Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Dr. Strangelove

January 20, 2015, 12:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by ianl8888

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Agnostic

$

0

0

From your link:
IS GIA AN ERROR IN GRACE DATA?

No, it is not an error. It is a signal of great scientific interest in itself. GRACE observations, in particular when combined with GPS measurements of vertical surface deformation, have provided new and more accurate estimates of GIA models, and have led to refinements of ice-load histories. For studies of contemporary surface mass changes, the GIA signal must be removed from the GRACE observations. This is particularly important for estimates of Antarctic ice mass changes. The GIA corrections add some uncertainty for surface mass trends over the GRACE period; a canonical (and rather heuristic) uncertainty range of 20% is often assumed for GIA models.

In short:
The error is in GIA, not in GRACE data. For short-term mass changes (annual) GIA corrections are unnecessary. Remove GIA and the 20% error/uncertainty range is eliminated.

---

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by ianl8888

January 20, 2015, 12:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Dr. Strangelove

$

0

0

> There is no chance at all that the physics of complexity are captured by ideas of forcing

Yes

I once asked Lakis on this website a few years ago for an answer to that concept … his reply was unresponsive to the question

Chaotic, coupled, non-linear elements continually evolving in never-ending Navier-Stokes iterations. The only real prediction possible is that negative feedbacks will eventually undermine any single evolutionary direction

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

January 20, 2015, 12:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by ianl8888

$

0

0

Judith,

if you plug in the numbers from your paper with Nic Lewis into the change in GHGs over the period covered by the IPCC attribution statement, what proportion of temperature change is attributed to anthropogenic and what to natural?

Does your analysis support or contradict the IPPC?

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 12:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Basil Newmerzhycky

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

$

0

0

I don’t care about the semantics. I just want a clear answer and a clear explanation of what the weight of credible evidence says. Does the weight of credible evidence support the hypothesis that >50% of the global surface temperature increase since 1950 was caused by human’s GHG emissions?

Answer Yes or no?

Then provide a very succinct, clear, simple summary of the evidence in a way could be explained to a policy analyst, politician, and intelligent, interested, unbiased member of the public.

Is anyone who blogs on CE capable of meeting my request (while refraining from the usual abuse and snide remarks)?

Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Basil Newmerzhycky

January 20, 2015, 1:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Senator Ted Cruz:
“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that—that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.”

Dr Curry:
“So, what is wrong with Cruz’s statement?…… If he is referring to globally averaged surface temperatures since 2000, there is only a very small amount of warming; ”

Really????
The data disagrees.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by beththeserf

January 20, 2015, 1:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by Basil Newmerzhycky

$

0

0

+1 PL.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

January 20, 2015, 1:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Bob Tisdale

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by beththeserf

$

0

0

Peter,

good question, answer “Yes”.

In summary, even low estimates of sensitivity give >50% attribution to CO2 on the 1950-2010 timescale, plus there are patterns in the warming only explicable by greenhouse gases.

Details:

We can look at the CO2 rise 1950 – 2010 and estimate the temperature rise we would expect.

There are essentially three ways of estimating sensitivity to CO2 (TCR in this case):

1. GCMs
2. Paeloclimate (normally using last glacial maximum as a reference)
3. Observational Energy balance

The third of these gives the lowest estimates, so we’ll use that, with data from the Lewis and Curry paper.

Lewis and Curry give TCR 1.05 – 1.8 as the 17-83% range; TCR 1.33 is the midpoint

Plug the numbers in and you get:

TCR % of warming attributed to Co2
1.05 49%
1.33 62%
1.80 84%

(I’ve asked Judith in the post above what her analysis on this basis would show – she should be much better at this than I am)

So, quantitatively, even using low ball methodology, we get an attribution which confidently puts anthro at >50%

Qualitatively, we need to look at the fingerprints of warming.

With CO2, we’d expect tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. That’s exactly what we see. There are other fingerprints, but to my mind they are less conclusive individually, but convincing in aggregrate. See for instance http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

BTW I had an interaction with Gavin at Realclimate which might help you understand his position. Personally I find it rather confusing. But then I’m not a climate scientist.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/comment-page-2/#comment-589707

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Bob Tisdale

January 20, 2015, 1:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

$

0

0

curryja, sometimes it helps to use illustrations in discussions…and actual warming rates. I just happened to have this in my files.

Cheers

---

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

January 20, 2015, 1:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Bob Tisdale

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Bob Tisdale

$

0

0

Bob, you wrote:
Since NO ONE claims to be able to predict the variations in climate over ANY period

The consensus people do claim to be able to predict. They have not been successful.

I do claim to be able to predict. Just take the climate cycle of the past ten thousand years and project that forward. We are well inside the bounds of that prediction.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Bob Tisdale

January 20, 2015, 1:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

Oops. Typo in Title Block. 1950 should read 1951.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

January 20, 2015, 1:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Bob Tisdale

$

0

0

Watch for the next Earthshine report.
it will show a correlation between temperature and albedo that is already apparent with the plot that ends in 07

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

January 20, 2015, 1:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by gbaikie

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

The answer is NO. There is no evidence. There is only climate model output and that is not data and that is not evidence. That is unskilled forecasting.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by gbaikie

January 20, 2015, 1:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

How does global CO2 have to rise by 2050 to continue this trend?

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 1:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Ken Konetski

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by gbaikie

$

0

0

Bob,

Can you please explain what you interpret from this chart?

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Ken Konetski

January 20, 2015, 2:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

$

0

0

What is the IPCC meaning of “other anthropogenic forcings”? And if that forcing is greater than 50%, then the “greenhouse gas” contribution could be less than 25% according to the IPCC.

---

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

January 20, 2015, 2:01 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Ken Konetski

$

0

0

With no warming from manmade CO2, the historical record shows that after the roman and medieval warm periods, another warm period should have happened now. Nothing stopped that would have prevented this warm period from happening.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 2:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

VeryTallGuy,

Thank you for your response.

Do we know what caused the similar previous warmings, such as the Roman and Medieval warm periods?

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 2:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

$

0

0

I was writing my comment at the same time without seeing your comment

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

January 20, 2015, 2:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Peter,

the argument stands regardless of MWP attribution. I’d just note that a large and global MWP if proven implies a high TCR and therefore higher confidence in anthro attribution from 1950-2010.

Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

January 20, 2015, 2:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by verytallguy

$

0

0

verytallguy,

Second question, the calculations you quote are based on the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere between 2050 and now, right? Are we confident we know what proportion of the change in CO2 concentration is due to human activity?

What was the change in human caused concentration between 1950 and now?