JCH,
And of course, both La Niña, and El Niño, are caused by increased levels of that evil CO2 in the atmosphere, are they?
Don’t tell me nobody knows! How can this be?
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Mike Flynn
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by ulriclyons
phil said
“However the “solar brigade” run the risk of sharing in the same error when they too consider the climate passive and every wiggle of temperature attributable to some discreet external forcing.”
I have been forecasting those little wiggles in the NAO and associated regional temperatures since 2008. The error is in assuming that they are internal.
phil said:
“It is beyond any doubt that a large dissipative open system with obvious chaotic dynamics such as the climate, is subject to internally driven nonlinear oscillations over a wide range of time scales.”
Not so as the ocean modes are driven by atmospheric teleconnections that are solar forced at down to daily scales.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by JCH
How can it be? Easy.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Stephen Segrest
Tea Party types categorize me and other like me (including Jeb Bush when he says things they don’t like) as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Tea Party type comments like below are not helpful in trying to have a national dialogue on AGW.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by jim2
Yep. I can see you consider freedom of speech a pain in your A$$.
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by ordvic
According to Wikipedia Revelle never changed his view. He was tricked by Singer to sign onto an article Singer had written a year earlier. He just didn’t want to spend ‘trillions’ on the problem but had his own ideas of mitigation.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Salvatore del Prete
My explanation philsalmon. Commentary appreciated. I was impressed with your post..
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
. My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is/ average global temperature) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.
The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.
The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.
QUESTIONS:
Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it's mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it's mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
.
Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness.
NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/ inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Bad Andrew
“trying to have a national dialogue on AGW”
LOL
Andrew
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Stephen Segrest
Barnes: I really don’t care what President Obama says. I’m listening to “good faith skeptics” — Scientists like Dr. Curry and Conservative Politicians like Senator Lindsey Graham. Many Tea Party types are showing “bad faith”.
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Salvatore del Prete
The system could well be a “weakly forced nonlinear oscillator” in which a range of external forcings (solar, tidal, Milankovich etc.) interact with the systems own nonlinear oscillations and resonances to yield the end result of an almost intractably complex climate
My reply is yes, I agree with this. When the climate is in a given regime randomness can cause small fluctuations within that climate regime. Maybe plus.5c to -.5 c
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Stephen Segrest
Jim2 — When Democrats make incendiary statement you and others here at CE go ballistic. But when Republican (usually Tea Party types) do this, you cite free speech.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by ordvic
It came from Moshers comment that he was replying to.
↧
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by Mike Bromley
I work in the region. And the locals tell me that 2013 was a bumper crop year in at least the Kurdish region of Iraq. The long lineups of grain trucks bulging to the gunwales tends to confirm that. And, like California, the Mesopotamia-Zagros-Taurus region is NATURALLY semiarid. Why? no water. Or, more precisely, no precipitation. For part of the year. But the growing season, November to May, is sodden in some measure every year. To pretend to coax a “Climate Change Cause” out of this region’s woes is, well, pointless and spin-infested blathering.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists can be wrong? That they are
human? Next you’ll be trying to tell they don’t have brains twice as big as ordinary people!
Mind you, I’m sure that climatologists will have no trouble providing experimental support for their conclusions, to a significance of at least 5 sigma.
I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting, though.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
“I’d like to know how it is possible to warm the lower atmosphere without increasing the heat transfer rate by any mode to the upper atmosphere or to space.”
How is it possible to warm your bed without increasing the rate of heat loss to air? You put another blanket on.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by climatereason
Attp
The figure ‘more than half’ is used on page 884 last para on left hand side.
That is somewhat different to the emboldened statement in your post at 2 .22 quoting the SPM. That wording is far more unequivocal than the more measured wording in chapter 10 .
Phil jones admitted in his paper of 2006 that natural variability was greater than he had hitherto realised when examining the enormous hockey stick from 1695 to 1740 when the winter of that year was in brutal contrast to the preceding warm period.
The met office are also more open to the idea of considerable natural variability than they were five years ago when their web site stated that climate was virtually constant before mans input.In that respect opinion is moving towards that expounded by lamb which has been somewhat sidelined over the past thirty years.
Are you aware of Phil jones’ paper?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by ...and Then There's Physics
So again we return to the form of the words it in passage that lacks the precision of even ordinary English.
Maybe you don’t understand it, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Here’s the simple point, though. If someone says “all they said is X” and someone else points out that they didn’t only say X, the response to make – if you want to take this further- is “okay, they didn’t only say X, can we now discuss if X is correct or not”, not “but X isn’t correct”.
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Mike Flynn
ATTP,
This is what you quoted –
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
You will note it doesn’t specify what type of anthropogenic forcings apart from GHG concentrations are involved, or the ratio between them.
What are some examples of the non GHG anthropogenic forcings? What proportion of total forcings are they?
Or is it all just a giant mistake?
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by ...and Then There's Physics
Mike,
Google “AR5 radiative forcing diagram” and then go to images. One of the first diagrams should be the AR5 radiative forcing diagram which shows all external radiative forcings, including all the different anthropogenic ones.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by ...and Then There's Physics
Mike,
The figure ‘more than half’ is used on page 884 last para on left hand side.
That is somewhat different to the emboldened statement in your post at 2 .22 quoting the SPM. That wording is far more unequivocal than the more measured wording in chapter 10 .
I’m not really following you. The analysis suggests that it is more than half and that it is likely (66% percent chance, IIRC) about 90% (0.6) to about 120% (0.8) of the observed warming. That sounds like the best estimate (peak of the distribution at about 0.7C) would be similar to the observed warming for the period 1951-2010.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
