I don’t think that either Christy or omanuel agrees with the Erlichs and their solution to the “Population Bomb”.
There is a workable solution:
- Dispense with dictators and dictatorships (wherever found)
- Let human beings develop to their full potential
I tried to respond with names, dates, places but it landed in moderation and Curry disapproved it. Not sure why. There was no insults or cussing or anything just a description of my experience with M & S Dell.
No dude, you’re wrong. The air above ocean is, for all practical purposes, a tiny bit cooler than the ocean surface. A cooler mass can never heat a warmer mass. Ostensibly CO2 restricts the radiative path from sea surface to outer space impairing the ocean’s ability to cool off which causes its temperature to rise according to Stefan-Boltzman Law (ofter refered to as simply T4) which neutralizes the impairment.
Webby
I fail to see what you are getting so worked up about, issuing “duplicity awards”, calling out “nay-saying neoLuddites” and all.
The Chief has simply pointed out that the late 20thC warming coincided with an extended regime of strong El Ninos and a period of reduced cloud cover. This regime has now reversed itself and the warming has stopped for now.
We all know that a relatively small change in cloud cover can result in a large change in albedo and reflection of incoming solar radiation (i.e. an increase in net solar forcing), so it is reasonable to ASS-U-ME that some of the late 20thC warming came from this added solar forcing (unfortunately IPCC seems to have missed this).
This has now reversed itself, for how long no one knows. The Chief tells us this could again shift rapidly, but it’s anyone’s guess when this could occur.
His educated guess is not for a couple of decades – but who knows?
There is nothing inconsistent with the Chief’s position, as far as I can tell.
The current pause in warming could change abruptly tomorrow or it could continue for another two or more decades.
If this does not make sense to you, it would be better for you to point out why you think so, backing your opinion with some sort of scientific evidence, rather than simply tossing out insults to everyone who disagrees with you.
It would make you look more grown up.
Don’t you think?
Max
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ NAS
And I was ignoring you. Chaotic processes – in the sense it is understood in complexity theory – leads to abrupt climate change. Being silly about it doesn’t change that.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.
Emanuel:
“John Tyndall, made a remarkable discovery using a laboratory apparatus–it was [?]–that is that all of the absorption of infrared radiation that takes place in our atmosphere is done by a tiny amount of gas that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere.”
Wikipedia (and every skeptic):
“He [Tyndall] concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”
Good grief, Emanuel doesn’t even understand the basics of the science. How do you get a PhD in the USA anyway – just by turning up and by spelling your name right? Surely not by reading books n stuff!
Dunno. I figured it wasn’t Chrome that generated the error message it just obeyed orders and displayed it. On the other hand it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Chrome has a sequel kernel in it and something malicious at skeptical not science tried to attack through it.
JCH
You ask an interesting question
How much did the climate change in the 20th century?
Seen in the context of our planet’s long-term climate (as we think we know it), I’d say “not much”.
“Global average temperature” increased by 0.7C, but this occurred in multi-decadal spurts of warming followed by multi-decadal spurts of slight cooling, and seems to be a continuation of a long, slow thaw, as we’ve emerged from a colder period in the 17th to 19thC called the Little Ice Age.
Landed non-polar glaciers continued their decline, which started from a multi-millennial high point around the mid 19thC
.
Sea level has continued rising (as it has for centuries), in decadal spurts varying from 5mm/year rise to 1 mm/year decline.
The record shows that there was a net reduction in severe tropical storms over the century, but I do not know if these data are statistically significant.
There does not seem to have been any statistically significant change in droughts, floods, etc. or other “extreme weather events”
There have been no cataclysmic abrupt changes.
Tony B can probably give you more input on how the 20thC compares with earlier centuries, but I’d say it’s been a century of “business as usual” for our planet’s climate.
What do you think?
Max
curryja | March 26, 2014 at 7:41 am |
”
heck, doesn’t joe room’s epithet of ‘the most debunked climate scientist on the planet’ count for anything?
”
Of course it does. Here’s a virtual biscuit, Dr Curry.
So – Can I be a hapless victim of the nasty too?!
Imagine having to actually defend the claims you make as a scientist!
With evidence and all!
That’s not fair!
Call David Rose with the scoop.
• “The Hockey Stick is real“ is a *WEAK* legal defense.
• “The Hockey Stick is real“ is a *STRONG* scientific defense.
Conclusion The legal outcome is up-in-the air, but the scientific outcome is “game-over” for climate-change denialism.
Meanwhile, the world’s seas keep rising, the waters keep heating, and the ice keeps melting … without pause or obvious limit.
The world ponders … responsibly.
In 1998, Mann et al. wrote: “Global-scale temperature …” (please, look at their fig. 5b). In 2003, McIntyre & McKitrick wrote: “Corrections to the Mann …” (please, look at their fig. 8). From both figures, the one that looks like more scientiffic is the one from Mann; because they include those 2-sigma error bars.
Berkeley lads, in http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/decadal-comparison-small.png include also those error bars (sometimes as gray bands). And from these three figures the one that now looks like more scientiffic is the one from Berkeley; because their error bars increase as we move backwards in time (much more uncertainty in the year 1750 than in the year 1900).
Anyhow, if one reads carefully M&M analysis, one starts to be concerned about how multiproxy is being evaluated. And the only scientiffic conclusion that (at least I) can get from all this is that: temperature “values based in paleoclimate are inaccurate due to uncertainties”.
I do not see any point in trialing anyone in any of these three groups because all of them, in my opinion, are bad scientists. (I do not know the scientiffic work of Steyn).
Hello all, here every one is sharing these experience, therefore
it’s pleasant to read this website, and I used to pay a visit this blog every day.
Just seen the following on Aunty Beeb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26655779
Jim D
This is getting a bit boring. You write:
The reply to Ward deflected his meaning.
Ward had already deflected the topic of the interview from the need for a censorship law regarding dissenting scientific opinions to personal attacks and libel suits.
Curry gave straightforward answers to both the original question from the moderator as well as the curve-ball question from Ward.
Quite frankly, Jim, Curry looked calm and objective while Ward looked rather silly.
My opinion, of course.
Max
You didn’t hear the election of Obama stopped the seas from rising?
Judith Curry
heck, doesn’t joe room’s epithet of ‘the most debunked climate scientist on the planet’ count for anything? If not, I’m sure he’ll be upset.
Naw.
Joe Romm’s braying doesn’t count for anything (sorry if this upsets him).
Max
Mark Steyn in ‘The Spectator’ likened the mindset of global warming alarmists to being in first-class staterooms aboard the Titanic and rooting for the iceberg.
I tend to agree with you – but Nixon did tape his conversations. Pride is a strange thing.
An interesting article, given Judith’s selective appeal to uncertainty and her reference to Rummy’s framework of known and unknown knowns:
[…] 8 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html 9 http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/ 10 http://www.thegwpf.org/pause/. 11http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract. […]
![\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=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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}")
