I’ve never supported this view. And here you are again imputing bad faith on the part of someone you disagree with.
And your view of this “controversy” (it’s not) isn’t even stated correctly — it’s not about the presence of an atmosphere.
What I suppose you’re trying to get at is that some claim that water vapor alone is sufficient to raise Earth’s atmosphere’s average surface temperature above the freezing point of water, viz so the surface is above something like a Snowball Earth.
But this is false — CO2 is also needed.
“One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the ‘most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two [water vapor and CO2] to tango.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate,” (2011) p. 271
angech commented: A particularly annoying view of GHG states that without CO2 the H20 could never have become warm enough to develop an atmosphere on its own. This blinkered and false statement rests on two false assumptions as David is well aware when he supports this view.
You’re wrong — I’ve never supported this view. And here you are again imputing bad faith on the part of someone you disagree with.
And your view of this “controversy” (it’s not) isn’t even stated correctly — it’s not about the presence of an atmosphere.
What I suppose you’re trying to get at is that some claim that water vapor alone is sufficient to raise Earth’s atmosphere’s average surface temperature above the freezing point of water, viz so the surface is above something like a Snowball Earth.
But this is false — CO2 is also needed.
David Appell | September 3, 2021
“angech commented: A particularly annoying view of GHG states that without CO2 the H20 could never have become warm enough to develop an atmosphere on its own. This blinkered and false statement rests on two false assumptions as David is well aware when he supports this view.”
Your response is contradictory.
You say “You’re wrong — I’ve never supported this view.”
then immediately
” you’re trying to get at is that some claim that water vapor alone is sufficient to raise Earth’s atmosphere’s average surface temperature above the freezing point of water, viz so the surface is above something like a Snowball Earth.
But this is false — CO2 is also needed.”
No, it is not needed at all
Hmm, I’m not allowed to provide a quote from Pierrehumbert’s textbook here about water vapor and CO2.
I wonder if Judith blocks that, or WordPress.
WordPress seems to have gotten quite picky, probably because of security threats.
I found that even submitting special characters and codes causes a comment to get booted without any feedback to the user
Check for special html codes in what you posted and replace them with plain text and see what happens.
This old post of mine has the Pierrehumbert excerpt I’m looking for:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-if-you-removed-all-greenhouse-gases.html
Shame this site censors climate science textbooks.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-if-you-removed-all-greenhouse-gases.html
Appell’s comment – “Shame this site censors climate science textbooks.”
That textbook would have gotten through even if this site censored climate science textbooks!
Try to reduce your habitual verbosity”
My verbosity?
difficult.
I have to dot every i, cross every t and produce a hundred references at your insistence to overcome you finding arcane loopholes.
Short version Water vapor is a gas, a GHG. Always present in the atmosphere.
When a substance is at a temperature below its critical temperature it is in a ‘gas phase’ and therefore will be a vapor. A vapor can co-exist with a liquid or solid when they are in equilibrium state. Therefore from this we can infer that a vapor is a gas state of a substance at a temperature where it can co-exist with its liquid or solid state.
It is the largest GHG by a considerable margin. It is always resident in the atmosphere. It differs from the other gases in that its concentration in the atmosphere is more variable with changes in pressure and temperature as its liquid state also exists in similar temperature ranges.
It has a consistent level when supplied by a water source. It cannot go over this level. Any extra precipitates out back to its saturation level for that temperature and pressure.
Alarmists use two false arguments to claim that water vapor is not a forcing.
Your argument.
The first is that water vapor does not have a residence in the atmosphere because it rains.
The falsity here is that rain does not remove water from the atmosphere. It just removes excess water for that temperature and pressure.
T
The second is that without CO2 forcing all the water in the world would remain as ice and that CO2 was necessary to allow water vapor to get into the atmosphere.
The point is that the earth has come from a hotter to a cooler planet and the water vapor was already in the atmosphere when the earth was much warmer. Pulling the coming out of an Ice age trick does not work either. A drop of 10-12 C could never freeze all the water in the world.
The claim that it was well below zero without an atmosphere does not work either. If one had water on the moon it would be ice on the dark side and steam on the sunny side at well over 100 C. The same argument applies to water on the Earth. Wherever the sun was water would heat up, go into the atmosphere and then exert its GHG effect.
angech wrote: The claim that it was well below zero without an atmosphere does not work either.
Without an atmosphere?? What relevance does that have to a discussion of water vapor?
David
Short version Water vapor is a gas, a GHG. Always present in the atmosphere.
Water is therefore a GHG just like methane and CO2.
You consider them to be forcing so by your own logic H2O is also a forcing.
QED.
angech
If i remember correctly water vapour is present at 66,000ppm. It is shorter lived in the atmosphere but the IPCC consider it the most influential of all the greenhouse gases.
as it is present in a variety of phases including clouds and ice it is of huge significance to those of us living on the surface of the planet.
tonyb
Thanks
The IPCC consider it the most influential of all the greenhouse gases.
It is shorter lived in the atmosphere
There is the ocean and the atmosphere. As long as there has been an ocean there is water vapor in the air.
Not short lived, just variable.
Bearing in mind the possible switch from petrol to hydrogen cars I had wondered how much extra water that might introduce into the atmosphere but read this;
“Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) emit approximately the same amount of water per mile as vehicles using gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (ICEs).”
tonyb
climatereason wrote: Bearing in mind the possible switch from petrol to hydrogen cars I had wondered how much extra water that might introduce into the atmosphere but read this
The atmosphere can’t hold more [average] water vapor unless its [average] temperature first changes; then the change is about 7% per deg C. (See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.) Any extra introduced into the atmosphere when temperature is constant soon precipitates out.
angech wrote: The IPCC consider it the most influential of all the greenhouse gases.
It is shorter lived in the atmosphere
There is the ocean and the atmosphere. As long as there has been an ocean there is water vapor in the air.
Not short lived, just variable.
Not shorter lived, not variable. See my reply just above to climate”reason”
I should point out to David one small further fact.
Water vapor is generally a positive forcing until it forms clouds.
It is responsible for the bulk of warming today.
Clouds increase albedo and so when enough vapor is present we tend in general to get negative feed backs.
The amount of change in feedback with water vapor variability is immense compared to CO2. It does not have positive forces from minute CO2 increases. It exerts strong positive and negative forcings merely by a change in temp or pressure increase which far outweigh any again minute changes on CO2 effects.
angech: Water vapor is a feedback to AGW, not a forcing.
If you think water vapor is responsible for the bulk of AGW warming today, let’s see your proof via calculations and numbers.
“which far outweigh any again minute changes on CO2 effects.”
And what do you think would happen on Earth if there were no GHGs, chief among which is of course CO2?
Meant to say ….. non-condensing GHGs.
angech,
you may be interested in the trends I analyzed here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
See figures 7 and 8 for the modeled, reanalyzed, and observed changes of humidity and cloud fraction.
There are very good reasons to question model ability to predict changes of either water vapor ( figures 7a,7b,7c ) or clouds ( figures 8a, 8b ), or motion for that matter.
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
Dear Tony Banton| September 3, 2021
A pleasure to hear from you.
You hopefully will excuse my alteration to your comments so they accurately reflect what you said you meant to say
“And what do you think would happen on Earth if there were no non-condensing GHGs, chief among which is of course CO2?”
You and Zeke are people whom I would like to admire under normal circumstances. Both of you have training in different fields allowing you an understanding of the climate that many other people.
Given that, your question is one you did not need to ask.
If you are cognizant and confident in your understanding and reasons you should just state what would happen and give the reasoning to your rhetorical question rather than asking it.
So Mr Banton, the floor is yours.
I have already stated what would happen on Earth if there were no non-condensing GHGs, 3 or so of my comments above.
I also gave a list of the excuses that would be used.
angech | September 3, 2021 at 1:11 am | Reply
Please use the excuses or give your insight and the facts.
Since you read them but ignored them I will answer your question again below.
Tony
Short version
Water vapor is a gas, a GHG. Always present in the atmosphere.
It is the largest GHG by a considerable margin
Other GHG, chief among which is of course CO2 , are considered as a forcing.
H20 , as a GHG is therefore also a forcing.
Has to be, variable, because it varies a lot more with temperature and pressure, but nonetheless a forcing while there are any molecules in the atmosphere.
It is always resident in the atmosphere at its saturation level for that temperature and pressure.
angech wrote: Water vapor is a gas, a GHG. Always present in the atmosphere.
It is the largest GHG by a considerable margin
Other GHG, chief among which is of course CO2 , are considered as a forcing.
H20 , as a GHG is therefore also a forcing.
It’s not a forcing to climate CHANGE. It’s a feedback.
“And what do you think would happen on Earth if there were no non-condensing GHGs, chief among which is of course CO2?”
So many earth’s to choose from.
Which one do you mean?
Let’s take the current earth, now.
Magically CO2 and methane etc are now not GHG.
We would have the same planet, the same atmosphere, and the same seas.
The temperature of the world would be the same at the TOA .
Energy in equals energy out.
Either ,
The atmosphere would be hotter during the day under the sun and colder at night with a marked range of extremes.
More of the earth would be covered with ice starting from the north /south boundaries where the temperature is always below zero.
The average temperature, thanks chief, on a slowly rotating planet like this, would be more or less the same as today.
Or ,
H20 is the major GHG, still present and forcing.
It trapped the majority of the heat.
Now the other GHG have gone the trapped heat still has to get out.
The emitting level for the H2O has to get higher.
To get rid of this heat more H2O will enter the atmosphere at higher temperatures
Self regulation valve.
Your view?
Please?
Comments, Carbon would be difficult to fit into this earth.
Tony will no doubt try to say the temperature of the surface of the earth will drop by 33 C without NCGHG.
Unfortunately they do not produce heat.
They are not a heat source.
If they are not there helping transmit the heat something else will.
If nothing helps transmit the heat the energy goes back out as unimpeded IR .
The worry for me is that SO index is only 4.9 and , while going up, is always guesswork as to where it will actually go.
The fact that a cool pacific ocean recently still did not help the UAH go down below zero is also a concern.
While a lot of other factors are moving in a cooling manner at the moment it always seems that this is a prelude for another rise in temperatures.
It would be nice to see a cooling pattern with a neutral pacific temperature or a more nuanced fall in global temperatures to give this IPCC report the firm kick it deserves.
Calling Tony Banton
And what do you think would happen on Earth if there were no non condensing GHGs, chief among which is of course is CO2?
Simple question
Dan Pangburn gives one assessment.
Perhaps you could give us the courtesy of your view?
jungletrunks | September 5, 2021 at 7:05 pm |
..And you never did define natural variability.”
Oooh boy, the DA lays down the gauntlet against smart alecks. Ironies aside, we’re awaiting with bated breath for the local DA’s definition of natural variability.
There is a pattern here.
Sadly.
A scientific blog on the IPCC findings
4 people turn up to defend it, not by putting up arguments or proof.
When questioned on any of the science they resort to not answering but deflection.
Tony Banton, Willard, Joshua,David Appell.
I am appalled at the lack of genuine talent trying to defend the IPCC findings.
In past years we had Zeke and Nick Stokes* and the non drive by Mosher arguing passionately for their cause with science.
How are the mighty fallen.
Three simple basic questions.
Temperature
CO2 levels.
Natural variability.
not a peep.
None expected.
*excused [in recess].
angech wrote:
Three simple basic questions.
Temperature
CO2 levels.
Natural variability.
LOL. You want a presentation of basic climate science, for people who aren’t going to accept them anyhow?
No one is here to be your tutor. There are innumerable papers you can go read, reviews, textbooks, IPCC reports, etc. Go read them. The questions about the basics your present here aren’t perspicacious and rarely worth tackling.
BTW, I just wrote about a half dozen replies to your claims here about water vapor. You ignored them all.
DA
“I just wrote about a half dozen replies to your claims here about water vapor. You ignored them all.”
Its a long thread.
The comment section has been filled with followers of Judith recently.
Thank you for writing about them.
That is what I want to happen, to get people like you and me discussing the topics scientifically.
I will appraise them now and write here or there as best indicated.
“You want a presentation of basic climate science
The questions about the basics aren’t perspicacious and rarely worth tackling.”
Temperature
CO2 levels.
Natural variability.
Imagine how important an IPCC AR6 WG1 report about these topics would be!
angech wrote: Imagine how important an IPCC AR6 WG1 report about these topics would be!
Why should a lot of scientists spend their precious time rehashing what’s already covered in any number of excellent textbooks and online courses?
DA
“I just wrote about a half dozen replies to your claims here about water vapor. You ignored them all.”
David Appell on IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread addressed to me
David Appell on IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread to Robert I. Ellison
David Appell on IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread to Robert I. Ellison
If there were another 3 they are not current
As a rule I tend to leave your challenges to RE for him to handle unless you or he make some statement that I feel needs to be factually corrected. RE is way smarter than me.
David Appell | September 5, 2021 at 9:55 pm | Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Natural variation is of course everything other than AGW – that is about half the warming of the past 40 years.
Says what?
This raises an interesting aspect of this paper which shows why it is > 90% in the claim that natural variability over the 120 year period exactly balanced.
“natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°”
David.
You do seem to admit Natural Variability exists.
You want other people to put a figure on it but refuse to provide one
yourself.
Fortunately the IPCC does provide a range for Natural variability
A very large range in fact. and wrong.
“Global average surface temperatures in any given year are driven by a combination of long-term warming and short-term natural variability. The latter – driven by El Niño and La Niña events or volcanic eruptions – can result in a year being up to 0.2C warmer or cooler than the trajectory of long-term human-caused warming.”
Why wrong? *
One just has to look at an El Nino or La Nina year to see that natural variability can be much greater than 0.5 C up or down in a single year, the latter of course ruling out any possibility of any global warming contributing to a negative result.
Why is the IPCC report on natural variability over the last 60 years wrong.?
Statistics.
Like coin tosses, the longer you go with random variables the more unlikely you would be to end up with a neutral result after 60 years.
It lights up like a Christmas tree.
Natural variability of even 0.1 to 0.1 percent [and it is a lot higher], means that at the end of any 120 year gap It should .>90% be an uneven figure somewhere about 0.5 C away from the medium with a caveat by the IPCC about “the effects of natural variability” being responsible.
But no, the report concluded no natural variability over the long term forgetting that at the end of any long term [which must deviate anyway, there is a short term deviation which is unlikely. almost unable to bring it to a neutral response.
Shot in the foot by trying to make statistics work for them.
.
angech: It’s often hard to figure out what your point is, and this is another example of that. Too verbose.
The IPCC’s AR6 statement was pretty clear: no natural variability, plus or minus, since 1850.
You seem to think that’s wrong but after reading the above I have no idea why.
David Appell comment –
“The IPCC’s AR6 statement was pretty clear: no natural variability, plus or minus, since 1850.
You seem to think that’s wrong but after reading the above I have no idea why.”
David – is that statement credible ?
100 million or so years of wide swings in natural variability, yet somehow human activity stopped the natural variability for the last 170 years. Impressive feat by humans – assuming that it is credible.
Care to tell us how human activity caused a shift in the 300+year cooling trend in its tracks and shifted to a warming trend? What event caused that shift? Was it when CO2 went from 285ppm to 288-290ppm? If so, those extra 3-5ppm of CO2 were quite powerful.
David Appell
“The IPCC’s AR6 statement was pretty clear: no natural variability, plus or minus, since 1850. You seem to think that’s wrong but after reading the above I have no idea why.”
David, you are a smart cookie.
When you say you do not get an idea that is obvious I have to worry.
If you are correct [“I have no idea why.”] it is not because you do not understand the premise and answer.
It is that you refuse, unconsciously, I hope, to consider that their conclusion is concocted.
Their is no reasonable other option.
Joe explains the problem above.
Everyone else gets it.
Mathematically, statistically, there are probabilities of how often an event can occur.
The event here is how likely, probability wise, will a committee on the probability of a variable event come up with a result of no variation over precisely the time interval they intend to study.
The answer is extremely unlikely.
The fact that every time they check natural variability over a period and end up with none for that period means they won the lottery
[extremely unlikely,] , several times over.
Now you understand that.
I know you understand that.
When you strive to deceive you should at least have the intelligence to do it properly.
angech wrote:
David, you are a smart cookie.
When you say you do not get an idea that is obvious I have to worry.
If you are correct [“I have no idea why.”] it is not because you do not understand the premise and answer.
It is that you refuse, unconsciously, I hope, to consider that their conclusion is concocted.
Their is no reasonable other option.
Again, you can’t stop with the “bad faith” argument.
To which I can only answer
FU.
joe, I happened to notice your response here on the site. I read and respond to comments by email. I don’t respond to you because awhile back you made fun of my name, which you get the pronunciation wrong about anyway, like boys in 5th grade, and ever since I filter all your comments straight to trash. So I never see them anymore. Same with a few others here who are as juvenile as you.
“David Appell | September 9, 2021 at 8:29 pm |
angech wrote:
David, you are a smart cookie.
When you say you do not get an idea that is obvious I have to worry.
If you are correct [“I have no idea why.”] it is not because you do not understand the premise and answer.
It is that you refuse, unconsciously, I hope, to consider that their conclusion is concocted.
Their is no reasonable other option.
Again, you can’t stop with the “bad faith” argument.”
To which I can only ask.
What is it with you and this concept that other people act in bad faith?
Not just me but a lot of others here whom you argue with.
Perfectly normal people comment here.
I treat everyone here as believing in their opinions and expressing them openly and honestly.
People are allowed to have views which are contrary to yours and mine.
I said that when you refused,
Point blank, to consider my point of view on the veracity of the IPCC report due to proven obvious inconsistencies.
That it must be due to a subconscious block.
Because you are a good person and would therefore do the right thing, agree with an obvious point unless something unconscious was preventing you from doing so.
When you strive to deceive you should at least have the intelligence to do it properly.
Not you DA , that was referring to the IPCC.
Apologies if not clear.
angech commented: When you strive to deceive you should at least have the intelligence to do it properly.
Not you DA , that was referring to the IPCC.
Do you think I think you know more than the scientists who write for the IPCC?
LOL LOL LOL.
Time to wind up I guess.
The IPCC AR6 WG1 report was a damp squib.
Despite this climate change hysteria is growing even stronger and we are all getting blown away.
If the world temp drops substantially in the next 2 years they will just claim the Paris accord is working.
Thanks to everyone for trying to get some discussion going even though the science has been left behind in the politics.
This thread deserved to be longer , bigger and better.
If the world temp drops slightly the IPCC will credit the Paris Agreement.
If it drops too much they will credit natural variability.
It’s small comments like these that show how your contrarian concerns are mostly passive aggressive crap.
Oh, and Ron, there’s no way you can rationalize the Auditor out of this:
https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/#comment-764041
The kind of little detail that makes me doubt that he is on the right side of history as he claims.
Willard
I followed your link. There must be more to this than meets the eye, perhaps off thread?
Someone made a comment alluding to rather an old concern. Steve seemed to answer this in an open and civilised matter. I can’t see any more substantive comments, so perhaps there is more that happened elsewhere , as I don’t see how this puts him on the wrong side of history?
tonyb
Tony –
Off topic, but given that in more than one occasion you’ve linked to Toby Young and “lockdown skeptics” stuff – you might find this interesting (Yeadon comes off particularly badly if you follow the links).
https://quillette.com/2021/07/28/vaccines-and-the-coronavirus-crank-crisis/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
The whole intersection of Quillette and the IDW and the rightwing more generally is quite intersting.
TonyB,
Perhaps this will clarify matters:
https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/#comment-764041
The Auditor’s “mugging” (H/T the Auditor) fizzles right there.
You might have missed the sentence – it was after all three sentences below the one I quoted.
Please beware how I started my comment to which you reply.
tony –
H*ving a l*t of tro*ble g*tting th*s p*st the filt*r.
0ff t0pic, b*t…
Go*gle th* foll*wing *nd cl*ck on the Qu*lette l*nk.
“V*ccines and the Cor*navirus Cr*nk Cris*s”
Giv*n that y0u’ve l*nked m*re than 0nce T0by Yo*ng st*ff and “l*ckd0wn sk*ptics” stu*ff y0u m*ght f*nd wh*t c*mes up int*resting (Yead*n c*mes 0ff partic*larly b*dly if y0u foll*w the l*nks).
The wh0le interacti0n ef*ects betwe*n C0VID, Quill*tte, the IDW, and the rightw*ng m0re gen*rally is re*lly q*ite int*resting.
Finally!
Joshua
Have you been drinking? I have no idea what you are going on about. LDS publishes a lot of material from perfectly respectable sources and some that are not so good. Toby Young is an advocate and campaigner of free speech over many years and in that regards should deserve your respect.
If you would like to actually provide an actual link I will read it but its too late in the day to solve riddles.
Hope you are keeping well
Tonyb
tony –
Who so disagreeable? Most people can read this comments with characters put in to get around the filter (wbichni explained is blocking me from posting the link).
Here, let me try this
https://tinyurl.com/rbytckxm
“Toby Young is an advocate and campaigner of free speech…”
No. He really isn’t. He’s a self publicist and professional misinformer.
Choose a different hill to die on.
Young has been at the centre of several controversies. In 2015, he wrote an article in advocacy of genetically engineered intelligence, which he described as “progressive eugenics”.[6] In early January 2018, he was briefly a non-executive director on the board of the Office for Students,[7] an appointment from which he resigned within a few days after Twitter posts described as “misogynistic and homophobic” were uncovered.[8] In 2020, he promoted misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.[9][10][11][12]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Young
VTG –
You know there’s really something fishy for rightwing “free speech advocates” if even Quillette is calling them out.
Joshua.
Sorry, it was said with a smile but I have no idea why you needed to write it in that way
tonyb
tony –
I was unable to get my comment past the filter. So one way to get around that is to insert or replace a character in each word so that the filter doesn’t recognize any “bad” words and get tripped. As it turns out, it was the link itself that was tripping the filter.
Thanks for the apology – although truth said I never take nastiness personally here. I just consider it information about my interlocutor if someone says something nasty.
Anyway, that’s why I was somewhat surprised by your tone – as it was somewhat in conflict with earlier “information,” but now that you explained it was said with a smile, I get it.
Tony,
To quickly summarize, a commenter at Climateaudit.org was attacking Steve McIntyre for uniformed trolling of expert, peer reviewed, paleoclimate science. The assumption being that there are perfectly good reasons why proxies can be used upside down in hockey stick reconstructions. Steve just doesn’t understand and this is why the experts ignore him, as in the AR6 PAGES hockey stick.
In refuting that ridiculous claim that probably came from a Michael Mann pop culture book, I linked to a 2015 comment at CA from David J. Verardo, the longtime program director for the NSF’s paleoclimate grants who praised McIntrye’s contribution to paleoclimate and criticized the scientists for not better receiving their audits.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/#comment-805353
I mentioned that Verardo was praising McIntrye only in by the way fashion since his purpose for the visit was to clear his wife from implication of having any connection to her colleagues, Jagadish Shukla, then recently exposed by McIntrye for misusing millions of NSF funding to pad his personal foundation and pet projects. Rodger Pielke, Jr. brought attention to Shuklas suspicious foundation after Shukla organized the RICO 20 letter calling on the US attorney general to prosecute climate denier funding (as merchants of doubt) under a federal racketeering law created to combat organized crime.
I am heartened to learn that Willard is becoming my fan boy.
Ron,
As far as uniformed trolling is concerned, you’re my go-to guy. Just look how you elevate the Auditor’s uninformed trolling of Dave! Even you can’t plausibly deny that your mention of the Shukla episode does not square very well with the idea that the Auditor is only in it for the science.
Also, I’m not sure where you got the idea that Bas claimed that the Auditor misunderstands anything. The first comment should suffice to make you see where he was going:
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/#comment-805213
This point still stands. But who cares: Denizens got to pile on!
Go team!
Stephen McIntyre is one of the great skeptics.
Hence worthy of continued vitriol from Willard, Joshua and many others for destroying their shibboleths.
The nit picking continues trying to disparage the man for the gaping holes left in the structure of the ship SS Climate Change.
The take home message, as always, is when the pile on starts on, the heavy barrages, one is directly over the target.
I like this line of his from his recent post
. SM Sep 2, 2021 – 3:07 PM
In a Climategate email. Keith Briffa famously sneered at Michael Mann’s claim that a temperature reconstruction could represent a hemisphere, including the tropics, by regressing a “few poorly temperature respresentative tropical series” against “any other target series” – even the trend of Mann’s own “self-opinionated verbiage”
I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more).
Did Keith really write that?
Where are these fearless denizens?
Thanks for the chance acknowledging his totally scientific and reputable work, Willis.
The Auditor ain’t a skeptic, Doc. When the mic is off he could sometimes say he’s a Lindzenian, but as he’s also wont to say, he does not always say what he thinks. Except of course when it’s related to Ukraine, Syria, or Ivermectin.
That makes him a contrarian. But that’s only on the hobby side. He earned some money in his life, so he can enjoy a weird hobby.
As far as policy is concerned, he’d follow science:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/549098033
If he was as lousy as the other contrarians, due diligence would be overkill. You might like what Carrick and other contrarians have said of the Auditor. And that includes what Brave Brandon!
Denizens should consider themselves lucky that nobody but them pays much attention to any of this.
Willard –
> Ivermectin
Ivermectin? Really? You’re pulling my leg, right?
Willard | September 8, 2021
The Auditor ain’t a skeptic, Doc.
He does good scientific detective work, Willard.
When people have had to retract papers or publish corrections because of poor technique your attitude should be , that’s good.
Let us do science correctly.
When you know what the errors were, and what the peer review was like, you are the one who should be calling them out, not attacking the messenger.
Or worse, if propagating mistaken information.
Playing a game just allows you to avoid the responsibility that you should cheerfully have taken on in this issue.
Hard as it may be with the non game committed players that you have to support.
Ps Thank you by the way for not always playing the game.
The Auditor sure does good work when he puts his mind to it. It still remains needles in the eyes. As TCO observed so many times, there limits to “read the blog” as a defense:
> You just don’t even do basic synthesis. Don’t use footnotes, etc. Don’t quantify extents. Don’t clearly make assertions, rather than snark and “research notebook” ramblings, so that others can engage. This place is a mess. It’s not reasonable to ask people to parse blog postings. If you want work understood, write a paper. That is the simplest and most efficient way for others to process information
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/363224082
Sometimes the Auditor does not look so good, e.g.:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2016/05/watts-worships-mcintyre-spaghetti.html
In both cases the “detective” part takes over and round and round the climate ball we go.
Idolatry leads nowhere. There are no heroes.
Brave Brandon! did you mean Gates or the other one?
Interesting
”Steve is Steve. He sure can make mistakes.
There is no need for me to evaluate his integrity nor his competence. At least some of what he does will be for the good, in the end. For instance, everybody knows that peer-reviewed literature sucks and that the Internet will revolutionize it.”
I cribbed your words a little.
I would have said “he does not take prisoners”
Did not realize the connection between your site and Steve’s.
Thank you for the insight.
“Genesis.
I started to read the blog, as Bender implored.”
Brave Brandon is the other one, Doc. I used to call him Chewbacca. It is now it’s own character in the climate ball.
Since the Auditor is into “sides of history” these days, you might like:
> Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement you claim that [Mike]’s hockey stick report of 1999 was the basis for the Kyoto Accord. According to my recollection, Kyoto was in 1997, so it could not have been the basis for the Kyoto Accord.
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/98974363269
I’d rather be on the side of history that preserves chronology. To understand why, you might need to read our Beloved Bishop’s political hit job.
Best.
Chewbacca, or CB for short.
I think he would like that.
Has connotations of the wild west cowboys or the Australian cattle stockmen.
Grizzled, sun beaten men of few words………..
……………. …………………
Brave Brandon never liked it, Doc. Accused me of dehumanizing him. So I talk about channeling our inner Chewbacca instead, or I turn the traits into a character.
Chewbacca always starts his comments saying how wrong you are. Not only that, but how ridiculously wrong you are. Not only that, but how it’s so ridiculously wrong that it makes no sense. Etc.
If you prefer quotes: you are wrong, and you are wrong in an unacceptable and insulting way; you make a ridiculous comment; practically everything in your response here is a misrepresentation; etc.
Here could be a poem:
ENOUGH TO TELL ME TO LEAVE
I don’t think there is any
point in continuing this
given your attitude.
You didn’t respond to any
of the content I provided.
If you weren’t convinced I was right
but accepted I had provided
enough to warrant interest,
you would have just said something like
That’s interesting,
but can you provide
something tangible to look at?
Instead, you made a rude comment
designed to ensure no meaningful
discussion could take place.
That’s enough to tell me to leave.
Very good.
I read Brandon a few times at Lucia’s.
Amazing how each sentence connected to the next but after 5 sentences one was in deep impenetrable weeds.
enough.
You have distracted me from pointing out Steve’s [in my opinion] very good points long enough.
We only started, Doc. You know, playing Columbo is all well and good. But you need to keep within character. Comments like this one undermines the appearance of wearing a trenchcoat.
2016 was a long time ago.
“Safest way to deal with him, and the one he will find the most annoying here is a blanket “answer the question first, Willard”.
I understand you a little bit more now.
Only a bit better, Doc. Look up “vitriol” in a dictionary.
I note and welcome verytallguy | September 8, 2021 at 5:27 pm
to this discussion.
Since you are here although only in drive by mode at present. I note in the past that you have put forward views and propositions.
Ron Graf added to my comment,
If the world temp drops slightly the IPCC will credit the Paris Agreement.
If it drops too much they will credit natural variability.
Are you prepared where the other two are not to give answer to any of the questions re optimum temperature, optimum CO2 and the missing natural variability?
Countdown to COP26 on the road to failure
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/07/countdown-to-cop26-on-the-road-to-failure/
The beginning:
“It is less than 60 days until COP26 convenes in Glasgow. We can expect a flood of climate horror stories (including flooding). But there will also be some discussion of the actual issues, so here is a brief breakdown of the big four.
Keep in mind that the alarmists have a bit of a civil war going on, between what I call the moderates and the radicals. The moderates have been at it for over 30 years and the radicals are fed up. The moderates now have a net zero target of 2050, while the radicals want 2030, so the difference is pretty stark. The last two COPs were partly paralyzed by this split, especially COP25. This fight will be a major factor in Glasgow.
The first two big issues are old business, money business to be precise. Of course it is all about money but these two are that by name trading and finance.”
The analysis is in the article. Please share it.
COP26 could be great fun!
Willard ” you might like:”
> “Mr Chairman, in your opening statement you claim that [Mike]’s hockey stick report of 1999 was the basis for the Kyoto Accord. According to my recollection, Kyoto was in 1997, so it could not have been the basis for the Kyoto Accord.”
actually I prefer,from the Wegner report
“Please note that the Bristlecone/Foxtail PC1 proxy is used not only in MBH,
but also in virtually every subsequent reconstruction.
There are sufficient confounding factors that proxies based on
Bristlecones should be avoided. We should add that we were specifically
asked to resolve the differences between MBH98/99 and MM03/05a/05b.
There is a bewildering array of subsequent work that we were not asked
to consider, but which probably deserves much more intense scrutiny.
We would include such refereed papers as Rutherford et al. (2005) and Wahl and Ammann (2006), which are purported to be written by independent teams, but which are co-authored by Dr. Mann himself in Rutherford et al. and by Dr. Mann’s student Dr. Ammann in Wahl and Ammann.”
So much for vaunted peer review which is trotted out each time in defense.
“Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.”
“Denizens should consider themselves lucky that nobody but them pays much attention to any of this.”
The Wegman Hoax has no currency anymore, Doc:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/wegmanhoax
The short version is: apply “method wrong + answer correct = bad science”:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html
Ed had one job. He did two. He failed both.
The second job still deserves due diligence. Take MN10. It has been cited 36 times on the Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1621796524977090169&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=fr
Look at the clique: Nicola a few times, Kenneth & J a few times, Ross himself of course, the Connolly bros, Cornelis a few times, DavidL, WillieS. Only two papers reviewed it critically.
The contrarian matrix is a close-knit.
I’ve looked at that example because I remembered pete when he spotted Ross being a little upset when caught red-handed:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/32914522265
‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.’ https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/uploads.thebreakthrough.org/legacy/blog/Climate_Pragmatism_web.pdf
Climate is deterministically chaotic – and thus intrinsically unpredictable. But every greenhouse gas molecule emitted brings us closer to the next climate tipping point. What to do about it is the question. You can play their ‘science’ game with contrarian memes and continue to lose. Or you might practice a bit of pragmatic politics and advance economic. social and environmental goals.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Climate is deterministically chaotic – and thus intrinsically unpredictable.
LOL.
My God, Robert, you are so unscientific.
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” AR3
David’s intractable ignorance is as inevitable as night and day.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” AR3
David’s intractable ignorance is as inevitable as night and day.
Robert is so sure of his theory that he can’t even be bothered to look at the data.
LOLz.
It is one of the standard memes. But projections are not data. If warming for the wrong reason is projected and it warms – it’s still wrong.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wong2006figure7-e1521674933730.png
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml
If David keeps making the same errors I have to keep citing the same science lest his lies become truth.
Robert Ellison thinks climate is chaotic when the data shows it clearly is NOT.
Hurst exponent Robert just calculate the damn thing already and shut up for once in your life.
Robert clearly can’t calculate a single GD thing. LOL.
Utter nonsense.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Utter nonsense.
LOL.
Does anyone see any reason to take this guy seriously?
He’s constantly trying to get off with a minimal effort here.
It’s a simple statistical procedure. But when I showed him how it’s done – and said it wasn’t suitable for temperature series he hand waved at Wikipedia.
The Hurst exponent shows the tendency for regimes – clusters of high or low valued events – to occur. We have a dominant climate paradigm as to why – and what effect it has on surface temperature.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/51a17b52-58d5-4424-b569-2bfcdc8dafef/grl25658-fig-0001.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022
I am an engineer and environmental scientist. I have run hydrodynamic models for decades. But of course David needs to keep beating the same silly little drum.
Robert Ellison wrote: It’s a simple statistical procedure. But when I showed him how it’s done – and said it wasn’t suitable for temperature series he hand waved at Wikipedia.
If it’s so simple then do it. For HadCRUT5. You never explained why it isn’t suitable.
JUST DO IT. Calculate it. Then explain its significance. Why it matters to the issue of AGW.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies
LOL
The problem comes from the rich and well-off, not from any particular countries, Robert.
Learn to look at the data, Robert. Don’t be so silly, Robert.
The top 10% of income, Robert, emit 50% of the CO2 Robert:
https://pics.me.me/figure-1-global-income-deciles-and-associated-lifestyle-consumptiorn-emissions-38055668.png
The next 10% emit the next 20%, Robert.
Do you see that, Robert?
It’s not about countries, Robert. It’s about incomes, Robert. It’s about conspicuous spending, Robert, flying around in private jets and living large in huge houses and importing grapes from Chile and eating beef from Japan, Robert.
Are you starting to see, Robert???
Yes David – I have.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Yes David – I have.
There’s no evidence you have, Robert.
There’s no evidence you’ve ever looked at any data whatsoever.
You still haven’t calculated the Hurst exponent for the HadCRUT5 time series.
Still.
I have seen who and what you are David. A negative growth fanatic with a penchant for economic and social transformation supported by sciency sounding memes and no clue about how the world might actually progress this century.
RE have you any comment on the other two issues/
An optimum temp for the earth , or what might constitute such?
An optimum CO2 level?
You are doing a good job with the natural variability despite
distractions.
angech wrote:
RE have you any comment on the other two issues/
An optimum temp for the earth , or what might constitute such?
An optimum CO2 level?
You are doing a good job with the natural variability despite
distractions.
Me????
angech: I’ve made my position very clear on the “optimal temperature for the Earth.”
I did it many days ago.
So hydrology and oceanography are not climate science and the planet is not deterministically chaotic. Such a depth of ignorance is mad.
Robert I. Ellison wrote;
So hydrology and oceanography are not climate science and the planet is not deterministically chaotic.
Correct dummy.
Robert buddy, where is that Hurst exponent??
The system is dynamically nonlinear. The changing trajectories of HadCRU surface temperature is because of turbulent ocean an atmospheric circulation. Understood for a very long time. But David is an especially insistent twerp.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: The system is dynamically nonlinear. The changing trajectories of HadCRU surface temperature is because of turbulent ocean an atmospheric circulation.
No not all. Mid-century, pre clean air law aerosol cooling also had something to do with it. Yeah, ENSOs matter. PDOs and AMOs too, a little. Not a lot. Not enough to get excited about, the way you do. You think they’re most of the ballgame. They most certainly are not.
I’ll repeat this for you again:
“When estimated over the entire historical period (1850–2020), the contribution of natural variability to global surface warming of -0.23°C–0.23°C is small compared to the warming of about 1.1°C observed during the same period, which has been almost entirely attributed to the human influence.”
IPCC AR6 WG1 FAQ 3.2 p 3-102
David Appell | September 11, 2021 at 7:42 pm |
I’ll repeat this for you again:
“When estimated over the entire historical period (1850–2020), the contribution of natural variability to global surface warming of -0.23°C–0.23°C is small compared to the warming of about 1.1°C observed during the same period, which has been almost entirely attributed to the human influence.”
IPCC AR6 WG1 FAQ 3.2 p 3-102
You gotta be impressed with Appell’s profound critical ability to believe what is unlikely to be true.
Appell you still havent been able to explain why there was a shift from a 300+ year cooling trend to a 170+ year warming trend circa 1850-1880.
Oceanography and not climate science and climate is not is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministically chaotic system. Despite Wally Broecker.
He is not worth my time.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Oceanography and hydrology are not climate science
So then we can dismiss Demetris Koutsoyiannis….
and climate is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministically chaotic system. Despite Wally Broecker.
LOL. Some people are getting too big for their britches, without corresponding accomplishments.
I was of course paraphrasing David. He is profoundly misguided.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Oceanography and not climate science and climate is not is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministically chaotic system.
Beautiful and profound use of double and even triple negatives. Such clear, distinct writing.
Oceanography and hydrology are not climate science and climate is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministically chaotic system. Despite Wally Broecker.
He is not worth any more of my time.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: He is not worth any more of my time.
Always a weak departure from the fight.
David is ignorant of the natural sciences. Without which no sense can be made of the climate system. And of course a polite and productive discussion is not possible.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
David is ignorant of the natural sciences. Without which no sense can be made of the climate system. And of course a polite and productive discussion is not possible.
LOL. Another weak, meaningless criticism that safely says nothing, protecting its author’s nose which he is afraid to stick out into any meaningful territory whatsoever.
I was of course paraphrasing David. He is profoundly misguided.
Wrong place for that last comment – repeated above.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: I was of course paraphrasing David. He is profoundly misguided.
The Australian can’t even be bothered to explain why. Weak!!
Robert I. Ellison commented: Wrong place for that last comment – repeated above
Oops.
Understandable — given his earlier errors.
David said that natural sciences such as oceanography and hydrology have no place in climate. And that climate is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministic chaotic system. He is not remotely in tune with mainstream climate paradigms. Combining such ignorance with incessant repetition of simple minded memes and copious volumes of drive by snark means – as I said – that he is not worth the time of day.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: David said that natural sciences such as oceanography and hydrology have no place in climate
You said that, dinkus!
“Robert I. Ellison | September 11, 2021 at 10:57 pm |
Oceanography and hydrology are not climate science and climate is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministically chaotic system. Despite Wally Broecker”.
LOLz
‘Oceanography or hydrology is not climate science, in any way at all.’ DA
He now denies he said it – par for his course. As I said I paraphrased – ironically at that.
Robert I. Ellison wrote: ‘Oceanography or hydrology is not climate science, in any way at all.’
You can’t even keep track of your own statements.
This is getting really pitiful.
Robert I. Ellison | September 11, 2021 at 10:39 pm |
Oceanography and not climate science and climate is not is not a coupled, nonlinear, deterministically chaotic system. Despite Wally Broecker.
Seems more like David behaving badly – again.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/09/ipcc-ar6-wg1-discussion-thread/#comment-959499
Robert I. Ellison wrote: Seems more like David behaving badly – again.
LOL. Such a weak defense, yet again.
Have they all gone a bit mad?
Robert, you’re so predictable. Shove off you little smart aleck. You can’t handle not being the queen here.
David,
You may have noticed the Arctic ice this last 2 years. It has varied between possibly the lowest to the 12th lowest twice or more over the course of the last 2 years.
Falling rapidly at the moment.
The natural variability just for ice area alone is not 0.1% but probably closer to 4% or more.
The same for when we have El Nino /La Nina
conditions.
Something makes quite massive swings at times.
Unexplained [El Nino is a symptom, not a cause].
What do you see the range of natural variability being?
David Appell | September 11, 2021
angech: I’ve made my position very clear on the “optimal temperature for the Earth.” I did it many days ago.
To be clear you declined to give an estimate?
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
14/9/2021
Australian BOM continues to blacklist NASA from their 8 combined models of
International climate model outlooks
They were removed after the 19/1/2021 and presumably will be blacklisted by BOM until they bring their findings into line with approved climate change models like NOAA, JMA NAD UKMO.
NASA were predicting a much longer and stronger La Nina.
This enables BOM to continue using a forecasting ensemble with models that produce warmer outcomes.
Arctic sea Ice made a brave attempt to get to 11th lowest but has run out of puff.
Cooler temperatures [still above average] persist around the globe with sea temperatures being relatively neutral for large swathes.
Warming seas had been a big contributor to warmer air temperatures.
The moderate fall in temps for this year combined with a weak La Nina in the offing suggests temperaures may actually continue to fall or at least stay around there current UHA levels.
Currently equal 6th warmest year it may yet spiral down to 9th highest which would be an amazing global cooling for 1 year.
NZ Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
[dismissing]
“Because Earth is the only planet in the Solar System to have liquid water on the surface and vapor clouds in the sky, many think that Earth’s climate is somehow special and controlled by unique and different drivers…. However, this is not the case!”
Arguing that the unique and different drivers that exist on all planets can be reduced to a simple pressure temperature theory is not right.
The pressure and temperature are linked in many ways.
That is why the laws work the way that they do. But the laws also take into account the effects of the different compositions. They have to.
You spell it out yourself by defining some of those compositions [above].
Albedo is important.
Albedo is usually pretty constant for most solid materials.
But it varies enormously with different gas mixes.
Take a planet like Jupiter. Give it two fixed circulating gases a bit like those mood lamps with the blobs of liquid rising or falling due to their energy gain when they sink to the heater at the bottom.
Make one black and the other white. Yju have a white world half the time and a black world half the time.
What is the surface temperature?
Definitely not stable or predictable by a simple pressure model [note the pressures would of course change with the albedo changes so your theory would work but give different results on a timing basis].
Now clouds are not unique but they do a form of what I have just described. Variable timing of albedo, unpredictable. with different average surfaces temperatures all the time.
Incorporate or sink.
I guess a thread is dead when it disappears off the current list so will not be long til this disappears as well.Good things to come out of it are an appreciation of the work done for the IPCC.
A set of important questions including the range of natural variability.
Also an insight into the behaviours of a group of people given fairly free rein to express both their views and their beliefs.
I hope there are a lot more readers than the committed few and that a few of the ideas get through.
One on natural variability has come to mind.
Imagine if we did not have AGW and that all the changes have been natural variability.
How big does this imply it is?
Even more so what then constrains it so that it has not run away like a steam train.
Further I have found a measure of what I would call the likelihood of AGW being real.
Simply take the Arctic ice Jaxa sea ice area for the last 43 years as gospel.
If AGW is real the sea ice shoud decrease every year as it warms.
If we take this year where the lowest extent was 11th we can do a simple percentage
11/43 is roughly a 75% chance AGW is real.
If we have a series of years where it is the lowest we can use that to say it is 99% real.
On the other hand, if it ever returns to 1979 values we could say it is 99% certain that the theory is wrong.
An alternative view of the radiation imbalance theory.
Most of the views on the Greenhouse gas [GHG] theory relies on an assumption of an energy imbalance that causes the earth to store more heat when GHG go up.
It is postulated that the GHG trap and slow IR radiation on its way out from the surface with back radiation causing the surface to warm even further.
Assumptions are made of a world with no GHG in the atmosphere being some 33 degrees cooler.
255K from 288K with the same albedo.
The Trenbath diagram shows an idealized picture of the earth surface with the various energy flows in balance at the TOA but with extra heat stored on the system from the imbalance the GHG cause. This is the putative cause of the temperature rise.
The idea of radiation imbalance is firmly fixed in the literature and a lot of the climate discussion and the models we work off.
Ramanathan et al.
There is push back to the model from people who do not wish to believe in back radiation.
There are other models proposed which try to do away with the GHG effect.
The problem with these concepts is that a lot of the science works off radiation and back radiation models.
I am proposing an alternative way of looking at this concept raising 4 issues which should be easy for anyone to address and dispute if they wish.
The first issue is simple.
The SB law for an idealized black body means that the radiation coming in balances the radiation going.
The science behind this is simple.
When a heat source gives energy to a body that has no heat storage or heat production capacity that energy must go straight in and come straight out again.
There is no lag time and no storage of the energy.
The black body can only emit the energy if it is hot enough to do so.
The parts of the black body that absorb the radiation, being cold, emit it in smaller parcels of infrared at lower temperatures as it is absorbed.
and, if energy output is measured, give a temperature reading showing what energy it is losing [not storing].
The temperature is less than the heat source because the blackbody is theoretically instantly transmitting from all surfaces, so from a larger surface area than what absorbed the radiation.
The next issue is the Top of Atmosphere [TOA] which is the surface of the body with no atmosphere.
With an atmosphere the TOA is specified, by definition, as that level at which outgoing flux balance incoming flux.
It can either be stylized as a uniform height or considered more realistically for the earth as a layer of variable height very close to the surface away from the sun and fairly high when the sun is overhead.
The third issue is the GHG of which water is the most abundant with CO2 playing a minor but important role.
When the earths atmosphere receives radiation IR is absorbed on the way in and on the way out.
Practically speaking there is a lot of back radiation to the surface from the surface IR only.
The temperature of the earth at 288K is different to that of the surface of the moon despite the same distance and heat source.
This is due to the presence of an atmosphere with GHG and it’s albedo.
Despite having a lower albedo, hence more energy from the 1360 W/M2 the moon is colder on the theoretical construct of its temperature.
Finally the surface of the earth cannot be defined easily due to the presence of the atmosphere.
In a sense we have a multi level *60 kilometer deep surface layer to confuse issues.
This layer is at different temperatures generally getting colder as they get closer to the sun.
When speaking of a temperature of the earth the usual measurement is actually of the temperature of the air mass 6 feet above the earth surface and at the water surface.
It is this layer that is said to be at 288K and the air in this layer is said to be hotter due to it’s GHG component.
Now here is the issue in a nutshell.
We see that the surface air 288k and say that it is storing heat in it.
Further that adding extra GHG in the form of CO2 will cause further heat storage.
Finally this effect will continue until the oceans and atmosphere are able to store enough heat
to enable the heat coming in to equal the heat going out.
In other words the GHG have caused an energy imbalance where a large amount of extra heat has to be taken in,
to enable the atmosphere to warm up enough to balance the extra stored and trapped heat.
To this end there has been endless discussion of the TOA imbalance as the attempts to qualify this imbalance
continue. When it does not match ie more heat appears to be going out it is explained away by missing heat stored in the oceans.
The truth is much simpler.
The TOA flux is very difficult to measure with a large standard deviation error
This is due to inability to properly measure outgoing energy over cloudy areas by satellite.
Consequently some years a positive imbalance is calculated from observations and other years it is negative.
The TOA is a purely arbitrary concept. It is defined by being the level where flux is balanced.
Hence there can never be a TOA imbalance, positive or negative, measured. An imbalance cannot exist.
Furthermore to invoke Stefan Boltzmann, we know that the energy coming out of a non self heating body must match that going in.
The argument in absurdio is that if GHG or black bodies can actually store energy and continually get hotter,
That is what storage implies, then the black body will eventually get hotter than the sun, its source.
These two concepts prove that there is no imbalance possible in two different undeniable ways.
Please feel free to try to shoot them down.
Now the issue, we must have an imbalance because the air is warmer and storing heat.
GHG are there and it is definitely warmer than the moon.
The fact that an object can get hotter and colder does not mean that it stores heat.
No object stores heat naturally.
No object traps heat naturally.
This is hard to accept but scientifically correct.
All objects are constantly losing energy unless they have a heat source putting energy in.
Heat is said to be stored in the oceans but practically this is not so.
Take an ice block.
take a cubic kilometer of sea water
Put them in deep space.
Both lose heat and will continue to lose heat until it is virtually all gone.
They cannot store heat.
The oceans only have hot and cold areas because the sun heats the surface level up and currents distribute where it radiates from.
Without the sun both would just keep continuing losing energy.
The apparent heat of any object is just the temperature of the radiation that it has already emitted.
All the energy that we measure in the air, earth surface and top layer of sea has just come in from the sun and just gone out from the sun comes from that 70% of the 1360W/M2 average for the whole earth surface.
If we put the earth in Venus orbit it would be totally cloud covered within 24 hours and stay that way.
There is an incredible amount of energy coming in and out.
The atmosphere is warmer due to GHG, water and CO2.
Not because they trap or store heat but because they have to be at those temperatures to emit they radiation they receive.
Nitrogen and O2 molecules have a lot of motion which helps bump the IR emitting molecules. They are moving faster helping more heat being emitted but the surface where they came from is moving slower [is colder.
Everything is in balance.
There is no need for a TOA imbalance to put or store extra energy in a system [not that it can anyway].
The system is at the natural temperature it has to be to keep the incoming and outgoing energies equal.
I realize that this is unlikely to be read and is a bit too far off the beaten track.
Nonetheless if it sparks any interest at any stage it could be tidied up and made into a post.
Otherwise it will just wither away under < 1400 comments.