Articles on this Page
- 12/23/18--22:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/23/18--22:59: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/23/18--23:02: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--06:37: _ Comment on Adm...
- 12/24/18--06:42: _ Comment on Adm...
- 12/24/18--08:16: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--08:46: _ Comment on Is ...
- 12/24/18--09:00: _ Comment on Adm...
- 12/24/18--09:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--10:14: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--10:18: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--10:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--10:48: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--10:58: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--11:02: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--11:39: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--11:41: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--11:55: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--12:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/24/18--12:15: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/23/18--22:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/23/18--22:59: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/23/18--23:02: Comment on Week in review – science edition by sheldonjwalker
- 12/24/18--08:16: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/24/18--09:00: Comment on Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’ by dpy6629
- 12/24/18--09:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/24/18--10:14: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
- 12/24/18--10:18: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/24/18--10:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
- 12/24/18--10:48: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/24/18--10:58: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/24/18--11:02: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/24/18--11:39: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/24/18--11:41: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
- 12/24/18--11:55: Comment on Week in review – science edition by talldave2
- 12/24/18--12:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/24/18--12:15: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
... central model estimate of... 3K
You are hung up on the idea that warming is 1.2 K and this is amplified by feedbacks. Physics says that the forcing may or may not be some 4 W/m2 - see I am a skeptic - and the response depends on feedbacks - including the Planck feedback.
Christmas is a time when Alarmists gather together, roast chestnuts, and share memories.
- They tell their children how there used to be a cold white substance, called snow.
- They reassure their children that Santa really does exist, and that he delivers presents to all of the good children (the ones who believe in global warming).
- And they give thanks for the 97% consensus (that global warming is real, that it is caused by humans, and that there was no recent slowdown).
In keeping with the true Christmas spirit, Alarmists have just published 2 new papers, which (they say) demonstrate convincingly that the recent slowdown wasn’t a real phenomenon.
It is a pity that they didn't read my article first. They could have saved themselves a lot of time, and millions of dollars (of your money)!!!
The article is called "Alarmist thinking on the recent slowdown is one dimensional"
Warning - this article contains undeniable proof, that the recent slowdown WAS a real phenomenon.
So if you want to continue believing that the recent slowdown doesn't exist, then don't read this article.
Steven, italics are legible, but they're not readable. Time yourself reading an A4 page of single-spaced text in 12pt Georgia, italics, versus another in regular and get back to me. My testimony is not going to change your mind but perhaps that of your own senses will.
"What’s the evidence anyone did that?"
You tell me. You're the one boasting that they use a whole smorgasbord of different mathematical techniques rather than choosing the right one and sticking to it.
The Planck Response to 3.7 W/m2 (a CO2 doubling) is 1.2 K, and anything larger means there is a positive feedback, for example an ECS of 3 K or a TCR of 2 K per CO2 doubling show a net positive feedback.
[…] People like Dr. Judith Curry who have looked into the suppositions comprising RCP8.5 have concluded that it is not only extreme, it is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. Thus it serves as a scare tactic, but not for reasonable future projections. See: Is RCP8.5 an impossible scenario? […]
Another thread where Sanakan starts hurling the "smear" word and makes it unreadable. I've started to skip his comments all together.
If you use 30-year temperatures, there is not even a hint of a slowdown since 1980. I put the CO2 change and 10-yr sunspots on there too for scale. It's my favorite plot at the moment because skeptics have to explain this away as a massive coincidence.
So, if your graph is correct, temperature varies linearly with CO2. Good news, eh?
It's a range of 30% where a linear and log scale would look very similar. If WfT could do log scales I would show that, and it would look the same with a gradient of 2.3 C per doubling instead of 100 ppm per degree C that I used here.
Looks like attribution of extreme events to climate change is about to boom as an industry. Under the new Paris Agreement rules each country can annually report all loss and damage due to climate change. See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/12/20/cop-24-dangerous-rules-added-to-paris-climate-accord/.
Compensation claims against the developed countries will no doubt follow. The dollar numbers should be huge.
(I seem to be breaking this story since most of the press on Katowice is a snore. But then I read UN-speak.)
"The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet."
You continue to confuse the Planck feedback with the Planck response - the latter being purely theoretical. The planetary response to some 4 W/m2 forcing with a net negative feedback of -1.5 W m^-2 K^-1 is some 2.6 K. With considerable uncertainty.
This analysis uses relative humidity as the state variable and calculates temperature (Planck), water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks.
"Fig. 1. Temperature, lapse-rate, and water vapor feedback strengths in CMIP3 models from the traditional perspective with specific humidity as the state variable and from the alternative perspective with relative humidity as the state variable. (right three columns) The temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed specific humidity and the specific humidity feedback (red); (left three columns) the temperature and lapse-rate feedbacks at fixed relative humidity and the relative humidity feedback (blue). (central column) The sum of the three feedbacks, which is independent of the choice of decomposition (black). Each model result is indicated by a dot."
And there are other feedbacks in cloud, ice, CO2 sequestration and vegetation greening that are less amenable to precise or even approximate quantification.
Take this as a Christmas present - your faux precision and intransigent certainty is unwarranted.
If you look, he has a global one that he calls GMO and it has been downwards since about 1980. Does that destroy your stadium wave argument for the last 40 years of warming?
OK, so now what you call no-feedback is also the Planck Response. You have progressed. Your confusion arises because you don't distinguish a feedback from a response. 1 C is the Planck Response. Positive feedbacks amplify this to give a larger response. They are multipliers because they are proportional to the response. If there was no response, there would be nothing for the feedback to act on.
That seems to be a normalized index of differences between rescaled models and observations. It should not be viewed in isolation.
"To compare the observed and model-simulated secular signals, we first rescaled the latter signals (at each grid point throughout the globe) via linear regression to best match the observed signal.14,15,20 This procedure is standard and designed to correct for biases in the models’ transient climate response; note that it minimises, by construction, the differences between models and observations. These differences, however, still turn out to be large enough to be able to modify and reverse regional, as well as global climate trends on multidecadal timescales of 30–50 years (Fig. 2)."
See Figure 2. And we have other information on what was physically happening in the Earth system.
Or the developing countries may simply attribute all bad weather to human caused climate change. That is much simpler and it gives even bigger loss and damage numbers. In either case, perhaps the IPCC will want to take the lead here..This is going to be quite a show. Attribution ho!
Thanks for these lists. Always a great place for an adventure.
There is quite obviously a breakpoint in surface temperature around the turn of the century that data smoothing hides but can't eliminate.
Ocean warming rates seem to have changed as well. It results from a shifting Pacific state.
Albeit that CERES appears to disagree with Argo.
The best debate on the Web, by far. Approaching 1 million comments!