Lolwot et al.,
Quick question.
Longest term average we have – Earth’s creation to present time -
Has the temperature of the Earth (you choose the definition, keep it reasonable, please) -
a) Risen
b) Fallen
c) Stayed the same
I believe it has fallen, and I can adduce measurements to support this proposition.
Now your turn. What’s your answer? And no, it’s not a trick question.
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn
Lolwot: Here are the four most commonly used temperature metrics rolled into one: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990
Earth’s temperature has certainly been falling for the past 50 million years, and 10 million years and 1 million years and 10,000 years. In fact, it has only been in a clod house phase, as we are now in three times, in the past half billion years. There has been no ice at either pole for 75% of that time. We are certainly in a cold period and the trends look like we are getting colder. It really strains credulity to suggest the world risks catastrophic climate change from warming when we are in such a cold period.
Max,
I’m awarding you the franchise fer
“Famous Quotations of Yesteryear.”
Yer might even produce a best seller.
Bts
@lolwot
I’m quite happy for people to go looking for climate sensitivity in their own time and with their own money. If they want to waste their time doing so, suits me.
But when it comes to public (i,e taxpayers) money, the circumstances are different. Without at least a sensible roadmap of how it is going to be done both in theory and practice – there must come a time when the right thing to do is to cut our losses and accept that it isn’t ever going to be done.
Your facile argument using evolution as an example could equally be extended to almost any magic money pit that you wish to extend the life of…homeopathy springs to mind as a great one. Or astrology. Or cold fusion.
Would you argue that ‘research’ into these should be funded forever – despite no results? Should we divert the money currently spent on CS to them instead? If not, why not?
If that is your best argument, then you are just reinforcing mine. Surely you can do better.
By the beautiful sea (updated)
By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
You and me, you and me, oh how happy we’ll be
When that high tide comes rollin’ in
We will go for a spin
And we’ll float right down 5th Avenue
Hansen has warned us we’ll all gasp for air
But we live on the 10th floor, so what do we care?
I used to travel to go to the sea
But the sea shore has now come to me.
(with apologies to Mitch Miller and the Gang)
Manacker,
Thank you. I agree with all that.
I agree, it would be great if Jim D and others could tackle the question with another approach.
Gee, thanks Beth.
I’m flabbergasted.
How ’bout:
“The science is settled…”
Yr fellow serf
I mentioned before about Tony’s curiosity and serenity of mind. He contrasts so starkly with those who are not just sluggish to look at history, but are in a panic to avert their eyes, as if it were an unsightly thing, a corruptor of faith and dogma. Sea level rise from the late 18th century to the 1870s is one example. Don’t see, don’t discuss. Other such matters: The ups and downs of Arctic ice, the evidence of the MWP which manages to be “localised” in so many localities you’d wonder how it can be local anymore.
Until “experts” are prepared to turn a steady gaze on all that’s bewildering and contradictory they will be mere educated dogmatists. I, for one, am over leaving temple offerings for a number-mumbling priesthood who will assure me that the Nile will rise this year…unless it doesn’t.
The only estimate of climate sensitivity I am aware of that has accurate measurements (not estimates or models) of forcings and temperature responses is the winter-summer delta T versus winter-summer delta TSI at various locations, either at the surface or at TOA. These differences are large enough to overcome noise in the numerator and denominator. They average out to less than 0.1 C per W/m^2.
All the rest is a dog’s breakfast of guesses, digging tiny trends out of huge fluctuations, and climate models. I agree with Tom Wigley’s email in 2000-
“Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims.”
Certainly fallen from when Earth was a molten ball of rock and before the formation of the crust.and the oceans. The sun is also cooling and so is everything else in the expanding universe since the very beginning.
This process is called entrophy and it is expected to continue until the universe reaches the gravitational limit of expansion and commences to contract again to a pinpoint, then next big bang and the whole process starts again.
Steven Mosher
Delworth and Knutson 2000 do confirm that the models are unable to explain the early 20thC warming (ETCW), as you write.
IPCC also comes to this conclusion in AR4 WG1. FAQ 8.1 shows a comparison of the model simulation with the actual warming (around 0.21C compared to 0.53C over the 35-year period 1910-1944).
Since (according to Phil Jones) the ETCW is statistically indistinguishable from the late 20thC warming (LTCW?), this presents a bit of a dilemma for the argument that the models can only explain the LTCW if they include human forcing.
Of course, it also raises serious doubts regarding the model predictions of future warming.
Max
‘It is well known that Australia displays marked climate variability ranging from long and destructive droughts to sudden and pervading flooding, interspersed with severe life and property threatening bushfires. Therefore, in order to minimise the impacts on the social and economic security and well-being of Australians, the quantification and understanding of climatological and hydrological variability is of considerable importance for properly estimating the risk of climate related emergencies (e.g. floods, bushfires) occurring in an upcoming season or year. At present, risk estimation methods are largely empirical in that observed histories It is well known that Australia displays marked climate variability ranging from long and destructive droughts to sudden and pervading flooding, interspersed with severe life and property threatening bushfires. Therefore, in order to minimise the impacts on the social and economic security and well-being of Australians, the quantification and understanding of climatological and hydrological variability is of considerable importance for properly estimating the risk of climate related emergencies (e.g. floods, bushfires) occurring in an upcoming season or year. At present, risk estimation methods are largely empirical in that observed histories of climate extremes are analysed under the assumption that the chance of an extreme event occurring is the same from one year to the next (Franks and Kuczera, 2002). Traditionally, physical climatological mechanisms that actually deliver climate extremes have not been taken into account.
Despite the development of rigorous frameworks to assess the uncertainty of risk estimates, these techniques have not previously acknowledged the possibility of distinct periods of elevated or reduced risk. However, recent research has highlighted the existence of multi-decadal epochs of enhanced/reduced flood risk across NSW (Franks, 2002a, b; Franks and Kuczera, 2002; Kiem et al., 2003). In particular, Franks and Kuczera (2002) demonstrated that a major shift in flood frequency (from low to high) occurred around 1945. Previous authors have noted that the mid-1940’s also corresponded to a change in both sea surface temperature anomalies as well as atmospheric circulation patterns (Allan et al., 1995), suggesting large-scale ocean-atmospheric circulation patterns are linked to the Australian climate.’ http://www.em.gov.au/Documents/Climate%20variability%20in%20the%20land%20of%20fire%20and%20flooding%20rain.pdf
The rainfall patterns were ‘discovered’ in the 1980′s by a couple of fluvial geomorphologists from the University of Newcastle – at which both Daniele Verdon and Anthony Kiems work. They are part of a group formed around Stewart Franks who developed the idea. The link to ocean patterns was made possible by the description of the PDO by Steven Hare – who was chasing fisheries patterns in North America – in 1996.
Rainfall means vary considerably over multi decadal periods – so it is a non-stationary times series. The US has some of the same influences but is influenced by the Arctic as we are by the Antarctic.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/USdrought_zps2629bb8c.jpg.html?sort=3&o=9
Fisheries, rainfall, global temperature and these patterns of global ocean and atmospheric variability share a temporal signature and the question as always is what drives it.
‘The work presented here is consistent with the interpretation of a recently reported effect [25] of solar variability on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and European winter temperatures over the interval 1659–2010 in terms of top-down modulation of the blocking phenomenon [52, 53]. ‘ http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext/
You can be assured that Australian scientists are hard at work understanding equivalent processes in the SH.
It was the penguins what done it.
CORRECTION & RETRACTION
The Nordhaus Yale-DICE (2013) model ‘baseline” scenario does not show warming is net beneficial at any time. It estimates that climate damages exceed benefits of global warming from now on. The Bjorn Lomborg articles I quoted was quoting conclusions from another model to support his statement:
When economists estimate the net damage from global warming as a percentage of gross domestic product, they find it will indeed have an overall negative impact in the long run but the impact of moderate warming (1C-2C) will be beneficial. It is only towards the end of the century, when temperatures have risen much more, that global warming will turn negative. One peer-reviewed model estimates that it will turn into a net cost only by 2070.
You can see the net damages per 5 years estimated by DICE (2013) for the ‘Baseline” scenario (i.e. ‘no controls’) in the Excel file http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/NotesonhowtoruntheDICEmodel.htm, sheet “Base”, row 107:
A twisted and wicked problem laid bare.
Not wanting for a solution but suffering
from too many theories and too little
observation of the real and intransigent
world of hyper complexity – and epistemic
uncertainty – surrounding the ways of ice
and of men adventuring in cold realms.
A Gordian knot awaiting an Alexander.
The first para contains duplications Chief but I understand the point that climate never repeats itself due to it being like any other natural phenomenon that are subject to periodic chaotic disturbances that causes sudden shifts in trend lines.
Double pasting – sorry.
Ergodic – ‘pertaining to the condition that, in an interval of sufficient duration, a system will return to states that are closely similar to previous ones: the basis of statistical methods used in modern dynamics and atomic theory.’
There are many states but we are assuming that the system is ergodic and the state space topology therefore stable. A non-ergodic system is a bit scary.
Polly is a cracker. Ain’t just people who seek the energy in that fragile hydrocarbon bond. Oh, the entropy.
==============
YEA AND NAY –
EACH HATH HIS SAY;
BUT GOD HE KEEPS THE MIDDLE WAY.
NONE WAS BY
WHEN HE SPREAD THE SKY;
WISDOM IS VAIN, AND PROPHESY
-Herman Melville
Dazzling Northern Lights Anticipated Tonight
Perhaps the present solar cycle still has some “zip” left in it? … it’s worth taking a look-see, anyway.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=aaddff&fg=00cc33&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
