Alan Millar, you are confusing radiative forcing with TSI. They are different by a factor of exactly 4.
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by David Springer
Is it fair to now characterize the science as not settled now that we have Hansen saying there’s a pause and Perlwitz denying it?
The ironic part in all this there are almost certainly more deniers of plain fact and first principles in the alarmist camp than anywhere else. Now we find out exactly how many more. Hansen is now scratched off my denier list but remains on the “less than fully engaged with reality” list.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Jim D
The “skeptics” seem to have ruled out that the pause is due to natural variability like a negative PDO phase, so we have to deal with their new way of thinking about or ignoring natural variability now. It is a moving target. One decade they like it, next they don’t.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by gbaikie
Question in world with say 5 times the CO2 [2000 ppm]
how much H2O greenhouse gas is there?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D
gbailkie, the world would be 7 degrees warmer than today, and so H2O vapor would increase by about 60%.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by gbaikie
“The “skeptics” seem to have ruled out that the pause is due to natural variability like a negative PDO phase, so we have to deal with their new way of thinking about or ignoring natural variability now. It is a moving target. One decade they like it, next they don’t.”
I think we have been warming since 1850 and will probably continue warming beyond end of the century.
But the warming due to CO2 is indistinguishable. That claim of finding human fingerprints on global warming were in error.
I believe if we were doing real climate science, we might be able to detect such fingerprints. Instead we have had palm reading being passed off as science.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by David Springer
David Wojick | January 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
Actually Max, Jan is (finally) making a well known argument, possibly several arguments lumped together. The chief one seems to be that the time interval in question is so short that noise is masking the trend. That is an empirical argument not a statistical one.
The too short time interval is almost his exact words so I guess that’s a fair restatement. If he’s consistent then he should concede that the 34-year trend in the satellite record now stands at ~0.13C/decade and every additional year of “pause” reduces it further. This amount of warming is not enough to be alarmed about. It must accelerate going forward or it’ll only be 1.3C warmer in the year 2100. I think everyone knows this and the alarmist case is falling apart fast. This isn’t the 1990′s anymore and mother nature is NOT cooperating with predictions of accelerating warming. The trend is decelerating and that’s a problem for the consensus.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Jim D
Actually, Arrhenius could have predicted that the warming would occur a century ago if he knew how CO2 would grow, so it is coming to pass as it could have been foreseen in his day with even simple physics and gas data. He didn’t even require a temperature record or global climate models to make his prediction.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Jan P Perlwitz
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289712
“Your last post simply confirms that you are still in denial regarding the “standstill” in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” over the past decade”
About what am I allegedly “in denial”? Your “standstill” here is just the fact that one can’t statistically detect a warming trend in the mentioned temperature anomaly over the short time period of the recent decade. Why would I be “in denial” about this? Your assertion is absurd, since this fact was part of my argument in the comment which you reference here. I said such a thing has happened many times before.
As much as the fact about the non-detectability of a warming trend on the short time period is true, it is by itself without consequence, scientifically. However, you assert a specific conclusion from this fact. You assert that the non-detectability of a warming trend within the limited data set is sufficient to conclude an absence of a warming trend. And THAT is scientifically flawed reasoning. It’s a non-sequitur. It is not sufficient, because you also would have to show that the statistical trend estimate, which gives you Zero- or negative warming over the recent time period is not just something spurious due to the very noisy character of the limited data, masking a signal that you may see when your data sample is larger.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Actually, Arrhenius could have predicted that the warming would occur a century ago if he knew how CO2 would grow, so it is coming to pass as it could have been foreseen in his day with even simple physics and gas data.”
I believe he did, in his unpublished correction, 1.6 (2.1 with water vapor) is pretty much right on time considering his starting conditions. Then there was still enough glacial area and snow fields for feedback back then. That snow and glacial ice thermal mass does play a role beyond albedo.
Shame his correction was never published.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by David Springer
Jim D | January 27, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
“The “skeptics” seem to have ruled out that the pause is due to natural variability like a negative PDO phase, so we have to deal with their new way of thinking about or ignoring natural variability now. It is a moving target. One decade they like it, next they don’t.”
Straw man. Many skeptics including myself believed that the rising side of the AMDO was being counted as anthropogenic and that when the falling side arrived this would show that positive feedback from water vapor is a myth and sensitivity is the 1.1C that modtrans predicts.
I go one step further and say even 1.1C is the theoretical maximum over dry land and where there’s water available to evaporate sensitivity at the surface where we live and breathe is much less. I predict the top of the clouds will be 100 meters higher per CO2 doubling and that cloud tops will be the same temperature as before. The saturated lapse rate will be reduced beneath the clouds and increased above them with little change in ocean surface temperature.
As of now the consensus estimate of ocean warming is total basin up by 0.02C per decade. This too must accelerate to be any concern. Trenberth was candid when he called it a travesty. Too bad candor like that seems to be confined to private conversations and that’s yet another travesty.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Jim D
capt. d., yes, the even more correct radiative transfer numbers and atmospheric data using his self-same theory give 3 degrees per doubling. He didn’t have those numbers, however. Good that you agree, however. It was a well established mechanism a century ago that is now coming true, so when “skeptics” say attributing things in hindsight can’t be trusted, it makes a difference when it was actually forecast by a theory that existed before any of it happened, doesn’t it. Scientific progress is based on theoretical predictions coming true.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by JCH
Actually it was my idea for Jim Cripwell to put his questions to Issac Held or SoD. Willard picked it up and ran with it.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Jim D
The no-feedback sensitivity requires the ocean not to warm, so it comes down to whether the ocean warms in this century or whether PDOs and things like growing OHC conspire to prevent it (doubtful IMO). Meanwhile the land will continue to warm, probably more than the no-feedback sensitivity because it has to maintain the radiative balance on its own, so we don’t get out of warming that way. Certainly it would get drier over land, though, if the oceans didn’t keep up.
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by David Springer
Saying all that CO2 had zero impact on global warming is not correct. The falling side of the AMDO in the past has been accompanied by global cooling in the instrument record. That’s why global cooling was becoming a concern by 1970. Temperature started falling in 1940 or so. The next 10 years get real interesting because it should reveal the actual underlying trend. Maybe we’ll see some global cooling or maybe not. Since 2010 there’s been quite rapid cooling on the order of negative 1C per decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend
None on the alarmist side want to talk about the past 3 years other than shrugging it off as back-to-back La Nina’s like they have some evidence that we can’t two more of those in the next several years without any big El Nino’s to counterbalance them. The next several years should be interesting.
None on the
↧
Comment on Hansen on the ‘standstill’ by Jan P Perlwitz
David Springer wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289721
“Is it fair to now characterize the science as not settled now that we have Hansen saying there’s a pause and Perlwitz denying it?”
You are misrepresenting what James Hansen said. He explicitly stated that background global warming continues. He attributed the “apparent standstill” not of global warming, but of the 5-year running mean of the global surface temperature anomaly over the last decade, which is a statement about a technical fact and not the same as the whole process of global warming, mostly to natural variability on this time scale and some contribution to a saturation effect in the greenhouse gas forcing. The wording matters. You have to be aware that James Hansen’s understanding of what global warming is, is much broader than this was just all about some increase in the global surface temperature anomaly.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by omanuel
Happy Hominans are some of the benefits of a decision on 24 Oct 1945 to establish the United Nations – as Brady noted:
http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/best-year-ever/
Veracity in science and in democratic government were sacrificed for those benefits, as George Orwell forecast in the futuristic novel he wrote on his deathbed in 1946:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
I am preparing background information on 1945-46 events that generated the current debates over AGW, constitutional limits on government, illegal immigration, etc.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Max, “BBD
My goodness!
You seem to be getting a bit testy!
Control your emotions, BBD.”
He just needs dinner and a nap :)
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Update by BBD
Cap’n
All I want from you is a coherent explanation of why OHC has increased over three decades when TSI fell, if, as you argue, TSI is the principle driver of modern warming.
If you cannot provide one (and let’s face it, you can’t because none exists), then it would be appropriate for you to accept your error.
Then we can get back to parsimonious *reasoning* instead of weighing out the fairy dust.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Rob Starkey
Tony
Do you believe that there is a better long term summary of sea level worldwide than Exxon/Hallam? From what I read it seemed widely accepted.
↧
