The Tsonis climate shifts are around 1910, the mid 1940′s, the late 1970′s and 1998/2001. These are – for good reason – at inflection points in global temperature trajectory.
The dashed line in the other study used the mean of 8 models presumably cleaned of the internal signal. It provides an indication of the residual from whatever cause.
It should be remembered that the 20th century pattern is not a template for the 21st century.
Don,
the alarmist epiphany has been since 2007 and 2012, when SIE plummeted to numbers WAY below what the IPCC had suggested. THe IPCC has revised their position somewhat, but one has to remember that IPCC is a consensus operation and things like the extreme loss of ice are not easily refigured in the science.
so there is a difference. the IPCC is not anti-science, when they are just grossly inaccurate in this case.
Curry has all the available research and is pretending that there is no difference between the arctic in the 30′s and now. THAT is anti-sciecne misinformation
Is PhP programmer relevant?
Tony, Dr. Curry just didn’t want to play Taminoball. If you carefully read the progession you will noticed that the goal posts were shifted. Just because Tamino has issues, doesn’t mean Curry has to have the same issues.
Tony Duncan – absolutely spot on.
Dagfinn, you write “If everybody AGREED that the effect is negligible, then it would be irrelevant. ;-)”
NO!!!!!! What people think and agree is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that counts is what the empirical data says.
Max you are such an elder.
Which one?
On this and other climate blogs, folks who question, no matter how mildly, that ACO2 is the primary driver of the Temperature of the Earth (TOE) are routinely admonished (to put it mildly) by the CAGW faithful that they clearly don’t understand simple physics, for if they did the AGW hypothesis would no longer be controversial, ACO2 driven TOE would move firmly to ‘settled science’, and the experts could quit wasting their valuable time and get on with working with their governments to avert the looming disaster.
So help me out here.
When I was preparing to flunk out of college one of the techniques of approaching physics problems was to set boundary conditions and see what the limits were to the problem.
So lets do that with the atmospheric CO2.
Since the warming of the atmosphere is supposedly linked directly to the amount of CO2 it contains, lets set the boundary conditions and calculate the resulting ‘TOE’.
Assume that we could somehow reduce the atmospheric CO2 to zero, instantly. What does the simple physics referred to by the Climate Experts say the TOE would be in 10 years, 50 years, and 100 years?
Then assume that the atmosphere could be converted to 100% CO2 and calculate the TOE in 10 years, 50 years, and 100 years.
That would establish the lower and upper limits on the TOE established by the CO2 ‘control knob’.
Of course, 100% CO2 is fatal to animal life, and plants stop growing when CO2 drops below around 150 ppm, so lets set the max limit to a relatively safe 20,000 ppm and the min limit to 150 ppm and use our physics to recalculate the TOE for both levels at 10, 50, and 100 years after an instantaneous change.
Once we have done the basic physics problems above, it will be easier to see the magnitude of our problem and develop realistic approaches to solving it. Simply stating that ACO2 is causing the TOE to rise and we gotta stop it right now is a weak argument unless you know of the magnitude and timing of the rise. Since it is simple physics, as the ‘skeptics’ are repeatedly reminded, I don’t really understand why these calculations weren’t done long ago, rather than adjusting the empirical data, fitting curves using a variety of smoothing techniques and carefully chosen start and stop times, plotting trend lines, and then arguing endlessly about ‘what it all proves’.
Thanks Joz. The new three documents I sent to Judith Curry avoids those small mistakes I made in the previous version:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA/
The summary of the first of these new documents, titled “Anthropogenic attribution the Monte Carlo confusion”, is now: ““estimations” from a lack of knowledge are not the same as estimations from measurements of certain parameters belonging to a reliable model. Monte Carlo techniques cannot be used if uncertainty value is due to having a lack of knowledge.”
If Judith Curry posts my 2nd new document in her blog we could clarify the main issues about reliability in climate modeling.
There is no evidence in the long history of the planet of the existence of a dangerous ultrawarm mode that we might tip into. In fact there is evidence for a pretty solid upper bound on temperatures. Look at the following graph.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
The blue line is temperature. Notice how you could lie a ruler across the top of it. When you consider the timeframe involved that is just extraordinary. It suggests that some mechanism kicks in when the earth gets to that temperature which makes it extremely difficult for it to get any warmer.
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for dangerous instability in the cold direction.
David, ” I don’t think anyone disputes the existence of urban heat islands they argue about whether those effect land temperature series when most of the instruments were located in the continental US and old Europe and most of those in and near cities.”
Right, UHI is pretty simple, what it looks like to me though is more of a suburban heat island effect mainly in winter when there is a greater chance of atmospheric inversions. It might not be significant at all, but the amplification in the 30N-60N land areas is more than I would have expected.
Well you guys are kind of guilty of what you charge.
You are the ones who are incensed that anyone dare point out natural variability may have had a cooling influence since 1950.
I can’t even say it’s ignorance for surely you all know that’s entirely feasible.
Butthurt it is then. You are all butthurt that your appeals to natural variability mean you have to accept it could have a cooling rather than warming influence.
“Is it possible that Michael Mann was on the “fast track” to becoming the next President of the United States”
anything’s possible when you are steven goddard.
Reminds me that the answer obviously is 42.
(Hitchikers.. i think it was)
WebHubTelescope: The Cause of the Pause is explainable by thermodynamic Laws
I am glad that you and R. Gates agree that the pause is real, not merely imagined. And I agree that you have a good model of the temperature trends in terms of other measured variables. Now R. Gates has been claiming that the pause is due to energy accumulating where it isn’t being measured,, such as perhaps the deep oceans. My question is how can the heat be accumulating elsewhere, given the mechanism of CO2-induced global warming, if the troposphere is not warming — namely increased absorption of radiant energy in the troposphere by the increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere.
Would you like to take a turn explaining how R. Gates can be correct, given the known mechanisms?
What about Goesta Wollins and David Ericsons claims about magnetic field fluctuations a densities also having some effect on climate change? “Climatic changes, geomagnetic intensity fluctuations, and variations of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit during the past 0.8 m. y. are compared. In general, warm climate stages are aligned with low magnetic field intensities and high orbital eccentricity. We tentatively conclude that the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit may partially modulate both the earth’s magnetic field and climate” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL004i007p00267/full
you give me too much credit. I am quite clueless when it comes to wordpress
