Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4049 | 4050 | (Page 4051) | 4052 | 4053 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    A few months back Macron was showing up Trump on the world stage about climate change. Now he's back on the world stage trying to save the planet. Or Paris, or his job.

    0 0

    Ron, while critics of Mann or PAGES don't show alternatives, critics of those critics can say the effects of what they say are just small and don't affect the basic result, and they have no defense against that. Maybe it is only small. Who would know otherwise? I think the MWP is established for the northern continents, but it fades when other global data is added. The Holocene Optimum is much more robust. For effective TCR, I have addressed your points before. 1. CO2 forcing is now increasing at 0.3 W/m2/decade, which is larger than any other forcing change rate earlier in the record. The sun can't do more than about 0.1 W/m2/decade. 2. 1910-1940 is often brought up, a period when the sun went from its 1910 lull to its most active of the century by about 1950. While CO2 can't alone account for the rise rate with its 0.2 W/m2 change, when you add in this strengthening sun adding maybe 0.1-0.2 W/m2 over this period, it becomes easy to. Skeptics ironically ignore that the sun could have had such an additive effect when they keep raising this question about that specific period. Perhaps they are not familiar with changes in solar activity in the 20th century, but I have said this many times before here. Since mid-century the sun has returned to a lull and probably lost that 0.1-0.2 W/m2 again, but with CO2 alone rising at 0.3 W/m2 per decade, and 1.5 W/m2 total since 1950, the solar part has little effect anymore compared to being able to double or cancel the CO2 effect earlier in the 20th century. The growth of aerosols up to about 1970 was another factor that slowed CO2 growth. So, yes, we could look at earlier periods, but the forcing changes (~0.1 W/m2/decade at most) were fairly anemic compared to what they have been since about 1980. 75% of he total forcing change has occurred since 1950, so that is where its effect is the most obvious and where we have accurate enough numbers to gauge a sensitivity.

    0 0

    Heather Heying formerly of Evergreen State interviewed by Dave Rubin. It's good.

    0 0

    The IDW. Moderate and correct. What are they doing?

    0 0

    "Trump just happened to come along at the right time. He didn’t cause all this...Republicans are now the party of the working class" Very true. While tactically unintended, Trump is an agitator which by nature is a catalyst for change. His instincts are generally in-line with near 50% of the population whose wishes have been unsatisfied for decades. But Trump's political acumen is undisciplined; which is both a strength and weakness. Overall he represents a dangerous, uncontrollable force against elitism, a plus IMO. There are no tentacles from lobbyists controlling Trump, he channels the energy from his base who are mostly aligned with his policies (beliefs they've had before Trump came on the scene rather than a belief in Trump himself). It's what makes Trump's support unrelenting, unwavering, and too, why over 90% of MSM reporting is negative. He's essentially an existential threat to the elitism that the MSM is paid to represent. The MSM is simpatico with global elitism mostly; either bought and paid for, or sycophantical by nature of collectivist indoctrination. The Left for decades has tactically implemented agitation as a catalyst, synergistic to propaganda, to facilitate change. This has historically been a formulaic program. Agitation is a force multiplier the Left has understood all too well (see Alinksy/Goebbels), they understand ideological threats. The war plays out over a mostly unsuspecting population.

    0 0

    Jim, you do indeed have some new unique climate facts that I was not aware of. Links would be appreciated for my further education. Although it seems like you have all the skeptics questions all buttoned up I hope you wouldn't mind just a couple more. 1) If the only significant climate drivers are CO2, aerosols and solar, everything else being a feedback, how do you account for the LIA? If your answer is solar you are at odds with Pages2K's and many other's analysis, regardless to the Maunder Minimum. 2) If you accept Ljungqvist huge and prominent oscillations, even if just for the NH, how do you account for an entire hemisphere to behave in such a way? If it was solar then it would be influencing both hemispheres simultaneously. Then how could the climate effects be limited to a single hemisphere when the sun shines on both? 3) Did the IPCC know what you know about solar influence in 1992? If so, wouldn't they have accounted for that in their projected range of warming of 0.2-0.5C/dec? How did they miss by so much, the actual warming since then being ~0.13C/dec, especially since this was not a weak solar activity period? 4) Are you interested in submitting your paper to Nic for his thoughts when you are ready? Do you think that could strengthen your work?

    0 0

    OK, some answers. 1) LIA. The LIA as shown by PAGES2k is the low point, just before GHGs and other anthropogenic changes (possibly landuse) started the warming trend. Why was the climate cooling between the Holocene Optimum and LIA? This was consistent with the phase of the Milankovitch precession cycle where the current state favors the Arctic glaciers and sea ice more than at the time when the last Ice Age ended. So the LIA would have been part of a continued cooling through now had not we intervened, but the trend was only ~0.1-0.2 C per thousand years, and we would not be much colder than the LIA at that rate. 2) Asymmetry in global temperatures. It is easy to imagine that changing ocean circulations with accompanying feedbacks on ice sheets could cause asymmetries between hemispheres. Along with Milankovitch forcing changes, there are likely some dynamic interactions at work, and the global temperature will not change monolithically. The global cooling of the 1960's-70's was primarily a NH phenomenon, especially the west Atlantic. Some say AMO, some say aerosols. Ljungqvist only claims to be averaging the northern extratropical continents, so that would probably be about 25% of the global area. Don't take that as global variability. 3) There has always been a lot of uncertainty about solar forcing prior to actual measurements. The changes I mentioned are within the ranges suggested and represent solar changes of 1 part in 1000. We know from the Maunder Minimum that solar changes can be important. As for the IPCC, I don't know what their forcing assumptions were, so I can't comment. Projections depend critically on those assumptions in addition to the climate sensitivity. If we have more aerosols or volcanoes or a weaker sun than projected, those can be off as much as a tenth or so degrees. 4) Nic's way of doing things is to add uncertain assumptions of his own, so he won't like methods that remove the need for those and just rely on more certain data.

    0 0

    "This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures -- three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that's effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases." https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation The 'solutions' haven't changed.

    0 0

    […] a need for experts to disentangle disputed facts from identity-defining group commitments.” {See Curry’s article for more about this […]

    0 0

    interesting insights

    0 0

    Most reasonable people are by now surely long past the point of regarding government climate 'science' as the genuine article (sincerely looking into all avenues for truth). Rather, it's seen as being on a mission to scare the public into accepting a bigger role for its funder by whatever bias is at hand. (Which is not to say the whole (C)AGW issue is made up, just that it's being hijacked and skewed into being Advocacy Science). To supporters this corruption of science in service of a 'greater' cause a virtue, to detractors a vice. Hence the intractable debate.

    0 0

    Yes people who want to pretend there is nothing <i>to</i> debate, can be expected to decline debate.

    0 0

    > critics of Mann or PAGES don’t show alternatives I seem to recall the basic criticisms were use of trees known to be unreliable, and cherry-picking algorithms. You don't need to com up with alternatives to a flawed approach, to show it is flawed. You merely point out the flaws. That's what peer review ought to do.

    0 0

    The C part of CAGW is false. Global warming is probably beneficial. Therefore, there is no valid justification for policies to abate CO2 emissions.

    0 0

    […] Curryn mainiosta viikkokatsauksesta joulukuun alusta löytyy useampiakin mainitsemisen arvoisia viittauksia (Linkki). Otan tähän […]

    0 0

    I haven't had time to follow this post too closely but I did note the use of the term "Oreskeist," which I like. Without having seen this term I came up with "Oreskianism," which is clumsier but which hearkens back to Lysenkoism. In essence, the Oreskeist method, or Oreskianism, seeks to promote its theory by erasing dissent through a variety of means. Paul Krugman's recent opinion piece is a good example of how Oreskianism gets filtered down to non-scientists, as dissenters have been considered depraved for some time now. "Do not listen to dissenters" is the message, and it's working very well. I formed by idea of Oreskianism by reading William Happer, who compared climate science to Lysenkoism. Right on!

    0 0

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/21/attention-scott-pruitt-red-teams-and-blue-teams-are-no-way-to-conduct-climate-science/?utm_term=.e0bf6a50e84c The above link is to an opinion piece by Oreskes, Santer, and Emanuel in which they explicitly state that climate science is transparent, yet the entire point of the essay is to argue against scrutiny. Oreskianism at work.

    0 0

    Jim, thanks. I have some followup. 1) LIA. You say the LIA was just before GHGs and other anthropogenic changes. In other words the recovery of the LIA, which started in ~1720, was due to industrial GHG from ~1840. But in another part of your analysis you say that GHG forcing was not even significant until 1950 or 1968, so the prior temperature record could be sliced off from consideration. You said the rise from 1910-1945 (~0.3C) was due to solar. How could LIA recovery starting in 1720-1750 have been anthropogenic (going from 278ppm-278.1pp) when a few hours before you claimed that AGW was not significant in 1920-1950 (going from ~295-~305ppm? You also say the "LIA was consistent with the phase of the Milankovitch precession cycle where the current state favors the Arctic glaciers and sea ice more than at the time when the last Ice Age ended." Actually, I understand the precession, being a 26,000-year cylce has not significantly changed since the LIA, we still use Polaris and the north star. And since the perihelion is during the NH winter is favors antarctic ice, not arctic. 2) You wrote: "Asymmetry in global temperatures. It is easy to imagine that changing ocean circulations with accompanying feedbacks on ice sheets could cause asymmetries between hemispheres. Along with Milankovitch forcing changes, there are likely some dynamic interactions at work, and the global temperature will not change monolithically." Jim, I understand your position, like Mann's, (and others in big climate,) is that the climate is static except for the very gradual orbital influence over the last 10,000 years. In this way you accept the Holocene Optimum as the peak of that influence and the LIA as the current natural state if not for AGW. So under this scenario would you abandon your hypothesis if presented proof that the MWP was a global event? What about if the numbers did not add up for the models to be able to reproduce a recovery from the LIA with AGW? Would that dissuade you? 3) On solar and IPCC AR1's 35-year forecast you wrote: "There has always been a lot of uncertainty about solar forcing prior to actual measurements... We know from the Maunder Minimum that solar changes can be important. As for the IPCC, I don’t know what their forcing assumptions were, so I can’t comment." Jim, there is no IPCC consensus the Maunder Minimum being a significant contributor to the LIA. But if there was they would then need to have to be able to have confidence that it would not happen again. Are you certain that the IPCC's poor knowledge of solar variability was the explanation for their failed projection for decadal warming? 4) Jim, you stated that you would be reluctant to have Nic review your work as you disagree with his assumptions. The reason I had asked this question is that it is sort of a test. In science one needs to love their hypothesis enough to subject it to the harshest environment for testing. If not, then one is not doing good science but instead protecting a faith. In fact, many of my questions have the tenor of one who is poking another's faith. And I must praise you for not bristling as I suspect it's unpleasant. Your continued polite replies and allowing the conversation to progress is commendable and appreciated.

    0 0

    […] https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/03/politics-of-climate-expertise-2/#more-24547 […]

    0 0

    […] https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/03/politics-of-climate-expertise-2/#more-24547 […]

older | 1 | .... | 4049 | 4050 | (Page 4051) | 4052 | 4053 | .... | 4134 | newer