The main points are settled
1. That it is warming
2. That the effects of rising GHGs are easily large enough to account for the warming
3. That manmade emissions are easily large enough to account for the GHG rise
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Steven Mosher ,”Doesn’t matter.”
It does matter. Right now the ocean imbalance is in the ballpark of 0.5 Wm-2 which is based on 0 being “normal” or near equilibrium. Where we are in the precessional cycle and the uncertainty over what TSI is “normal” including spectral intensities less “normal” volcanic aerosols and cloud composition, 0.25 Wm-2 imbalance could easily be the real “normal” imbalance, since there can be a 1700 year ocean lag if every forcing was suddenly fixed at a near perfect amount. With models having +/- 3 C “accuracy” on absolute “surface” temperature, they are just about a waste unless reset for current conditions similar to an “equilibrium” or at least an expected steady state for a bunch of not all that well known conditions.
So no matter what you call it, it kinda matters. You can’t determine abnormal until you know normal. Now if we didn’t have a bunch of geniuses claiming they know what normal is supposed to be and that everything is abnormal meaning it’s time to panic, you are right, it wouldn’t matter. Last I checked though, that wasn’t the case.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison
1. The stadium wave implies the potential for non-warming – or even cooling- for decades.
2. The rate of warming is 0.07 degrees C/decade – and is not all GHG.
3. A further cooling influence is quite likely as the Sun cools from a 1000 year high.
3. Could a cooling world halt increases in CO2 in the atmosphere?
4. But hey – climate is wild – utterly unpredictable.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by willb
Jim D, you say: “And it gets further from equilibrium the faster the forcing changes.”
So you believe that there is (at least hypothetically) an equilibrium condition for the Earth’s climate? How do you reconcile your belief with the statement “that Earth’s climate never was and is unlikely to ever be in equilibrium”? Or do you disagree with that statement? What do you believe is the equilibrium surface temperature of the Earth?
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Jim D
The forcing is never steady enough for long enough to reach equilibrium. It can get close, like during the pre-industrial period, the forcing was only changing up and down by less than 0.5 W/m2, so the temperature only changed by a few tenths of a degree. To most that would be a steady climate. Now it is going to change by ten times that, so we would call that an unstable climate. It’s a matter of degrees.
↧
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison
We don’t know what pre-1979 changes in forcing were – and they can’t cognitively process the post-1979 data.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison
Change since pre-industrial seems about 1.5 degrees C.
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Most of that natural.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by willb
Jim D, the statement “that Earth’s climate never was and is unlikely to ever be in equilibrium” means that a somewhat steady climate lasting a few hundred years is not an indicator of equilibrium. As I’m sure you know there are huge inertias in Earth’s climate system. In geological time a few hundred years is the blink of an eye.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by steven
2020 Academy Awards
Most important main character: the sun
Most important supporting character: the oceans
Most influential cameo appearance: CO2
↧
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Jim D
Yes, a slow decline from the Holocene Optimum is seen as a response to a slow change in forcing from the current Milankovitch cycle. Temperature follows forcing in that sense, even when it is quite a weak forcing. We also see solar and volcanic forcings changing the temperatures on other time scales. There’s a strong correlation on a variety of scales, and the forcing is never steady.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Steven Mosher
doesnt matter. you dont need to know normal from abnormal. you just need to know that C02 will warm the planet not cool it .
That is all you need to know.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison
Change is episodic – internally generated as a result of small changes. We don’t know what the change in albedo was – but this is the largest factor in climate variability by a very large margin.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Dr Norman Page
The major quasi-periodicities are available by simple inspection of the temperature and driver data without any fancy mathematical analysis – which latter generally obscures that which is clearly visible in the basic temperature and driver data.
see figs 4,5,9,10,12,14,15 and 16 at
↧
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by JustinWonder
X Anonymous > “http://michaelcrichton.com/pdfs/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf”
Interesting that the sceptic team won the “Global Warming is not a Crisis” debate ( Brian Lehrer on the Intelligence Squared show) but the was no MSM coverage. If the sceptics lost it would be all over the news. I searched the title with New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Boston Globe and all I found was one blog post in the NYT.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by JCH
RC covered it.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
There would be a difference, but the “Stadium Wave” appears to be more about sequencing than magnitude, so it shouldn’t be much difference.
The problem with sequencing is without understanding cause you can’t determine how reliable the predictions might be. The sequencing can fall apart unless there is another similar perturbation to start it over.
That compares 40 year (480 month) correlation between the tropical SST and the AMO raw monthly with the seasonal cycle removed. If you don’t remove the seasonal cycle you get a strong inverse correlation. That indicates that the first part of the AMO was a “global” issue, likely volcanic and/or solar forced and the second half is a lagged settling response, which would be more of a natural “oscillation” or response to a perturbation.
If you were using M-SSA to compare the North Atlantic SST (roughly the AMO) to the Tropical Ocean SST, what type of oscillation do you think it would find?
All I was saying is the pre-defined “oscillations” limit the analysis the W&C can do without redefining indexes.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by JustinWonder
JCH – “RC covered it.”
RC? You mean the Real Climate website? That doesn’t count. Most people get their news from television, radio, news papers, and websites like The Huffington Post (gag) or The Daily Kose (dose).Those are the same people that get frightened into voting for candidates that will implement CAWG inspired economic policies, much to their own detriment, by MSM CAWG scare stories. It is passive aggressive fraud, IMO.
↧
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by GaryM
I thought no mainstream climate scientists ever4 claimed that “the science is settled?”
RICHARD C.J. SOMERVILLE: ” …The science community today has impeccable settled science, despite what you have just heard, that demonstrates the reality of global warming and its primary origin in human activities….”
Not just settled science, but impeccable settled science.
And this quote from Somerville is just precious:
“There‘s never been as thorough and vetted a process for summarizing science precisely for the point of making input to policy makers.”
Topped only by this about the IPCC:
“We‘re not a clique defending what we said six years ago.”
There is something endearing about seeing such blind, unquestioning, childlike faith. Something scary too.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by JustinWonder
GaryM – “… unquestioning…faith…scary too.”
For some, it is religion, for others a vested financial or political interest.
There is a process of associative activation and associative coherence among ideas such as environmental pollution, activism, left-wing politics, social justice, and many other trigger words, phrases, narratives, and images. For example, a person that is concerned about the environment, votes democratic, cares about poor people, etc, sees an image in Al Gore’s documentary and that triggers an associative cascade. The idea is integrated into their existing belief system and to try to dislodge it creates massive cognitive dissonance. It’s now firmware.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by GaryM
It’s fascinating this look into the past of the climate debate, and how little has changed,
i get why Gavin Schmidt decided to avoid actual debates like the plague though.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
