Articles on this Page
- 12/28/18--21:40: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--22:51: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--22:53: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--23:25: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--23:28: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--23:31: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--23:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--23:54: _ Comment on Spe...
- 12/29/18--00:08: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--00:11: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--00:52: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--01:07: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--01:27: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--04:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--05:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--05:50: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--06:09: _ Comment on Spe...
- 12/29/18--06:21: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/29/18--06:22: _ Comment on Spe...
- 12/29/18--06:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/28/18--21:40: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
- 12/28/18--22:51: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/28/18--22:53: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 12/28/18--23:25: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--23:28: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--23:31: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/28/18--23:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/28/18--23:54: Comment on Special Report on Sea Level Rise by Gea Vox
- 12/29/18--00:08: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Hans Erren
- 12/29/18--00:11: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/29/18--00:52: Comment on Week in review – science edition by HAS
- 12/29/18--01:07: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/29/18--01:27: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
- 12/29/18--04:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by mark4asp
- 12/29/18--05:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/29/18--05:50: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/29/18--06:09: Comment on Special Report on Sea Level Rise by olsonjs444
- 12/29/18--06:21: Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech
- 12/29/18--06:22: Comment on Special Report on Sea Level Rise by JCH
- 12/29/18--06:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech
<blockquote> Our study suggests that climates like those of the Pliocene will prevail as soon as 2030 CE and persist under climate stabilization scenarios. Unmitigated scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions produce climates like those of the Eocene, which suggests that we are effectively rewinding the climate clock by approximately 50 My, reversing a multimillion year cooling trend in less than two centuries. </blockquote> https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13288
So what? I haven’t read the full paper because it is behind a paywall, but the Abstract makes no mention of any evidence that the world would be worse off with Eocene or Pliocene temperatures than present temperatures. They are simply presuming and implying that warmer is worse and we should be scared of it.
The evidence from those periods is that flora and fauna thrived much better during those warmer times than it does in the present Icehouse conditions. And life thrives during rapid warmings from icehouse conditions. But life struggles during cooler and cooling periods.
The scare that “<i>effectively rewinding the climate clock by approximately 50 My, reversing a multimillion year cooling trend in less than two centuries</i>” is about as silly and baseless as the masses of other scare stories we’ve been told over the past few decades. It’s like James Hansen’s scare that the oceans will boil off and Earth will have an atmosphere like Venus.
It’s taken 50 Ma for the temperature of the deep oceans to cool by 15C. They’ll continue to cool for as long as there is ice at the poles and the melt water from the ice sinks into the deep oceans. There is no chance of melting all ice on Antarctica in two centuries. And, while the deep oceans are this cold, the atmosphere cannot warm dangerously.
This is clearly just more climate alarmist nonsense. This time by NPAS.
"Fig. 1. Diagram showing forcing–feedback concepts for global temperature and methods of diagnosing them. (a) Full system, with shortwave albedo effects in the top part and longwave in the bottom part. Traditionally defined forcing occurs via green arrow (in the case of solar forcing) or red arrows (other forcings) from perturbation to the TOA energy imbalance . Adjustments also occur via red arrows. Feedbacks occur via blue arrows, with the Planck response shown by the direct arrow from to . Feedbacks and adjustments can be diagnosed simultaneously by the regression method. (b) Traditional view of the Planck system with no adjustments (nor feedbacks). (c),(d) Reduced atmosphere-only system with fixed SST. Adjustments can be diagnosed by observing change in after applying a perturbation with SST fixed (c); feedbacks can be diagnosed by observing changes in after changing the SST with no (other) perturbation (d)." https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1
(a) is the relevant circuit. Feedbacks are in blue - and here it is called the Planck response. It is not the equilibrium temperature change but the increased IR emission at a higher temperature. Always given as some -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1. A negative feedback that the IPCC, and Rose call the Planck feedback and Held and Spell called the temperature feedback. What Judith called the no-feedback response is the temperature change for 3.7 W/m2 forcing with a temperature feedback of -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1. That is - a feedback that at the warmer temperature is equal to the forcing. Some 1.2 K.
It seems more precise to distinguish the Planck response - 1.2 K from the temperature feedback - -3.2 W m^-2 K^-1.
Now you may call it whatever you like but if it is not accounted for you are missing a fundamental climate dynamic. Then you end up pontificating in your inimitable and interminable way about positive feedbacks amplifying the purely theoretical Planck (temperature) response.
Positive and negative feedbacks act to increase or decrease - amplify or damp in the language of Rose - respectively - radiant energy imbalances at toa thus influencing ECS. Feedbacks act concurrently and they are additive. Add then up.
Last time - promise. The EBM math is not ambigous at all. A shame you don't have any.
Thanks, Jim D, for pointing out the two disciplines where "experts" wildly disagree.
Yes, it certainly is important to distinguish the Planck Response from the actual temperature response because that ratio tells you whether you have a positive feedback or not.
Do you think that was what the author was telling you?
Climate change presents growing risks. I would say that is an emergency, and clearly the author of that article does.
What says that there is a net negative feedback is summing the feedbacks. Try it sometime.
I wonder whether you have you taken into consideration these two factors:
1) Before SLR reaches its full potential, it has to first inundate all voids hitherto inaccessible to marine waters - caves, lava tubes etc... - as well as saturate a considerable vaolume of porous rocks, shales and soils
2) The REAL damage of SLR will not be the flooding, when it finally reaches currently emersed land, but long before, when it begins to infiltrate man-made undergroud waste repositories, bubbling up and leaching out of materials that range from mere contaminants to toxic, pathogenic, mutagenis and teratogenic wastes:
• toxic waste dumps
• radioactive waste repositories
• underground fuel stores (e.g. in fuel stations)
• mines and mining spoils
Jim D there is no emergency, climate science has become a science where non-scientists claim more certainty than the experts.
What do experts say we should do?
The author assumes "the climate scientists who really understand the risk we are taking" see mega warming coming and it's urgent. Unfortunately that's not the case, the character of the problem is controversial, and most of the noise is from those who don't really understand the risks or how best to manage them.
It’s nice to see Judith’s Sea Level Report get the recognition it so richly deserves. Let the ad hominem festivities begin.
Maybe more denizens will read Quine.
Surely everyone with a basic biology education understands that warmth is always better for life?
Reply to P Lang:
The main "intellectual fallacy" dominating alarmist's ideas is the notion of a natural equilibria. It assumes our current climate is in equilibrium. That any climate change must be bad and man-made (upsets the equilibrium). That energy systems should be some variation of imaginary perpetual motion machines (they call "renewable", and say it makes "free" energy). The climate scare rename to: "climate change" is because they're terrified of "change". They are afraid to stray from an imaginary stasis of equilibria. It's an ideal or template they think all things should strive towards. They are not so much environmentalists, more "equilibrists". We see it in their neo-Malthusian economic suggestions too. It perfectly explains their hostility to none-CO2 emitting nuclear power as well.
Note 1: Unfortunately, for me, the term "equilibrist" is already in use and it means a circus performer who keeps things in balance during performance.
Note 2: "intellectual fallacy" = a wrong system of thought which dominates thinking. Examples: Marxism, Freudism, Fascism, neo-Malthusianism. It's basic precepts are taken for granted. It cannot be seen, by its believers, as a fallacy. It's understood as "how the world works".
“Northeast India (NEI), the wettest place on the Earth has experienced a rapid decrease in summer monsoon rainfall (about 355mm) in the last 36 years (1979‐2014), which has serious implications on the ecosystem and the livelihood of the people of this region”
That was from the link above about rapid drying in Northeast India.
Then there is this from AR5, 14.2.1
There is growing evidence of improved skill of climate models in reproducing climatological features of the global monsoon. Taken together with identified model agreement on future changes, the global monsoon, aggregated over all monsoon systems, is likely to strengthen in the 21st century with increases in its area and intensity, while the monsoon circulation weakens. Monsoon onset dates are likely to become earlier or not to change much and monsoon retreat dates are very likely to delay, resulting in lengthening of the monsoon season. [14.2.1]”
<i>aggregated over all monsoon systems</i>
Great summary. Consider improving your understanding by digging into the specifications for the satellite altimetry instruments. Specifically, take a look at accuracy for Jason & Poseidon, two of the first satellites attempting to measure absolute global mean sea level. It is really hard to take predictions of catastrophic sea level rise seriously when the science behind measuring global mean sea level is so lacking in the details. One more tip: consider the departure from oblate spheroid caused by gravity fields of the sun & moon. This makes equatorial diameter much greater than polar diameter. What would be the impact on local tidal sea level guages if an entire tectonic plate were to drift away from a pole? Thanks for taking on the political activists, and injecting truth into the discussion.
Only a prolonged fall in temperatures can save us from global warming ideology. An ideology that is based on a truism that CO2 is increasing, man is partly to blame and that it must cause some warming.
Just how much.
The good this year.
SOI has turned positive in a small sign that the early El Niño may dissipate and be replaced by another badly needed cooling phase.
UAH 6th warmest year only in the 40 year satellite record.
(Tough luck JCH) one win to good guys.
If we do get a colder 2019 (First 3 months probably warm due to lag) will help a lot.
PIOMAS increased to 6th lowest.
Possible higher Arctic Max, or not.
We need an Antarctic recovery but El Niño lag still reverberating.
Cold, cold, cold USA.
Judith’s sea level opus.
The bad, Australia. 3 years of hard labour.
Coral scientists beating the reef to death and anyone else who gets in their way.
<i>This makes equatorial diameter much greater than polar diameter. </i>
Need 0.3 C per decade JimD. Only getting 0.13. UAH.
Spencer quite right.
You might get it some day.