Articles on this Page
- 12/20/18--15:23: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/20/18--15:35: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/20/18--16:41: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/20/18--16:43: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/20/18--20:18: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/20/18--20:34: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/20/18--20:54: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/20/18--22:02: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/21/18--00:58: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/21/18--05:57: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--06:43: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/21/18--07:54: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--08:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--08:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--09:29: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--09:58: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--11:59: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--12:21: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--12:34: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--13:10: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/20/18--15:23: Comment on Week in review – science edition by scraft1
- 12/20/18--16:41: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/20/18--16:43: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/20/18--20:18: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/21/18--05:57: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jeffnsails850
- 12/21/18--08:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/21/18--08:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 12/21/18--09:29: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--09:58: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--12:34: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--13:10: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
"The most commonly quoted climate sensitivity comes from the IPCC (2013) consensus: 3 ± 1.5 K at the 66% confidence level. The singular effect of CO2 contributes 1.2 K to this warming (Charney et al. 1979, Soden & Held 2006, Schmidt et al. 2010), meaning that other components in the Earth system provide a net amplification of 0.3–3.3 K." https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150
Spot the missing positive feedback?
Ralph Knutti is involved in a typically thorough and meticulous review - but doesn't get beyond the AR5 likely range of 1-2.5 degrees C for TCR that they argue is of most relevance for social cost estimates.
The 3000 year estimate for ocean equilibrium I have in fact discussed recently at the urging of #jiminy.
Here are the IPCC forcings.
That seem likely poorly estimated in the more poorly constrained parameters - especially black carbon and sulphate as I discuss elsewhere under this post.
The simplest, quickest and cheapest way to reduce global warming btw.
And as discussed elsewhere - internal variability seems radically underrepresented.
And the third reference seems about speculative tipping points from AGW of from 1-2 degrees C that I didn't read.
Now my reputation here as a climate catastrophist must be well established. But if the only recourse of massive AGW tools who argue that they have no politics is massive carbon taxes - then they are ineffectual wastrels as well. Almost always with scant scientific understanding to show for it.
Willis endorsed it too, so it must be right.
Who pillories the scientists who speak out about the need to do something?
When listening to this section, think of the certainty around the whole debate. And how arguments are boiled down. It is certain that, 97% believe this. It's easy. Next subject. While there are methane emissions, CO2 stands in for everything. And mitigation stands in for everything, to point the of having to hammer at adaptation to overcome a perception that is must be some trick to bamboozle the masses. And we can't trust Lomborg. The certainty that fossil fuels are bad. It's so simplified. Once they are anchored in certainty, they can go after others not agreeing. With enthusiasm. They keep finding their bible is true. They fall over themselves proving it is true. Their salvation may be in narrowing the ECS. They keep chasing away false gods.
Thank for your reply.
Robert I. Ellison:
You will note in Figure (a) that all aerosol forcings are negative, which is correct only for when they are first introduced into the atmosphere. However, they eventually settle out, and temperatures return to pre-eruption levels, and for most stratovolcanoe eruptions, actually cause a volcanic-induced El Nino.
Further, anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions peaked at ~135 Megatons in the early 1970's and the warming due to their subsequent reduction due to clean air efforts is huge, but is not shown in Fig (a), as a positive forcing, as it should be. Otherwise, the diagram is useless!
"But now I am bored with your foolishness"
NOT foolish, but apparently beyond your ability to understand. A pity.
So none of the other 'forcings' sink in? Sorry about that.
And while volcanic emissions are cooling,
Mixed black carbon and sulfate emissions from incompletely combusted fossil fuels is nowhere near that simple.
"Time-course evolution of BC aerosol composition, light absorption (where EMAC-BC is the enhancement because of coatings), and associated climate effects (as DRF).”
Further evidence that any consensus emerging from government climate science should be regarded as unsafe, unfit to be used in public policy formation.
The ones who point out that the scientists views on the action are non-sense.
Take your insistence on bringing up Exxon. Most of the debate has been around electricity generation. The only role Exxon-Mobile plays in that debate is they drastically reduced the price and increased the availability of natural gas. Every renewable advocate is counting on that gas (and counting on it being cheap and available) to make wind and solar almost viable. Meanwhile, the switch from coal to gas is reducing emissions now (which you guys sometimes say is what you want).
Oil? Is Exxon preventing Tesla or any of the major automakers from building electric cars? There are more electric cars in California than in all of France despite the much high gas and diesel taxes in the latter. Does Exxon rule France in your opinion?
Can you move modern western nations to all-electric transportation without a functional electricity grid that produces more power than today? Is Exxon more vocal against nuclear than Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists?
People who are actually serious about emissions reductions know that it's more important to develop functional alternatives to coal and gasoline than it is to play political games and virtue signal over Exxon.
Richard I. Ellison:
"So none of the other forcings sink in. Sorry about that"
If they have any effect, the effect is so miniscule that it doesn't show up in any Hadcrut 4 or GISS plots of anomalous average global temperatures.
What DOES show up is essentially complete correlation with changes in atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions, of either volcanic or anthropogenic origin.(~.02 deg.C of change for each Megaton of change in global SO2 aerosol emissions).
Plus, or course, some natural warming as the Earth' recovers from the effects of the LIA cooling (~.05 deg. C per decade, since 1900).
Re: <b>"Instead of trying to deny what the records show clearly, they should be making excuses for what is happening."</b>
I wonder how many debunked, contrarian mistakes you can offer in one blogpost.
Cherry-picking just HadCRUT4.
Not accounting for errors in forcing.
Not accounting for the difference between using sea surface temperatures vs. air temperature above the sea.
Cherry-picking 1998 and 2016 as start-points for trend discussion.
Fortunately, there are numerous published papers that avoid your trite mistakes. That includes the paper you're responding to:
Look at what the all powerful Oz of ocean oscillations, the AMO, did to influence the global mean surface temperature anomaly during the infamous mid-century cooling. It plays no apparent role in the precipitous fall in the GMST at the end of the WW2. The drop in the PDO precedes the drop in the GMST. When the AMO finally goes negative, there is no apparent influence on the GMST.
And that was when ACO2 was fairly low.
And then the PDO starts going back up, just before the GMST starts going back up.
So the next negative phase of the AMO is going to do more to deflect the GMST than it did last time? Lol.
<blockquote>I wonder how many debunked, contrarian mistakes you can offer in one blogpost.</blockquote>
The problem for your thesis is that nothing of that mattered for the 1950-2000 period when it can be seen very clearly that models match the chosen observation. There is no reason why they should suddenly matter a lot for the 2000-2018 period to the point of accounting for the huge discrepancy observed.
Bad behaving models. Faulty science.
Now there is a list of the usual suspects cited in passing in atompski's trivial, irrelevant and well rehearsed talking points. The contrived talking point in this paper is the moving target of tuned models reproducing surface temperatures. First is the almost utter irrelevance of surface temperature to global energetics (Loeb et al 2018). Second is the divergence of 1000's of feasible future projections inevitable in any AOS model from each other (McWilliams 2007, Slingo and Palmer 2011) let alone reality. Third is the missing geophysics of internal variability in models (Hurrell et al 2009, Kravtsov et al 2018). Fourth is the lack of investigation of causative elements (Myers et al 2018, Loeb et al 2018).
Loeb et al argue that CERES shows energy accumulating in the systems - and if it is not showing up in the quite obviously paused surface temperature record it must be in oceans.
But in the longer term - the pause is just starting.
I find atomski's comments empty and worthless - more importantly they are annoyingly twee.
And the ones who don't sing from the endorsed hymnbook. Duh....
Re: <b>"The problem for your thesis is that nothing of that mattered for the 1950-2000 period when it can be seen very clearly that models match the chosen observation. There is no reason why they should suddenly matter a lot for the 2000-2018 period to the point of accounting for the huge discrepancy observed."</b>
Do you think that issues with forcings post-2006 would means that forcings from 1950-2000 were at issue? Really?
I mean, come on. At least actually read and understand the papers you're discussing before you try to criticize. There have been several papers on issues with forcing, and so on. Your comment shows that you either haven't read them, or haven't understood them. They are covered in the paper you were linked to. So actually read the paper.
Re: <b>"I agree with Javier – warmists better get their excuses ready."</b>
No, it will be people like Curry who will need to explain why they predicted cooling (or no warming), when warming actually continued:
<i>"Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’."</i>
<i>"A year earlier, Jan 2011, I made it pretty clear that I supported Tsonis’ argument regarding climate shifts and a flat temperature trend for the next few decades"</i>
<i>"I’ve made my projection – global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade."</i>
<i>"I understand that 15 years is too short, but the climate model apostles told us not to expect a pause longer than 10 years, then 15 years, then 17 years. Looks like this one might go another two decades."</i>
"This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Large reductions in clear-sky SW TOA flux are also found over much of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in the northern hemisphere. These are associated with a reduction in aerosol optical depth consistent with stricter pollution controls in China and North America. A simple energy budget framework is used to show that TOA radiation (particularly in the SW) likely played a dominant role in driving the marked increase in temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period." https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
As opposed to an article comparing tuned chaotic models to short term surface temperature variability? Again a trite, trivial and irrelevant talking point.
"Even though the rate of increase in surface temperature slowed during the hiatus, the Earth continued to take up heat [21–23]. Satellite observations point to the possibility that the rate of heat uptake increased by 0.3 Wm−2 between the last 15 years of the 20th century and first 12 years of the 21st century , but uncertainties are large owing to differences in the satellite observing systems used before and after 2000 and because of data gaps in the record between 1993 and 1999 [21,24]. Similarly, upper-ocean ocean heating rates from in-situ measurements made prior to 2005 are highly uncertain
owing to poor sampling and uncertain bias corrections [14,22,25–27]. There have been significant improvements in the satellite observing system since 2000 with the launch of several Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments. Similarly, improvements in ocean heating
rate observations have occurred with the in-situ network of profiling floats from Argo, which reached near-global coverage after 2005 ." https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
And most of that warming is down to SW changes over the upwelling regions of the eastern Pacific. Climate shifted around 1912, 1944, 1976 and 1998 - for which there is oodles of mainstream science. The post 1998 regime is not definitively over yet. So I would wait before deciding that a recent positive Pacific Ocean mediated surface temperature spike means much at all - or indeed post spike cooling.
But the next climate shift is just around the corner - and this time there will be the instrumentation. Which way will it go?
"The M-SSA analysis of each of 111 available observed–model-simulated secular SAT differences (representing, as stated above, 111 estimates of internal secular variability in observations) identifies a pronounced pair of M-SSA modes, which stands out of the rest of the spectrum and is altogether absent from the model-simulated internal secular variability (Fig. 3a, Supplementary Figs. 4, 5, Supplementary Table 2) (ref.34). The model-simulated spectra (Fig. 3a, blue curve) are characterised by a much smaller variance compared to the observed spectra (black curve), reflecting a weaker internal secular variability around the forced climate trends in models, and, most importantly, by completely different space–time patterns associated with the leading M-SSA eigenmodes. This is seen from the fact that the projections of the simulated secular signals onto the space–time patterns of the observed M-SSA modes have negligible variance (red curve in Fig. 3a). Most of the M-SSA spectra based on model simulations are also less peaked, in relative sense, than the observed spectrum and decay monotonically, without statistically significant separation between their leading mode(s) and trailing M-SSA modes. The pairs of M-SSA eigenmodes with similar magnitudes and timescales, as seen in the observed spectra, may indicate the presence of a quasi-oscillatory mode29 in the data; in the context of the secular signals, which have timescales comparable to the length of the data record, the periodicity of such a signal cannot be verified, but the propagation of the anomalies in space in the course of the oscillation can still be established with statistical significance.35 Indeed, the reconstruction of this pair of modes for regional climate indices (Fig. 3b, c) manifests as a multidecadal signal propagating across the climate index network (with certain time delays between different indices)—a so-called stadium wave (refs. 20,35,36,37)—which we will refer to as the global stadium wave (GSW) or, when referring to the global-mean temperature, Global Multidecadal Oscillation (GMO), although, once again, the oscillatory character of this phenomenon is impossible to establish due to shortness of the data record. The phasing of indices in the GSW is consistent with earlier work (ref. 20), which analysed a limited subset of the Northern Hemisphere climate indices (Supplementary Fig. 6). 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." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
We shall see - but it is a stochastically resonant system far from deterministic periodicity. The other thing to note in the context of the AMO and PDO is the GSW. You can lead a daft horse to water...