Articles on this Page
- 12/21/18--13:56: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--15:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--16:01: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--16:16: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--18:37: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--18:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--19:10: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--19:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--19:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--19:32: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--19:35: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--19:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--20:03: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--20:28: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--20:32: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--20:34: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--21:22: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--22:00: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--22:03: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--22:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/21/18--15:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/21/18--16:01: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/21/18--16:16: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 12/21/18--18:37: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/21/18--18:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--19:10: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/21/18--19:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--19:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
- 12/21/18--19:32: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--19:35: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/21/18--19:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/21/18--20:03: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--20:28: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/21/18--20:32: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--20:34: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/21/18--21:22: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/21/18--22:00: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/21/18--22:03: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/21/18--22:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
Re: <b>"I find atomski’s comments empty and worthless – more importantly they are annoyingly twee."</b>
Tedious nonsense from contrarians allowed by moderation.
Re: <b>"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."</b>
1998 was an strong El Nino year. Global warming occurred before that year and continued after it, at the near-surface, oceans, lower troposphere, etc. Of course, satellite-based analyses under-estimate the lower tropospheric warming, but whatever.
[from: <i>"Decadal ocean heat redistribution since the late 1990s and its association with key climate modes"</i>]
[Page S17 of <i>"State of the Climate in 2017"</i>]
<i>"We find large systemic differences between surface and lower troposphere warming in MSU/AMSU records compared to radiosondes, reanalysis products, and climate models that suggest possible residual inhomogeneities in satellite records. We further show that no reasonable subset of surface temperature records exhibits as little warming over the last two decades as satellite observations, suggesting that inhomogeneities in the surface record are very likely not responsible for the divergence."</i>
Page 7715 of: <i>"A satellite-derived lower-tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects"</i>
RIE, when you say "speak out" apparently you don't mean speak out on the risks of climate change, but something else. Perhaps the ones you refer to speak out on other subjects that are against the mainstream science. Read the article. That is not what it is about. It is about the exception being the need to speak up when there is an emergency, climate change being an example. Both Judith and Willis have endorsed this article (although I suspect they skimmed it).
'PewDiePie’s Battle for the Soul of the Internet'
This article is kind of related. Control and value. Where is the IPCC or peer reviewed papers in the midst of all this? The stone age. The message, whatever it is, might be on youtube. A guy like Joe Rogan may have as much reach as CNN. He put a video up yesterday. Over a million views. A two hour video.
<blockquote>Do you think that issues with forcings post-2006 would means that forcings from 1950-2000 were at issue?<blockquote>
The worst excuse since "my dog ate my homework." Issues with forcings post-2006. Exactly when CMIP5 models were initialized and showed they are unable to predict climate.
<i>The post 1998 regime is not definitively over yet.</i>
Says who? Link?
I suspect that #jiminy is being obtuse - whether deliberately or from a native talent I can't say.
See if you agree with Judith and Willis when they tweeted that they endorse the article. Maybe they didn't read past the title?
re: <b>Tedious nonsense from contrarians allowed by moderation.</b>
Is empty repetition of simplistic and over rehearsed climate talking points in a supercilious and condescending manner from a complete tool any better? When it is all deconstructed what remains is nothing but extreme verbosity. He has at least refrained from AIDS and smoking metaphors this time. Seriously - boiled down his reply is 1998 was a warm year and satellites are wrong.
There is so much more being said here that to completely over his head. Zoom - didn't even notice it passing.
"The use of a coupled ocean–atmosphere–sea ice model to hindcast (i.e., historical forecast) recent climate variability is described and illustrated for the cases of the 1976/77 and 1998/99 climate shift events in the Pacific. The initialization is achieved by running the coupled model in partially coupled mode whereby global observed wind stress anomalies are used to drive the ocean/sea ice component of the coupled model while maintaining the thermodynamic coupling between the ocean/sea ice and atmosphere components. Here it is shown that hindcast experiments can successfully capture many features associated with the 1976/77 and 1998/99 climate shifts." https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1
There is something happening here but you don't know what it is - do you Mr Atomski? As for JCH expecting a citation for the end of this 20 to 30 year GSW - that will have to wait until it is definitively over. “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin" Mojib Latif
<i>I find atomski’s comments empty and worthless – more importantly they are annoyingly twee. </i>
I think that is wrong. He is repetitious, but so are most of us. He mistakes "disputation" for "debunking", when the disputatious comments he quotes are themselves subject to well-grounded evidence-based disputation (such as his oft-repeated comment that "CAGW" is a straw man). He cherry-picks with a bias toward the more extreme view that AGW poses a threat (but almost everyone gives greater weight to some of the evidence, since the whole of the evidence is hard to comprehend), but most of his comments are worth intelligent rebuttal, not mere disparagement.
It is especially helpful for the people who have not yet made up their minds, if any of those are left.
Whether "warming" did or did not persist through the "hiatus", and how much warming or cooling will occur in the next 20 years are not yet known. (The "hiatus" has been well-described in peer-reviewed journals such as Science Magazine and Nature; Science published an article claiming that the hiatus had been predictable even during its early phase when most scientists were denying its existence. I have linked to that article before.) All claims about the future are based on some models or different model about the past, and none of the models can yet be said to have "passed" what are called "tests" or "stringent tests".
The 1998-1999 El Nino was followed by a deep drop in global mean temperature; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may be followed by such a deep drop in global mean temperature. Subsequently, the global mean temperature during the hiatus was higher than it had been for an equal duration of time before the 1998-1999 El Nino; for all we know now, the 2015-2016 El Nino may likewise be followed by such a step increase in global mean temperature. It's foolish to argue as though the next 20 years is already known.
Because the climate system is chaotic, the step-wise increases in temperature does not argue against any particular source of the energy that has powered the warming since the late 1800s.
Yes we have heard the catawauling too often and for too long. It is #jiminy's version of mainstream science - scientifically limited and ultimately just wrong and with implicit and impractical policy. The Copenhagen consensus is wrong and the UN is all knowing.
You mean yes you would not have endorsed what that article was saying.
You can't call it a "pause" while the heat content is growing relentlessly as Loeb showed.
And there is no reason for it to stop while the forcing rises at 0.3 W/m2 per decade from increasing CO2. There is a positive imbalance because even after all this warming, the surface temperature lags the rising equilibrium level. The growing heat content may surprise you, but it doesn't surprise anyone who sees what the CO2 is doing.
Science is not reducible to memes. Has climate science been corrupted by the actions of activists? It seems so. The 'warnings' become more shrill with time and 30 years later succeed only in frightening children, small animals and pissant progressives. Certainty increases while science discovers new sources of uncertainty. Climate is perpetual change against a backdrop of a fixed activist mindset. #jiminy is part of the problem...
So the article says that it is OK to be an activist in the case of an emergency for which your expertise matches the knowledge needed. Do you agree with that part at least?
There are opinions that the caterwaulings are a trifle overwrought. Do you agree with that at least?
If it sounds dangerous to you, it should because that is what it is. If it didn't, they're saying it wrong.
In other words, your cut-and-paste Frankenstein theory, which is motivated by your hatred of people, says it.
It's all too complicated for everybody except RIE. The great one from Australia pours out his tea leaves and everybody is wrong except, golly gee, him.
This is what i had in mind as empty and worthless.
And the more recent comment boils down as I said to 1998 was hot and satellites are wrong. Utterly irrelevant and well rehearsed. Not even remotely responsive. I noted as well that the Judith Curry statement was in some online disinformer 'archive'. Ready for serial debunking.
But in general his comments are in the form of rehearsed climate talking points - hot spots, sea levels, hiatus, paleo ECS, AIDS, smoking and climate consensus denying contrarions - are there any I missed? Empty and pointless from either side. If that floats your boat Matthew. But it is not science it is just partisan games.
The period after the end of the 15-16 El Niño is now around 4 reporting periods short of being the same length as the prolonged La Niña event that started in 1998.
Since the end of 15-16, OHC has reached record levels.
And, the PDO is in neutral. After 97-98, the PDO went solidly negative.
Having been a catastrophist for a long time I don't frighten easily. The risk of greenhouse gas induced tipping points is low and we are much more likely to see natural and more or less extreme abrupt climate shifts. The pragmatic response is to build prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes.
Historically, the soil carbon pool has been the major source of atmospheric carbon dioxide with as much as 500 GtC lost from grazing and cropping lands over the Holocene. The transfer of soil carbon to the atmosphere has created a carbon deficit in agricultural soils. Soils now contain a lower organic content than before conversion to agriculture. In many regions it has led to a spiral of decline to desertification. The rich ecology of living soils – fungi, insects, bacteria, vegetation – in a highly productive symbiosis gives way to bare earth. Plants create sugars from carbon and sunlight and they feed organisms in the soil with exudate from the roots. Organisms which in turn create environments that break down parent rock and release nutrients – bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen. It is a living system that can become unbalanced and lose organic matter. The water holding capacity of soils is reduced. Infiltration of rainwater declines, runoff and erosion increase with more flash flooding. Groundwater stores decline, vegetation is more drought stressed, there is less dry weather flow in waterways. The spiral of soil and ecological decline continues. Elsewhere the productivity of cropping soils is sustained only by larger inputs of increasingly expensive fertilisers and poisons – which in themselves destabilise living soil and have impacts on broader environments.
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The total potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years.
Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.
Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology. Many countries have committed to increasing soil carbon by 0.4% per year. As a global objective and given the highest priority it is a solution to critical problems of biodiversity loss, development, food security and resilience to drought and flood.
I am not a child, small animal or pissant progressive. What's to be frightened of?