I have travel today, hence this open thread.
Some folks report issues with posting comments, and from what I can tell it seems to be related to wordpress.com. Try clearing your cache and/or using a different browser if this persists today.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
[Reply: Got a link to the discussion? — mod.]
I have been trying to get this considered over Easter:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Any comments?
For those interested, here’s the last few weeks of ENSO data leading to Monday’s ENSO meter adjustment to 0.0:
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=02&month=mar&year=2013&fday=01&fmonth=apr&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Found target /png/tmp/CTEST136481400110077.txt
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov//png/tmp/CTEST136481400110077.txt
Data file
data from 00Z02MAR2013 to 00Z01APR2013
“———-”
-0.292665
-0.0628619
-0.276973
-0.0785116
0.00643479
Allseems very quiet on the climategate3 front, is there anything interestiing or is just fluff
Pity the Open Thread wasn’t on April 1, just think of all the funny stuff that would have been posted. :-))
Riesenbagger zerquetscht Mercedes. Not a happy fellow.
Update on the “Green” economy collapse taking place in Tennessee. Hemlock Semiconductor has terminated it’s 300 plus workforce at the polysilicon plant newly built here. No production ever took place at this state-of-the-art facility to nowhere. 100’s of millions of dollars in tax and TVA ratepayer money down the green drain. Another new facility of equal cost in the center of the state has been “delayed” by 18 months by Wacker Chenie AG. The gold has washed off of the shovels revealing the rust beneath. Of course just mentioning any of this may be seen by some as evidence of my fixation.
Too bad we have no sterilized emails to discuss. Are they locked away in the same vault as the password, or do they contain nothing worth discussing. Anybody know what is happening at the faucet or is the subject now taboo. GK
I propose to use part of this open thread for a serious conversation about letters to the editor. I’ve been trying to compose a short, effective letter for our local newspaper that can be read and taken to heart by all the folks that have been duped by the AGW hype. Get them to open their eyes and look deeper at the issue. Necessarily, it should not be an attack, it should be informative, short, provide online reference sources, and somehow appeal to the people that would most likely reject the message.
We are at a very interesting point on this topic. There are a lot of mainstream media sources continuing the hype and trumpeting doom. At the same time we have unprecedented sources of recent information that clearly shows most of that to be untrue. The challenge is to create a letter to the editor that can be used everywhere and help the masses realize that there is a change in the wind. If we don’t, we may end up with a new US federal carbon tax or similar situation, in spite of the fact that AGW “Climate Change” is not real.
So post some well considered thoughts that folks can copy and paste.
Consider it an essay contest, 250 words or less.
UK heading for a new Little Ice Age?
It’s official, CET March coldest for 125 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-March.htm
I have posted this before but only one response.
Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.) is keeping temps in a range the past 16 years. The earth is a giant green house and when heat is released in a green house it takes time to escape or absorbed by the water in it.. There are trillions? of BTU’s released as heat every day bymankind.
The sun has been very quiet for many years but that mankind BTU heat being released everyday is keeping temps stable is my feeling.
Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell and a spotless sun. Mankind BTU heat emmisions fell and so did world surface temps.
Arctic is melting faster every year due to High altitude jet exhust emissions BC being deposited in the N hem ice and snow caps is my feeling also.
Thanks
Jim Cripwell says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:43 am
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
—-
Hi Jim, I argued with a warmist about this fairly recently. He insisted that there were paleo studies that ‘measured’ or at least provided bounds for CS, that the models provided certainty that CS was 3.0 + or – 1.5 to within 95%, and that a bunch of other assorted papers backed this up. We bickered back and forth about whether or not the models were worth a darn, I ignored the paleo argument I think, and he finally walked away when I noted that he cited papers that provided different / exclusive ranges for this 95% percent certainty he was claiming.
~shrug~
The IPCC is playing con games with people imho by assigning probabilities based on ‘expert opinion’ like they do, but I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new there.
Lots of people appear to have their opinions on CS, but given that so many people claim certainty to so many different ranges and values, it’d be a lot of tedious work to walk through each claim with a detailed analysis to figure out who’s got the genuine article, if anybody in fact does. As far as I’m concerned CS is still an open question.
Jim Cripwell says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:43 am
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
When I discuss sensitivity I try and relate it to previous times that were warmer. We’ve discussed them many times around here. Even Marcott’s paper shows it was much warmer earlier in the Holocene. Why should it make any difference if it is warmer due to CO2 vs. something else? When we look at the historical records we see nothing that even hints of a super sensitive climate.
G. Karst:
At April 3, 2013 at 10:08 am you say and ask
I offer my response.
Climategate 3 is a file of emails which is in the public domain but cannot be accessed without use of a password which has not been released. The file seems to have been provided by the same person(s) who leaked the Climategate 1 and 2 emails, and he/she/they claims to have the password.
The originators of the Climategate 1, 2 and 3 emails must know what is in all those emails because the emails are theirs.
The Climategate leaker has assurance of not being tackled whether or not the ‘authorities’ have identified him/her/them so long as
(a) the password is not revealed
and
(b) there is at least one devastating email in the Climategate 3 file.
Hence, I do not anticipate that the key will be revealed until either the AGW-scare is history or the Climategate leaker dies of natural causes and releases the key in his/her/their Will.
Richard
Mark Bofill, I think I remember those paleo studies and they were obviously a case of cherry picking. It’s pretty obvious that the planet is in a bi-stable situation with attractors to either an interglacial or glacial condition.
I believe those studies used situations where the climate was moving from a glacial state to an interglacial to claim the climate was highly sensitive. They are probably right for a climate in that particular state. However, it is pure nonsense as it says nothing about sensitivity when we are in a stable climate state.
vukcevic says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:18 am
UK heading for a new Little Ice Age?
It’s official, CET March coldest for 125 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-March.htm
——————————————————————————————————-
Nice chart but I notice the tendency is for the temperature to peak out in the opposite direction after 3-5 yrs then repeat the other direction with around a 5C delta. What would cause the cycling?
Sure its been measured Jim. And you’ve been given many links over the past months.
measuring it is simple:
Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing
Like this
Speed = Distance/Time
You measure sensitivity by measure temperature and by measuring changes in forcing.
You can go do that today. Go ahead.
Example:
From 1850 to today we see a change in temperature of 1C (add whatever error you like)
and we see a change in forcing of say 2watts ( add whatever error you like)
Sensitivity is thus 1/2 or .5 add whatever error you have from your measurement proceedure.
Now to calculate the sensitivity to a doubling of C02
easy: Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.
See how simple. The issue is NOT measuring the quantity. The issue is how large the uncertainty is due to
A) accuracy of measurements
B) time dependence
So its very easy to measure. Its very hard to measure it
1. Accurately.
2. Systematically.
Its the same with other OBSERVATIONAL science.
For example, If the moon doubled in mass what would its orbit be?
Now, If you insist that this question cannot be answered UNTIL we actually
double the mass of the moon, then you’ll end up having to doubt all sorts of things
that you rely on.
for grins
from charles the moderator.. a moshpit inspired chart
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7097/marcottvostokbaselinesh.jpg
My discussion on measuring climate sensitivity started on the Climate Etc. thread
Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat?
with a post
angech | March 30, 2013 at 6:53 am | Reply
I took it to a new piece at
Jim Cripwell | March 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Reply
Is there such a thing as a running estimate of cloud cover for the Earth? The excellent photo in Robert Sanders post “Future shifts In rainfall” shows clear skies over the Sahara which led me to wonder if a “shade” estimate of the earth could be estimated from cloud cover.
Jim Cripwell, take a look at Kiehl, 2007, “Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity.
Keihl discussed the problem that models are able to reproduce the 20th century temperature trend despite the fact that climate sensitivity varies by a factor of 2-3 among climate models. He shows that modelers anti-correlate aerosol forcing — also poorly constrained — to offset variations in climate sensitivity, so that the two parameters cancel enough to let modelers reproduce the 20th century temperature trend.
The short answer is that climate sensitivity is not known. The longer answer is that climate modelers fudge their results by “tuning” the models to get the right answer.
Steve McIntyre discussed the problem here.
Mosher. You just contradicted yourself. See: Heisenberg, W.
“Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Steven, I pick the year 2000 and the year 2013.
Both years should have amongst the best possible instrumental measurements for both quantities.
Steven Mosher says:
“Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Not good enough. Any measurement must be verifiable as being caused specifically by human CO2 emissions, and it must be quantified. All you are doing is pointing out a simple correlation, which may or may not be factual. Certainly it is not an empirical, testable “measurement” as I understand the term. As posted, it is simply hand-waving.
NASA tells us that the average global temperature in 2012 was about 58.3F. I didn’t see an error margin stated but let’s say it +/-0.5F for discussion purposes. I’d like to compare that figure to the year 1198. Can anybody help out?