Articles on this Page
- 01/04/19--03:08: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/04/19--03:22: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/04/19--04:50: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--05:25: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--05:27: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--05:30: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/04/19--05:37: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--05:54: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--06:20: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/04/19--06:36: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--06:46: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--06:54: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/04/19--06:59: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--07:02: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/04/19--07:12: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--07:18: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--07:19: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--07:24: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--07:38: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/04/19--08:05: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/04/19--06:20: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 01/04/19--07:38: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
It’s pretty obvious Tony is correct and even more obvious you are incorrect. Apparently you are ignoring the temperatures around 1700.
<blockquote>It’s pretty obvious Tony is correct and even more obvious you are incorrect. Apparently you are ignoring the temperatures around 1700.</blockquote>
I can only suggest you look at trends starting a couple of decades either side of 1700.
(spoiler: it unsurprisingly makes little difference. The reality is there is no long term trend in CET until the 20th century warming is included. Claims of "continual warming" have no basis in fact)
Starting from the wrong assumptions one can only arrive to the wrong conclusions even if the methodology is correct. Tamino's calculation for ENSO, solar, and volcanic forcing is a compendium of our ignorance. And it is to a certain extent a deliberate ignorance. We already know that the main effect of solar variability on climate is not due to TSI changes. Solar activity affects the angular momentum of the atmosphere during polar winters (there are two per year), and regulates meridional/zonal wind circulation, determining how much energy the planet loses at the poles during the dark polar winter. These are huge chunks of energy that can match in three years all the heat released by the 2015-16 El Niño and leave the CO2 effect in shame. Low solar activity explains the Pause. The missing heat hasn't gone to the oceans, it has gone to outer space during the dark polar winters. The evidence is there for anybody interested. DMI has the seasonal temperature averages for 80-90°N.
And as Bob says above, ENSO is under solar control. If we don't know that is because we don't want to. The evidence is absolutely clear.
Less than 1 in 4000 probability of that being due to chance.
Your conclusion that 98% of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic is absolutely false. You are just playing by the rules established by the IPCC and its climatological cadre that climate change can be reduced to radiative forcing and nothing else, to make sure it can only be due to human causes. The reality is that the LIA was caused by low solar activity forcing the planet into a net heat-loss mode for hundred of years. The post LIA warming is not forced and is not driven by radiative changes. The recovery in solar activity put an end to the heat loss and the planet has been warming for centuries little by little without being forced. The warming will stop when the planet finds its equilibrium as determined by its present Milankovitch situation, and its current solar activity. This temperature equilibrium has been made higher by the increase in GHGs, but we don't know by how much.
Solar activity very clearly predicts that there won't be any global warming until at least 2035. That will make for a 30-year long Pause that is incompatible with humans being responsible for most of the warming since 1950. If low solar activity can stop warming on its tracks, it is obvious that it also contributed to the warming when it was high.
Javier, I described the possible limitations of the method in the meanpost: "A postulate is included: There are no other contributions than described in the introduction section, perhaps longer lasting, so that we can’t identify them"
The core is that for sure one can identify the (multi) decadal variability for 1950...2016 and only with the including of those one gets a realisic T-record for this time window and the TCR is in real lower than models estimate, also with the arrived methods.
What happens if you apply this procedure to the satellite record?
A perfect proxy for the NH to a useful proxy to a useless proxy.
David: I guess it's too short to deduce the internal variabiliy. At least 65 years of observations are to involve IMO.
Interesting discussion. I am trying to follow along with both sides of this discussion to learn. There seems to be a conflict in Mr. Weber arguing against anthropocentric change based on solar influence and Javier's graphic showing a steadily declining peak solar incidence in the time period being discussed. In other words, there is continued ocean warming but there is declining peak solar incidence to drive it. Am I missing something, or is there a disconnect between these two arguments?
"The high-yielding crop varieties that were bred during the first green revolution helped prevent food shortages in the 1960s by increasing the proportion of grain-to-plant biomass. It’s the grain that contains most of the plant’s consumable calories, so having more grain instead of straw means more food."
This first green revolution was not a fairy tale or a denial of ecomomics. Like wind and solar power. It worked.
Farmers, deplorables, were part of something that decreased cost and improved our welfare. They'd have a tendency to be skeptical of frauds and posers.
<blockquote>only with the including of those one gets a realistic T-record</blockquote>
I suppose you are unaware of the circularity involved. The TCR is derived from the whole temperature change, so when applied back it "explains" all the temperature change. That ain't science.
Javier, please be aware that in the result of the meanpost is not only the forced part is included. IMO you are unaware of the corepoint albeit I mentioned it in the meanpost and in the comment above.
VTG and TB, this discussion is going nowhere. If either of you has something new to say on this please say it. I will be deleting the repetitive posts for the sake of the other readers. Thanks.
<blockquote>Javier’s graphic showing a steadily declining peak solar incidence in the time period being discussed</blockquote>
Not really. Solar activity is better measured by 10.7 cm solar flux, available since 1947, because sunspots are a semi-quatitative method that assumes a constant sunspot number/area relationship that is not true.
This is the smoothed 10.7 cm solar flux with a 3rd order polynomial fit calculated since 1947, although it was plotted from 1958 for other reasons.
As you can see solar activity has declined in the 21st century. It was very high during most of the 20th century when all the warming took place.
I agree. This is going nowhere.
“The missing heat hasn’t gone to the oceans, it has gone to outer space during the dark polar winters.”
I support your statement at the 60% level of confidence. But then we need to make up for this shortage. Which would be Greenland and Antarctica's ice melting. Or we could say the SLR is overstated. In any case, the accounting is weak. The data isn't black and white enough. Too many assumption are used. So then we left with using a cartoon of the system. With high ocean to atmosphere joule transfer in Winter where humidity levels are low. So the accounting data is at the joke level. No climate scientist can say that we are 95% confident that the total joules in the oceans are within 5% of this number. This is a standard audit conclusion statement. Now the climate scientist can actually say the above. But, they need a much smaller number than the above 5%. Say for instance a 1% increase in the joules in the oceans provides a lot of SLR. In the case of a company like Google, 5% is close enough to base decisions on. In my climate example, the number is less than 1%. 3800 meters of average ocean depth. 1% equals 38 meters. (A 1 to 1 conversion is wrong, but you get the idea.) So what they need to do is approach such a small amount of the total as to make the problem intractable. They cannot count with the detail needed and instead make assumptions and fail to give error bars so as to call into question what they are saying? But like auditors, they are supposed to provide information that is useful to management. Which they aren't doing. Because they so in the dark as the what the accounting statements say about things that are relevant. Relevant enough to spend or not many billions of dollars. They are not accountants. They are not accountants. They should not be referred to as such. They are no better than stock pickers. Those finance guys with the big houses and big boats.
On the contrary, Frank. The sat record shows nothing but natural variability, specifically a step function coincident with the giant ENSO at the end of the century. There is no warming before that ENSO and none after, but the second period of no warming is about 0.3 degrees C warmer than the first period.
Mind you I doubt regression analysis works with step functions, unless you do before and after separately. In that case you get a CO2 sensitivity of zero, because there is no warming in either period. There is also no long term natural warming, just the giant ENSO.
Nor can the ENSO be "backed out" since it appears to be the sole cause of what little warming there is in the entire record. So I doubt this procedure works here.
The incessant focus of climate "science" on the questionable surface statistics may be history's greatest example of confirmation bias, or as I like to call it, paradigm protection.
There are more than two sides here, Paul, as usual.
I think I understand what is involved in the study. This is just a repetition of IPCC reports. TCR assigns the long term warming to GHG increase. Long term ENSO is near neutral as Niños and Niñas cancel out, but provide interdecadal variability. Solar is neglected by considering only TSI changes that, already small, become tiny when averaged over the 11-year cycle. So 98% of the change is due to GHGs and land use. We already know that fairy tale. The problem is that it contradicts all the evidence from paleoclimatology on how climate changes, and it neglects any non radiative climate phenomenon. When extended to 1750 this thesis shows that natural climate change does not exist and only GHGs and orbital changes can change climate.
As I said, this is deliberate ignorance.
<a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0339.1" rel="nofollow"><b>No Access A Robust Constraint on the Temperature and Height of the Extratropical Tropopause</b></a>
<blockquote> ...The extratropical cloud-top height, wave driving, and lapse-rate tropopause all shift upward but remain at roughly the same temperature when the aquaplanet GCM is forced by uniform surface warming of +4 K and when the AOGCM is forced by RCP8.5 scenario emissions. “Locking” simulations run on the aquaplanet GCM further reveal that 1) holding the water vapor concentrations input into the radiation code fixed while increasing surface temperatures strongly constrains the rise in the extratropical tropopause, whereas 2) increasing the water vapor concentrations input into the radiation code while holding surface temperatures fixed leads to robust rises in the extratropical tropopause. Together, the results suggest that roughly invariant extratropical tropopause temperatures constitutes an additional “robust response” of the climate system to global warming.</blockquote>
"We already know that the main effect of solar variability on climate is not due to TSI changes. "
I don't understand why you said this Javier.
Please time the requisite time to understand why TSI/insolation is the sole driver of warming by thoroughly going over my recent poster for the AGU:
If you wish, feel free to contact me privately by email, my address is on the lower right corner.