Thankfully, only the SPM, not the original report, was censored. This will probably just draw attention to what was censored out which is individual national stats on who is most responsible for emissions and their rise rates.
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
I assumed you realised I was talking about the surface crust when I may have mentioned the part which we live on. Maybe not.
Here’s the question again :
“What temperature does Modtran tell it should have been when it was, say, 20C hotter than now?”
In case you don’t understand the “it” I mention is the surface. No tricky Warmist definitions. If you want to define the “it” to be somewhere else, I have no objection, as long as it is within the part of the crust that is measurably affected by the Sun.
If you need any further clarification, please ask. If not, a simple answer would be appreciated.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Robert I Ellison
The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. Wally Broecker
The earth warms and cools as a result of the interplay between the composition of the atmosphere and the albedo of the planet for the most part – the Sun varying very little and the cooling Earth being both a very minor energy term and one of the more seriously insane assumptions surfacing in the crazy morass that seems to be the trajectory of climate discourse. Moreover – the planet shifts abruptly between warmer or cooler states as emergent behaviour in a complex, dynamic nonlinear system. Climate is wild.
The troposphere is not warming because more clouds are blocking sunlight or more energy is staying in the oceans over decades. Either means that the surface warming trend is insubstantial. A wild climate implies a mathematically certain risk that climate can shift dramatically in response to an insubstantial stimulus in as little as 10 years.
How long before the climate puzzle falls into place in the zeitgeist? If ever? In the meantime we can expect more absurdity with a chance of insanity.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Eunice
I guess I’ll always remember Hansen as the guy with the failed predictions:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/SatelliteEraTemperatures.png
who said half of all species would go extinct.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
MODTRAN only tells you how much radiation it would emit. It doesn’t predict temperatures because it is one-dimensional. The best you can do with it is iterate to find what surface temperature perturbation restores the TOA radiation to what it was before you added CO2, which is a way to see the feedback effect.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Ian H
The 800 year delay debunks the Gorean argument that temperatures in the past were determined by CO2. The delay shows that causation runs the other way. The temperature dependence of solubility of CO2 gives us an obvious physical mechanism; nobody should be surprised.
However this doesn’t mean CO2 levels today are going to be determined by the temperature 800 years ago. We ARE extracting fossil fuels and adding significant amounts of CO2 directly to the troposphere so we expect that the relationship between CO2 and temperature will be different.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn
JimD,
I won’t even bother asking how you measure the Earth’s surface temperature, because all I’ll get is a heap of a Warmist definitions which don’t actually include the surface, apart from satellite remote sensing, which, although not strictly sensing the Earth’s surface, at least attempts to measure the temperature of objects sitting upon the surface.
If you want to talk about the Earth’s accurate total energy content, which must rise for the Earth to warm, ceteris paribus, then you might find that no such metric exists.
Even if you manage to accurately measure a temperature increase, by some miraculous means, of course the magical properties of CO2 may not be necessary at all. May I tactfully point out that there doesn’t seem to be any measured global temperature increase for the past 15 years or more.
Your theory that three rises over arbitrary periods of 10 years followed by a fall predicts a rise, is odd, to say the least. Why not choose 30 year periods? Or 100,000 year periods? Maybe going back as far as the period when Antarctica was ice free?
You are right. Reasonable Skeptic asked what would get me to buy in. My answer would be rising temperatures without an explanation not involving the greenhouse effect. Simple enough for you?
It might help your cause if you avoided bringing fantasy to a fact party.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
Hansen has it bass ackwards. Warming, from whatever the cause, will cause more diversity.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Curious George
Jim D – I would argue that it is a wrong approach to optimize too many parameters at the same time – and globally. Let’s take an extremely simple example of a curve fitting by a straight line: y = A*x + B. You have 20 data points. You can easily find A and B to get the best least squares fit for your data points – let’s call them A1 and B1. But let’s say that you can determine a correct value for A by another method – call this value A2. You can then determine a corresponding value B2 for a best fit of y = A2*x + B. The overall fit for your 20 data points is not as good as (A1, B1), but (A2, B2) is preferable, because you know that A1 was incorrect.
↧
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by JCH
Like your cult has not latched onto La Nina dominance. Lol.
slope = 0.0125106 per year
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by ianl8888
That won’t stop the CAGW activists pushing the melodrama button
The true value of a Nino event to these people lies in its’ “meeja” propaganda value – all varieties of “We told you so, It’s worse than we thought” headlines. It has nothing to do with objective science
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by Don B
And the link to that reporter’s report on snow pack trend?
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by ossqss
Dr. Curry, perhaps some of your educated readers on the subject of ENSO can assist with a small request. I have been unable to find the answer to my questions so far.
I have viewed much in the way of measurement comparisons to the EL NINO from the late 90′s as far as temperature at depth. Typically the TCHP measurment is used in the analysis.
My question relates to the way they calculate the TCHP. The way that is actually measured has changed at least 2 times since late 90′s.
My questions for anyone who can answer is:
How do our measurements compare with historic records of same events by virtue of the changes in measurement technique?
Can we actually compare what we have now with what was recorded in the late 90′s?
Can the older data actually be processed for re-analysis?
Reference:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/cyclone/data/method.html
TIA, great blog too>
↧
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by JCH
It doesn’t matter what happens. The pause is already dead. It was born dead. One of the dumbest analyses since Moody AAA’d MBS full of subprime.
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by David Wojick
Has anyone else noticed the nearly hysterical hype at the simple prospect of an El Nino? El Ninos are common but the press is treating them as catastrophic. Dangerous weather is the new meme.
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by Don B
Petwir: “Strong El Nino’s typically mean lots of flooding here in Oregon.”
That surprises me.
During the 2010-11 ski season, Mt. Bachelor had a record 665″ of snowfall, besting the previous record of 606″ set in 1998-99, both La Nina periods.
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by jim2
There was a comment over at WUWT about the Humbolt Current.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/12/your-chance-to-predict-future-el-nino-headlines/
From that thread:
*****
J Calvert N(UK) says:
April 13, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Nobody has yet metioned the Humboldt Current in all this. It has got to be a major component in the whole ENSO system – surely! Right now it seems to have ‘gone to sleep’. Is this this a regular occurence? Could it have resulted from some slackening of the West Wind Drift and the Westerly Winds (Roaring Forties etc.)? This doesn’t seem to have happened in the last couple of years.
I’m wondering if the Roaring Forties etc. will become re-established in the looming Southern Hemisphere winter, and if they do, whether the Humboldt Current will get going again. And if the Humboldt Current gets going again, what effect that will have on the El Nino?
*****
Not knowing about it, seached and found:
From the article:
…
Periodically, the upwelling that drives the system’s productivity is disrupted by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event. When this occurs, fish abundance and distribution are significantly affected, often leading to stock crashes and cascading social and economic impacts. These events have led to sequential changes, where sardines and anchovies have replaced each other periodically as the dominant species in the ecosystem. These species changes can have negative consequences for the fishing industry and the economies of the countries that fish the system.
…
So, I guess if we do get an El Nino and there is a die-off of fish, the CAGWers will start yelling that CO2 killed the fish.
↧
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by Bob Tisdale
curryja says: “Bob, my understanding is that there are two separate multidecadal modes in the Pacific: PDO and NPGO…”
The PDO is the first PC of the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the extratropical Pacific, and, if memory serves, DiLorenzo’s NPGO is the second PC. Neither represents the variability of the sea surface temperatures of the extratropical North Pacific. The PDO, in fact, is inversely related to the sea surface temperatures of the extratropical North Pacific.
Both the PDO and the NPGO are abstract forms of the sea surface temperatures of the extratropical North Pacific. Global surface temperature anomalies, on the other hand, are not abstract forms of data; they’re data.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
CG, even the simplest GCMs will tell you that the Sahara Desert is going to be hot without any tuning. They just need the continents in the right place to do that. Climate is very predetermined by the continental layout.
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by Bob Tisdale
curryja says: “Circulation patterns in a cold PDO are more conducive to El Nino.”
The PDO is positive, not negative. See earlier comment.
curryja says: “The stadium wave model includes all of these.”
But, as far as I know, the stadium wave model does not include the actual sea surface temperature data of the North Pacific, just abstract forms of the sea surface temperatures. Global temperatures respond to the actual temperature of the North Pacific, not to abstract forms of it.
Regards
↧
