Danny Thomas: Can you tell me of a source for “the new theory”?
Here are a couple of good recent books by Henk Dijkstra: “Nonlinear Physical Oceanography” and “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics”. The second is more pertinent to climate discussions; see especially the modeling and analysis of ENSO. Dijkstra cites Gihl, whom Rob Ellison cites a lot.
R. Gates | November 22, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
PA,
Seems you are going to great lengths to explain away some very simple facts– the system is accumulating energy and this year is going to be at or near the warmest year in the warmest decade on record. The only reasonable external forcing to explain all this is the steady increase in GH gases.
Well, the ocean takes a long time to come into equilibrium with a step change in forcing (impulse response). The 0.7-0.8 change in 20th century solar forcing took a while to warm the ocean. Claiming CO2 is the “only reasonable external forcing” is just dishonest.
There is room for a small CO2 forcing effect up to the nameplate value for CO2 alone forcing. CO2 (369 PPM in 2000) might have had up to a 0.27°C influence on global temperature in the 20th century.
Sadly, the far right reactionary elements of the GOP will likely continue the rapid pace of American decline in science overall. Not a good time to be a real scientist, but pseudoscience should have a golden age.
Put on your big boy pants pokerguy and face up to the challenges ahead. Humans need to own up to the responsibility of dominating this planet so extensively.
Wag – that’s actually a good bet. As evidence I give you exhibit “A” – Barack Obama.
Alex. De Toq. predicted this would happen as soon as Americans discovered they could vote themselves bennies out of the public treasury, like, for example, “free health care”. You can read about the power of free in Dan Ariely’s book “Predictably Irrational”.
Let the race to the bottom begin, where everyone finishes last!
IOW, business as usual.
“Are you saying CRU and the MET Office are pseudoscientific? Some here might agree. I coudn’t possibly comment. Apology required.”
—–
Tony, it is you who put the term “cooling” out there. It is pseudoscience to suggest the planet is in a “cooling” period. That would be pseudoscience spin. The hiatus, represented or represents a flattening to the rapid rise, but as we’ve seen this year, that flattening in no way translates to cooling.
From 1998 RSS shows a negative trend. Gistemp shows a positive trend. So does HadCrap4. So does NOAA.
If you add a trend from 1999, a La Nina year, the Gistemp trend increases a bit. That is to be expected.
RSS reverses from negative trend to positive. That’s nuts. It’s too sensitive to El Nino and La Nina, and it is insensitive to ENSO neutral. I think it’s borderline space junk.
I am sure Judith is as entertained as we are.
Yep. The dumbing down of ‘Merica continues.
The last article “The Greening of Obama” from Politico touches on Obama’s record on the environment. It is mixed according to many environmentalists, including me. He has been dragging his feet on pollution regulations and has taken a step back on endanger species protection.
The Center for Progressive Reform identified 13 areas that were in need of regulations and found Obama was late or not taking action on 11 of them.
http://www.progressivereform.org/13RulesHome.cfm
The Center for Biological Diversity is currently suing the Obama Administration for weakening the Endangered Species Act.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/endangered-species-act-06-27-2014.html
Agree! But my brain gets fried. Last weeks hasn’t fully stopped yet and here we have a new one! Reminds me of a cat with a catnip toy!
Anyone keeping score?
Mosomoso and Beth
Your sharp and literate minds cut through the gibberish; Alexander’s sword of tangled words.
Richard
Right, and before Buffalonians start whining about the flood, they should remember the flood will save Buffalo from an ice age.
I’m not sure people from Buffalo are called “Buffalonians.”
“Warmer is better.
After a record snow, a warming Buffalo braces for flooding.
Flooding is better ?”
—-
Both the snow and flooding result from a warming climate system. Real science can connect the dots, pseudoscience writes it off as “natural variability”.
JCH and jim2,
That is a plot of the temperature difference between ERSSTv3b and RSS LTL for the nino3.4 region. The average temperature of SST is ~300k and the average temperature of the LTL is ~279K, let’s call the SST apples and LTL apple juice. Climate Explorer doesn’t have the plain RSS lower stratosphere, but the shape of that temperature difference plot is very similar to the shape of the stratospheric cooling during the satellite era. In case you were wondering, the approximate energy difference between SST and LTL is 116 Wm-2. There is energy constantly flowing in and through the atmosphere. The energy flowing through the surface of the ocean isn’t always in synch with the energy flowing through the TLT. If you are using “surface” temperature as your frame of reference, the RSS data indicates a “Pause” in “surface” warming that coincides with the reduction in atmospheric sulfates. The oceans basically have shifted into an uptake mode. Isn’t that neat? You can compare two different measurements of two different things and get some information out of it!
Of course there are other satellites doing more direct measurements so you don’t really need to use MSU data as your personal atmospheric Wattmeter.
There have been satellites estimating OLR since 1974 which do a pretty good job.
If you do though, the old RSS and Reynolds oiV2 SST data ( with lower stratosphere inverted) anomalies looked like this. You could even use
the limited AQUA data to calibrate your Wattmeter. It would be nice if more of the data sets were available in absolute temperature instead of homogenized anomalies with absolute temperature guestimates of +/- a degree or three. .
Pretty good for Government work I think.
Now JCH, if you don’t like the “pause” remember that relates to the lower troposphere which is RSS and UAH’s turf. If you are concerned about OHC and changes in uptake, that would be SST and ARGO’s turf. If you really want to confuse yourself, use “surface” temperatures which are 70% ocean stuff and 30% lower troposphere stuff.
And since Nino has 4 regions and likely will need another one or two, you might want to think about the actual data instead of the “oscillation” based on a limited time frame since there appears to be a longer term trend that the keepers of the Nino will need to adjust here pretty soon.
The longer term trend, likely due to the grossly underestimated ocean bulk layer lag time, doesn’t produce the same atmospheric response that say over estimated 3x(2xCO2) forcing would produce. Aren’t you glad we gots lots of data to play with?
It would be helpful if the US NAS also reviewed a report [3] that radiation dangers from nuclear reactors have been grossly exaggerated:
3. Galen Winson, “The Nuclear Scare Scam (2012)”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA&feature=player_embedded
To me, this article seems to suggest something I’ve said a few times here at CE before – if we want to improve the lot of many in the developing world, we would first have to implement regime change, something we know from experience to be very expensive in terms of blood and money, and even after that expenditure, fails.
From the (long) article:
Stop Trying to Save the World
Big ideas are destroying international development
…
By 2007, less than two years after the grants came in, it was already clear these aspirations weren’t going to be met. A UNICEF report found pumps abandoned, broken, unmaintained. Of the more than 1,500 pumps that had been installed with the initial burst of grant money in Zambia, one-quarter already needed repair. The Guardian said the pumps were “reliant on child labour.”
…
Let’s not pretend to be surprised by any of this. The PlayPump story is a sort of Mad Libs version of a narrative we’re all familiar with by now: Exciting new development idea, huge impact in one location, influx of donor dollars, quick expansion, failure.
…
Over the last year, I read every book, essay, and roman à clef about my field I could find. I came out convinced that the problems with international development are real, they are fundamental, and I might, in fact, be one of them. But I also found that it’s too easy to blame the PlayPumps of the world. Donors, governments, the public, the media, aid recipients themselves—they all contribute to the dysfunction. Maybe the problem isn’t that international development doesn’t work. It’s that it can’t.
…
So international development sucks, right? I’ve just spent thousands of words telling you all the ways the incentives of donors, recipients, and NGOs contradict each other. Why not just scrap it altogether?
Because I don’t think that’s the conclusion these examples suggest. I think they suggest something much less dramatic: It’s not that development is broken, it’s that our expectations of it are.
…
If we really want to fix development, we need to stop chasing after ideas the way we go on fad diets. Successful programs should be allowed to expand by degrees, not digits (direct cash payments, which have shown impressive results in Kenya and Uganda, are a great candidate for the kind of deliberate expansion I’m talking about). NGOs need to be free to invest in the kinds of systems and processes we’re always telling developing countries to put in place. And rich countries need to spend less time debating how to divide up the tiny sliver of our GDP we spend on development and more time figuring out how to leverage our vast economic and political power to let it happen on its own.
As Owen Barder, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development (from whom I stole many of the ideas in this essay), puts it:
If we believe that trade is important, we could do more to open our own markets to trade from developing countries. If we believe property rights are important, we could do more to enforce the principle that nations, not illegitimate leaders, own their own natural resources. … If we believe transparency is important, we could start by requiring our own companies to publish the details of the payments they make to developing countries.
…
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120178/problem-international-development-and-plan-fix-it
“Dick Hertz | November 23, 2014 at 9:48 am | Reply
If the snow never melts, that means we have an ice age, so yes, flooding is much better than the alternative.”
—
True, but that ain’t gonna happen. Based on their geographic location, what the region should prepare for is some extreme swings in weather fir an extended period, as Elongated Rossby waves alternate rounds of warmth and cold at the limits of historic records.
Peter Lang believes the best way for India to prepare for the future is to pollute as much as possible. Peter, have you lost your mind?
