Articles on this Page
- 12/14/18--12:47: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--13:07: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--13:21: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--13:33: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--13:48: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--14:00: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--15:24: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--15:28: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--15:30: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--15:44: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--16:17: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--21:04: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--21:25: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--22:42: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--23:11: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/14/18--23:14: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/15/18--01:20: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/15/18--14:42: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/15/18--14:43: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/15/18--14:55: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/15/18--14:42: Comment on Week in review – science edition by douglasproctor
- 12/15/18--14:43: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/15/18--14:55: Comment on Week in review – science edition by douglasproctor
Where were the adults in the room?
That doesn’t apply to just that room or that university but to all of climate science. Indeed, where have they been when they were needed most. Only plausible conclusion:MIA.
Nic Lewis' conceptual Earth system science framework - that lends itself to simple statistical procedures - is too narrow to be credible. At the paradigm level he neglects dynamical complexity that is the dominant science paradigm - as well the emergent catastrophic climate meme.
Neglect of multidecadal modes of deterministically chaotic climate change - and the assumption that only sustained forcing can change climate - lead to unrealistic correlations between global surface temperature and greenhouse gases.
"Since secular signals based on CMIP5 simulations are dominated by the forced response (section Forced vs. internal secular variability in climate models), their (scaled) subtraction from the observed secular temperature signal represents an estimate of the internal secular variability in the observed climate, with the total of 111 such estimates obtained using different historical CMIP5 simulations considered... The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale."
Not to mention - well mentioned twice before in this post - the 'lensing effect' of black carbon and sulfate that more than doubles the warming potential of black carbon. Something that requires regional scale atmospheric chemistry models - and data at the correct scale - to get right.
The simplest and cheapest way - using existing technology - to reduce warming is to reduce both black carbon and sulfate emissions.
And the land sink in restoring soils, forest, rangelands, wetlands and reclaiming desert is in the hands of people.
The data says CO2 has little if any effect on climate. Temperature is now about what it was in 2002. CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002. By similarity, none of the other ghg (except water vapor) have any significant effect on climate either. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuaFJw7VYAEz-mU.jpg
Nic: Thanks for the reply. I sometimes have difficulty seeing the concepts and big picture through the forest of numbers in your posts. (I actually moved some of your info to a table in Excel: concept, units, values, because things are much clearer to me in that format.) When I saw that your ECRE was half of your TCRE, I had no conceptual framework that let me assimilate this startling conclusion until I skimmed Goodwin. (I included the above quote for those who were having as much difficult as I was.) I gather you think Goodwin is overly pessimistic.
After some thought, I find equilibrium far easier to understand than transient. At equilibrium pre-industrially, we had something like 0.6, 2.1 and 3.9 TtC - about 1.4% in the air. What happens when we add another 2 TtC to the system. To a first approximation, it will distribute at equilibrium in the same ratio as it did pre-industrially. Then we can correct for rising pH and temperature in the ocean and perhaps for rising temperature on land. I gather that the Revelle factor means that new CO2 is being distributed about 1:10 between air and ocean (rather than at the current ratio of 0.15:10) due to rising pH. In principle, I should be able to express the distribution between ocean and air (and pH) as a function of total alkalinity, total carbon and some equilibrium constants.
You and others are interested in both transient and equilibrium responses, so your explanations are more complicated. The same is true for ECS and TCR: If our planet emits and reflects 2 W/m2 more LWR and SWR after warming 1 degK (2 W/m2/K), finding ECS is a simple problem. TCR is more complicated.
This post describes a very different future than the vague concepts about rising airborne fraction due to "saturating sinks" I had previously acquired. Thank you again.
[…] Judith Curry’s opinion piece, reposted on […]
One thing to bear in mind is how left wing Washington has become. Our attorney general is very activist left wing bringing all kinds of frivolous law suits against the Feds and anyone else who is not green enough.
The problem here Peter I suspect is that a scientist (even a senior one) who is just trying to do his job may feel genuine fear of the legal consequences of running afoul of activist State, County, and City officials
I do admire Cliff Mass though for having personal courage and integrity. It's fantastic to see him standing up for himself.
This is of course not a new social dynamic - and Cliff Mass is a big boy who has been defending himself for years against scatter brained AGW fanatics.
"The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Scientific opinion on climate change was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the years 1971–2001.
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A]
Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations; the consensus has strengthened over time and is now virtually unanimous. The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."
Any deviation from their consensus leads to excoriation in the nastiest, mean spirited, close minded and bad faith ways imaginable. Any hint of dynamical complexity and uncertainty draws their misplaced but vehement ire. How Sarah Myhre fails to draw the link between her paleoclimatological tipping points and the potential for extreme but natural variability is beyond me.
But Cliff Mass is right in another way as well. They have not a skerrick of a practical response in mind. The answer - whatever the question - is to to build prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes. The best means is free markets and fiscally conservative government - the biggest risk is market mismanagement.
... the wikipedia link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
We might have to rejig CERES and Argo for you.
Mind you - it looks almost entirely like low level cloud cloud - more IR up and SW down - but I couldn't discount greenhouse gases entirely.
TCRE does not depend on the CO2 fraction of forcing. It is just global temperatures and CO2 emissions.
"The transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE) is the ratio of the globally averaged surface temperature change per unit carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted".
I see that I entered the link incorrectly: It should be https://www.ecns.cn/2017/11-10/280408.shtml
With respect to your comments about the lifetimes of stratospheric and tropospheric, SO2 aerosol emissions, the short lifetimes of tropospheric emissions applies ONLY to intermittent sources, where they have time to wash out of the air.
The reality, however, is that almost all .anthropogenic SO2 emitters, such as power plants, factories, foundries, home eating units, shipping, internal combustion engines, etc., etc. are relatively continuous sources, so that they have essentially infinite lifetimes, ending only when they are modified to reduce emissions, or are shut down. As fast as they are washed out of the air, they are replaced.
Robert I. Ellison:
You said "To suggest that there is no casual relation between greenhouse gasses and atmospheric warming is fooling yourself in the Feynman sense"
No, you are the one fooling yourself. Unless I am mistaken, you can cite no falsifiable evidence that there is any casual relationship between greenhouse gasses and atmospheric warming.
"In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general
induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding
any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena
occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions." Isaac Newton
Perhaps the best understanding of 'denialism' is the denying that what government climate scientists, do bears any more than a passing resemblance to science / the scientific method.
The debate - there is almost zero chance of that occurring in any country. There has not been one change in the IPCC forward direction. POTUS Trump has just been an inconvenience. The Dems will be back soon. They will make up for lost ground.
Cliff Mass is still free to say whatever he wishes, just not at that university. This is not that unusual in the corporate world. Does the Boss not have a right to maintain a direction and protect the universities interests.
Thanks for the corrected link. Table S1 of the Supplementary information for the underlying paper (Li et al 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14639-8) appears to show a decline in China's SO2 emissions of 10.4 Mt between 2014 and 2016 (from 18.8 to 8.4), not 29.1 Mt. Figure 1 shows a slightly larger reduction, but its 2015 and 2016 values are projected emissions, not actual measured values. A subsequent paper (Karplus et al 2018: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/27/7004) has cast doubt on the accuracy of the emissions data used in the Li et al paper, suggesting that many emitters may not actually have achieved the reductions that they reported.
You say that antropogenic SO2 emissions are continuous and that "As fast as they are washed out of the air, they are replaced." That is true. But if they take a week to be washed out and 0.5 Mt is emitted per week, then the amount in the atmosphere at any time is only 0.5 Mt but the annual emissions are 52 times as much, or 26 Mt.
"Re-evaluating the ocean conveyor belt"
Another example of half-thinking: under CAGW, the Arctic waters fail to sink because the incoming waters are not dense enough due to fresh water influx. But if the sinking/not sinking is determined by the DIFFERENCE in densities between the tropical and non-tropical marine areas, as the tropic water warm and become less dense (temperature and [?] more rainfall), the current density difference is maintained, or at least partly maintained.
Circulation would stop only if the Arctic surface density equaled the deeper density, AND the tropical lateral density difference became zero. The deep water movement from the Arctic to the tropical areas would cease only if the pressure difference between the Arctic water column equaled the tropical water column - there would be no force to move Arctic bottom water to the tropics.
CAGW or simply global warming does not involve a single variable changing. Shutting down the ocean circulation system would not result from a just Arctic waters freshening or warming as CAGW/AGW has other, mitigating or countervailing changes.
But detail, depth or nuance ruins headlines and the need to have 20,000 people get free trips and goodies in foreign places more than once per year. Or sell newspapers or raise share prices.
Going with everything she wants means we spend more on government than we make. There is a limit.
"Outer space may have gotten a bit closer"
What would be more useful technically would be to know, through his research, if the altitude at which atmospheric drag becomes a problem has changed. According to the sun-atmosphere, global climate change thinking, non-standard TSI influences due to sunspots, magnetic field variations, impact atmospheric circulations and energy content. If his research shows variation in the "problem" height that is correlatable to any other atmospheric variation, there may be a causative reason worth determination. Which could influence the temperature and weather pattern changes we are told will, on extrapolation, will begin to destroy the biosphere in 12 years, or maybe just by 2100, it is hard to tell what the timeline is any more.