There was lots of breathless anticipation last week over the Drew Shindell paper on climate sensitivity, which was embargoed until 1800GMT on Sunday (see the embargoed PR from Nature here), but some people like Climate Nexus couldn’t help themselves and blurted it out anyway, breaking the embargo on Friday.
I asked Shindell within minutes of that email if he was upset about the embargo being broken by email and by telephone (voicemail) and got no response. So I have to assume that he and GISS are OK with such things. We’ll remember that next time.
I sent my copy of the Shindell paper over to Nic Lewis, rather than worry about the embargo, and Nic has responded in great detail with a knockout analysis, see below.
While the usual suspects are now trumpeting the recently published Shindell (no et al, all his) paper which says that despite observations, climate sensitivity really is high, honest, the Shindell paper gets low marks when it is examined in detail. See the analysis below the press release.
First, from GISS: RELEASE 14-073
Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown
A new NASA study shows Earth’s climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming.
This research hinges on a new and more detailed calculation of the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to the factors that cause it to change, such as greenhouse gas emissions. Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, found Earth is likely to experience roughly 20 percent more warming than estimates that were largely based on surface temperature observations during the past 150 years.
Shindell’s paper on this research was published March 9 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade — even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans.
Some recent research, aimed at fine-tuning long-term warming projections by taking this slowdown into account, suggested Earth may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas increases than previously thought. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued in 2013 and was the consensus report on the state of climate change science, also reduced the lower range of Earth’s potential for global warming.
To put a number to climate change, researchers calculate what is called Earth’s “transient climate response.” This calculation determines how much global temperatures will change as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase – at about 1 percent per year — until the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has doubled. The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC’s estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell’s study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C).
Shindell’s paper further focuses on improving our understanding of how airborne particles, called aerosols, drive climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. Aerosols are produced by both natural sources – such as volcanoes, wildfire and sea spray – and sources such as manufacturing activities, automobiles and energy production. Depending on their make-up, some aerosols cause warming, while others create a cooling effect. In order to understand the role played by carbon dioxide emissions in global warming, it is necessary to account for the effects of atmospheric aerosols.
While multiple studies have shown the Northern Hemisphere plays a stronger role than the Southern Hemisphere in transient climate change, this had not been included in calculations of the effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate sensitivity. Prior to Shindell’s work, such calculations had assumed aerosol impacts were uniform around the globe.
This difference means previous studies have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols. When corrected, the range of likely warming based on surface temperature observations is in line with earlier estimates, despite the recent slowdown.
One reason for the disproportionate influence of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly as it pertains to the impact of aerosols, is that most man-made aerosols are released from the more industrialized regions north of the equator. Also, the vast majority of Earth’s landmasses are in the Northern Hemisphere. This furthers the effect of the Northern Hemisphere because land, snow and ice adjust to atmospheric changes more quickly than the oceans of the world.
“Working on the IPCC, there was a lot of discussion of climate sensitivity since it’s so important for our future,” said Shindell, who was lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report’s chapter on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. “The conclusion was that the lower end of the expected warming range was smaller than we thought before. That was a big discussion. Yet, I kept thinking, we know the Northern Hemisphere has a disproportionate effect, and some pollutants are unevenly distributed. But we don’t take that into account. I wanted to quantify how much the location mattered.”
Shindell’s climate sensitivity calculation suggests countries around the world need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the higher end of proposed emissions reduction ranges to avoid the most damaging consequences of climate change. “I wish it weren’t so,” said Shindell, “but forewarned is forearmed.”
For more information about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, visit:
-end-
================================================================
OK now have a look at what Nic Lewis has to say about it on Climate Audit. It seems the results are all about adjustments and not the actual sensitivity.
Basically Shindell used CMIP5 models does an analysis to show that there are gaps between the climate sensitivity response to different types of forcings.
So, once these are “adjusted for”, Shindell claims that the lower climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is not possible. He’s claiming that anything lower than 1.3 is bogus.
Some adjustments applied seem almost as large as the effect. Nic Lewis writes at Climate Audit:
One of those adjustments is to add +0.3 W/m² to the figures used for model aerosol forcing to bring the estimated model aerosol forcing into line with the AR5 best estimate of -0.9 W/m². He notes that the study’s main results are very sensitive to the magnitude of this adjustment.
If it were removed, the estimated mean TCR would increase by 0.7°C. If it were increased by 0.15 W/m², presumably the mean TCR estimate of 1.7°C would fall to 1.35°C – in line with the Otto et al (2013) estimate. Now, so far as I know, model aerosol forcing values are generally for the change from the 1850s, or thereabouts, to ~2000, not – as is the AR5 estimate – for the change from 1750. Since the AR5 aerosol forcing best estimate for the 1850s was -0.19 W/m², the adjustment required to bring the aerosol forcing estimates for the models into line with the AR5 best estimate is ~0.49 W/m², not ~0.3 W/m². On the face of it, using that adjustment would bring Shindell’s TCR estimate down to around 1.26°C.
It’s just like what GISS does to the temperature record, they can’t get there without adjusting the data. They don’t represent base reality, but rather an adjusted reality:
To summarise, four out of six models/model-averages used by Shindell are included…in AR5 Figure 10.4 … none of these show scaling factors for ‘other anthropogenic’…that are consistent with unity at a 95% confidence level. In a nutshell, these models at least do not realistically simulate the response of surface temperatures and other variables to these factors.
Yes, adjusted, modeled, non-reality. That’s the world NASA GISS lives in, and it started all the way back in 1988 when Hansen and Wirth decided to adjust the temperature of the Senate Hearing room when Hansen made his “we must do something” pitch on global warming:
Just like the clown show on the Senate Floor last night, it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Now here’s the part that really pisses me off. This paper is done entirely on the taxpayer’s dime, publicly funded at NASA, yet it is behind a paywall at Nature Climate Change. Perhaps the next time I get an “embargoed” paper where GISS and Shindell don’t care about the embargo when notified of a breach, and put publicly funded work behind a paywall, I think I’ll just publish it right then and there.
Here’s the part of the Shindell paper the public is allowed to read:
===============================================================
Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity
Drew T. Shindell Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2136
- Received 02 October 2013 Accepted 16 January 2014 Published online09 March 2014
Abstract:
Understanding climate sensitivity is critical to projecting climate change in response to a given forcing scenario. Recent analyses1, 2, 3 have suggested that transient climate sensitivity is at the low end of the present model range taking into account the reduced warming rates during the past 10–15 years during which forcing has increased markedly4. In contrast, comparisons of modelled feedback processes with observations indicate that the most realistic models have higher sensitivities5, 6. Here I analyse results from recent climate modelling intercomparison projects to demonstrate that transient climate sensitivity to historical aerosols and ozone is substantially greater than the transient climate sensitivity to CO2. This enhanced sensitivity is primarily caused by more of the forcing being located at Northern Hemisphere middle to high latitudes where it triggers more rapid land responses and stronger feedbacks. I find that accounting for this enhancement largely reconciles the two sets of results, and I conclude that the lowest end of the range of transient climate response to CO2 in present models and assessments7 (<1.3 °C) is very unlikely.
===============================================================
For a dose of reality, read Nic Lewis paper that is observationally based, and without adjustments applied: The Lewis and Crok exposition – Climate less sensitive to Carbon Dioxide than most models suggest
Looks as if what we have here is another homogenization process. Only this time instead of the well sited stations being identified as outliers and adjusted out of existence we see the cooler running models adjusted to confirm.
It is sickening that this farce continues.
This is the party line. Toe it or else. Hands up anyone who thinks we have solved ‘climate science’ and we should all go home, reflect and choose different career paths?
Maybe with a new Senate in 2015, GISS can be defunded.
Guardian has an article about Shindell’s paper.
Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal (By Abraham)
A new paper by Drew Shindell of NASA provides more evidence to support relatively high climate sensitivity estimates
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/11/climate-change-sensitivity-shindell
An adjusted pig is still a pig…..
I hate that these papers use “studies” as if real world data was taken, as opposed to what they usually mean is “we ran an unproved model” and came up with some estimates based on that unproved model. The problem is they tend to discuss both model generated data and real world data as if they were the same.
Let me get this straight – looking at the models (that appear to have a high climate sensitivity), Shindell discovers that they don’t have a low climate sensitivity. Or am I missing something?
Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade — even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans.
I’m pretty sure water vapor is emitted by humans and is the most significant GHG.
OT, but what’s up with Real Climate? I’m getting a 403 Forbidden message.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1587595
Now here’s the part that really pisses me off. This paper is done entirely on the taxpayer’s dime, publicly funded at NASA, yet it is behind a paywall at Nature Climate Change.
Isn’t this against the law? It would seem there should be some sort of citizen recourse to prohibit private organizations from charging for publicly-funded material. Where is Chris Horner on this one? Seems like the kind of thing he gets his teeth into!
The Right Climate Stuff NASA moon shot scientists/engineers) find UPPER BOUNDS lower than Shindell’s mean sensitivity.
Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity for Use in Regulatory Decisions Report of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, Harold H. Doiron, Feb 2014
CLIMATENEXUS = CLIMATENIXUS
Just burn their report. It’s just hyped crap.
Enough with this science by star paper after star paper…it definitely can’t be science
Ray Hudson said:
March 11, 2014 at 10:56 am
Now here’s the part that really pisses me off. This paper is done entirely on the taxpayer’s dime, publicly funded at NASA, yet it is behind a paywall at Nature Climate Change.
Isn’t this against the law?
————
Law? They are above the law.
And beneath contempt.
Shindell is at odds with his erstwhile colleagues,including Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.
Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon
So, the next iteration of CMIP can use an even higher climate sensitvity so the projected temperature line will diverge more sharply from the actual temperature. I’m all for it. The sooner people get to see the disconnect between models and reality, the sooner we can bury CAGW.
start hitting them up with freedom of information act requests. As a publically funded endeavor they can not withhold it from the public.
As for the paper itself, “It’s not that the sensitivities of the models are too high, there are completely different reasons that the models suck. You should still trust the models to forecast our doom though.” Yeah, that’s a winning argument.
I suspect that all this construction will come falling down soon, as, if the temperatures do not start to climb quite rapidly in the very near future, then it will be easy to prove it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
As all data sets, both satellite and thermometer, look like they are starting to decline now it should not take long 🙂
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
Facts and truth will never harm them. It is a cult. Cult made up of corupt tax and spend elected crooks, on the dole grant PHD’s, Earth First radicals and assorted enablers. Plant them face down in the truth , not one thing will result. Go after the people who are harmed by these crooks and theives and set the ones in pain upon these evil ones. Start a fight the crooks can not win. As of now the crooks control the battle ground via the media. By pass the media. Use “Greenpeace” methods on them.
this is at the end of Gavin Schmids page at Nasa:
*Please note that emails sent to government addresses may be subject to disclosure under FOIA and that you should have no expectation of privacy. If you want to contact me in a non-official capacity, please do so via my columbia email.
[snip – ugly hate-speech commentary against GISS employees – second warning for you – there won’t be a third – Anthony]
Some of Shindell’s geeky smugness and intellectual isolation is revealed in a video profile:
http://www.amnh.org/learn/welcomecenter/profiles/dshindell-video.php
Until the public gets so sick of it that they force their governments to stop giving money to these scammers, the con will continue.
“slowdown” in warming?
kind of like when I’m being robbed, my wealth accumulation is slowing down?
Enough of this waste.
First there was No Pause, then Oh There is a slight slowdown, then oh there is a pause but (place half a dozen different excuses here), then oh the models don’t show the pause and can’t explain it so the sensitivity MAY be wrong, now no the sensitivity is correct we didn’t put enough or the correct adjustments in to the models.
You just couldn’t make this up and they actually have the nerve to call it Science, it ha sto be one of the biggest scientific farces ever.
The funniest part about it is that they are3 so desperate they don’t even realise how stupid they look.
GISS, just like NCAR, believes in adjusting models; correcting them would be too much work:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade
The following graph shows GISS, Hadcrut3, RSS, UAH, Hadsst3, and Hadcrut4.
All start in 1997 and have a mean of 12 months and all are offset in such a way that the peak around 1998 is in the same place for all 6 sets. Here is your test question: Can you tell which one is GISS without looking at the answer?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/mean:12/offset:0.071/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12/offset:0.098/plot/uah/from:1997/mean:12/offset:0.225/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/mean:12/offset:0.175/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/mean:12/offset:0.074
In his paper, Dr. Shindell uses the phrase “Earth’s transient climate sensitivity.” This phrase is a misnomer, for it implies that this quantity is a constant. It is not.
Again, the claim is this: models show long-term trends, observations show short-term variability.
Non-falsifiable.
The public is not educated to be skeptical. If the public generally questioned, conclusions would be viewed in conjunction with assumptions, and CAGW would collapse. Of course, if the public was inclined to be skeptical, the Iraq wars probably wouldn’t have happened, as Bush et al would have expected voters to ask for observational proof, not hearsay or model (“He’s a bad guy, and bad guys have WMD, so he must have WMD). And for the “democratic” world, that would have been a bad thing.
A skeptical voter is not in the interest of “good government” as Tony Blair said when saying the Brity FOI legislation he brought in was a mistake. Good government requires things to be done that we don’t want done because those things are in “our” best interests.
Is NASA purposely sullying its reputation? No wonder the ex-NASA – “The Right Stuff” people are so upset. Sad to see a fantastic organization let itself be scuttled. I guess if a lot of your budget is being diverted to AGW, it is hard to maintain a space development program like the Russians and Chinese. Of course, the latter are not squandering billions of AGW propaganda. Or maybe I am wrong and OUR world IS coming to an end. /sarc off
Great use of an abstract and a paywall to mislead people into thinking they read the science!
“Pay no attention to the [science behind the paywall] curtain!”
Oh dear, hope my previous post doesn’t cause a problem. Yesterday when I crossed the US border, the US Customs Officer asked for my email address. i assume I am being monitored now. All I did was go into the US for 10 minutes to buy diesel for my truck as it is 25% cheaper 2 miles across the border. May you live in interesting times.
wbrozek says:
March 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Try guessing which is which in this graph without looking at the top left
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/compress:12/plot/rss/offset:-0.085/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/compress:12/offset:-0.28/plot/gistemp/from:1979/compress:12/offset:=0.39
Oops – equals instead of minus – try this instead
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/compress:12/plot/rss/offset:-0.085/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/compress:12/offset:-0.28/plot/gistemp/from:1979/compress:12/offset:-0.39
When a more open and balanced climate science dialog jettisons the false premise of a discernible significance of an AGW danger, then I expect to see a climate science trend to establish a climate sensitivity observed at ~0.5 C +/- 0.5.
One of indicators of that happening is model withdrawal at GISS. It looks like that is already happening.
John
i don’t see how this helps their cause, even if it’s correct. otto has 1.3 deg c for it’s tcr, and the shindell abstract says it’s unlikely to be <1.3 deg c. so say it is between 1.3 and 1.7 per doubling, then we can expect 1-2 deg warming in 100 years or so. this is not 'cats and dogs living together' territory.
it's interesting the article says co2 is increasing by 1% per year. 1% of 400 ppm is 4 ppm, and we are only adding 2 ppm for now. nasa's worst case is 800 ppm in a hundred years, which is going to require a lot of real world growth in fossil fuel production. so 1% per year would technically be the worst case, and would still only result 1-2 deg of warming.
when you compare that to tol's figures, it's not even into the range where warming begins to negatively affect world gdp.
when i saw the headline, i thought they were going to be claiming 2-3 deg c for tcr. this is weak tea.
Doug Proctor says:
March 11, 2014 at 12:12 pm
***********************************
It’s been awhile since I’ve watched my Yes Minister boxed gift set. But I recall an exchange where personal secy Bernard says, “But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know.”, and Sir Humphrey replies, “No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt, ignorance has a certain dignity.”
I think its aboiut time the Journal Climate Nature should be closed down. Not for censorship purposes but because it is fostering absolute lunacy and demeaning science in general.
I claim there is no such thing as “Earth’s transient climate response.” Does anyone care to take the opposite side of the argument?
Wayne – you have always been monitored. Internet privacy is an oxymoron.
‘One reason for the disproportionate influence of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly as it pertains to the impact of aerosols, is that most man-made aerosols are released from the more industrialized regions north of the equator. Also, the vast majority of Earth’s landmasses are in the Northern Hemisphere.’
Gosh, without the effects of man-made aerosols from the Northern Hemisphere to cool it down from creeping AGW heat, one can expect the IPCC will soon find itself conducting its meetings in one of the newly constructed 5-star, beachfront, hotel conference rooms looking out on the glistening Antarctica shoreline.
Sorry, Drew Shindell, but that old aerosol excuse (what’s that; about a quarter century now?) is starting to get a little past its ‘sell by’ date. Just ask Chris Turley and gang.
CO2 has increased .0034% in 30 years in regards to volumn. PPM is a percentage. Percentage increase of a percentage is meaningless it has to be to the whole.
Sure temps aren’t rising right now, but when they adjust them in a few years from now I’m sure it will show the warming continued, there was no pause, and people won’t remember as all they heard was 97% consensus.
The only thing that can save us is some cold hard truths.
So the embargo is truly destined to let the friendly journalists of the Guardian and other MSM warmistas have enough time to prepare articles that will be flooding the world’s newspapers at once while rebuttals would have to wait, gather their arguments and come after the battle, regardless of the quality of their argument. Obviously this time, the release misfired allowing the rebuttal to come at the same time than the great agitprop. Nic indeed eviscerated the Shindell claim…
Tim
March 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm
says:
‘Sure temps aren’t rising right now, but… The only thing that can save us is some cold hard truths.’
Me thinks Drew Shindell jumped the gun a little bit here. In his rush (perhaps for taxpayer funded, Hansen-like fame and notoriety?) to get his ‘research’ out at the first soothing and warming breath of Spring, following a brutal winter, he may have misjudged the timing of the weather. They’re expecting 8-10 inches of snow tonight here in Chicago.
Way to go, Drew!
– – – – – –
TomRude,
Nice.
I add that Pseudo-Embargos (PEs) seem to correlate well to the pre-existence of otherwise unpromotable Pseudo-Cimate Modelology (PCM).
John
“Shindell’s study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C)”
And if “feedbacks” are negative as the relatively stable climate over geologic time would suggest, then the ECS would be lower and rather less than IPCC estimates.
Rob Dawg says:
March 11, 2014 at 10:44 am
Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade — even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans.
I’m pretty sure water vapor is emitted by humans and is the most significant GHG.
———————————————————————————————————————-
What about methane? It’s a more significant GHG than CO2 and I know I produce a LOT of that.
@Evan Jones
Right on.
Homogenisation is the new Black. When you find that clear, precise measurements of the phenomenon you are investigating shows that your guestimates of what should be, is not, you smear the data over a larger well-chosen area until the result is ‘inconclusive’ (as was the case in AR5 for the fabled Hot Spot) or you adjust the numbers involved until you have a result that ‘lowers our confidence in uncomfortable numbers’.
It is truly breathtaking because it is not the result of incompetence, it is the result of trying to support a preconceived result – the antithesis of science and the core of propaganda.
From the article above:
“This difference means previous studies have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols.”
Really!! So all those other studies are invalidated by this one? Well, it is good to see we have so much ‘progress’ correcting all that rubbish science done by all those other CAGW-promoting scientists who claimed the world was about to tip over into hellfire and …. wait a minute! What they are really saying is, “It’s worse that we thought!”
But I already knew that, with a very different take on what the subject of ‘worse’ was.
So, once again we get an example of why the “United Nations Convention against Torture” should apply to data sets.
What is good for a goose is great for propaganda.
@ Tom J at 1:33 pm
Exactly. Todat the Burlington Free Press (the main newsrag for VT, had on its cover an Olympic Cross Country skier saying “We are losing our winters and have to DO something about it”, this after one of the coldest Vermont winters in 20 years and a storm poised to dump 12-20 inches of snow on the state tomorrow.
It’s a bunch of brainwashed idiots chanting the same stupid claims. But if you chance to look out the window or keep track of a thermometer, reality is quite different.
And the winning excuse for the 17+ year warming slowdown/pause/halt/reversal – aerosols! I was wondering which of the 10 “Wayne’s World” excuses they’d pull out of their nether regional orifice. Do they just put them all in a hat, and draw one out at random?
Patrick B says: @ March 11, 2014 at 10:40 am
I hate that these papers use “studies” as if real world data was taken….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hate how they use the term: A new NASA study shows…”
It used to be that NASA stood for good science instead of the material coming out of the back end of a pig.
Actually the stuff coming out of the pig is worth more than the Big Green Slime™ coming under the name of A new NASA study
Rob Dawg says:
March 11, 2014 at 10:44 am
…
I’m pretty sure water vapor is emitted by humans and is the most significant GHG.
IIRC, your SUV actually puts out a slightly greater volume of water vapour than CO2 by volume for each gallon burned. That may vary with the blend.
@Rob Dawg
“I’m pretty sure water vapor is emitted by humans and is the most significant GHG.”
I thought exactly the same thing and was running a few scenarios through my mind involving watering lawns, running watercraft over lakes and evaporating water in salt pans. And a couple of other things like burning natural gas, wood, oil coal. There is a long list of activities that produce AG Water vapour AGWv™.
Just take natural gas alone (CH4): there are two H2O molecules produced for every CO2. With global consumption of natural gas at 3.3 trillion cubic metres of NG per year. Each cubic metre burned creates 1.6 kg of H2O and 1.96 kg of CO2. As water vapour is a much more powerful GHG than CO2, this bears looking into: 5.2 gigatons of water vapour from this source alone is nothing to be sneezed at.
The implications are huge: as the amount of AGWv™ has increased during the ‘hiatus’ as well as the CO2 we all know so much about, there is even more ‘splaining to do about why there is not a heck of a lot more warming going on.
ed K says:
March 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm
PPM is not a percentage.
Although I agree with this posting, that this study really is pretty much bogus. If they are going to maintain that aerosols are much more effective than previously believed, then they ALSO have the cure to control the manmade global warming, it is MUCH cheaper to just increase our aerosols as needed and remove the restrictions on coal and CO2. CO2 increase for crop yield benefits, and a little more aerosols to “control” the fictional warming. So, once again, this study shows that CO2 regulations are a complete waste of money and will lower everyones standard of living and quality of life for no reason
outdoorrink says:
March 11, 2014 at 11:34 am
Until the public gets so sick of it that they force their governments to stop giving money to these scammers, the con will continue.
You would think. But we have generations of kids now being taught from kindergarten that man made global warming is a fact. They’re taught this right through their college years. We have, in the US at least, a big push for more college students. More students are going into climate, environment, and sustainability studies. They’re invested in the belief.
Teens aren’t known to watch the news or look into opposing views on issues. They’re specifically being taught not to look at opposing views regarding climate science, not only by teachers and professors, but also by their politicians and president. They are encouraged to laugh at and belittle skeptics. Mann flat out told students in his Q&A that science doesn’t advance by repeating what has already been done. His advice was to start with the fact that AGW is real and branch out from there. They took it at face value, I wondered why he doesn’t want his science looked at closely or repeated.
If governments can push though their agenda before some of these kids get a clue, the government can claim their policies were a success. The economy may be wrecked, and jobs may be hard to find, but imagine how much worse it would have been if the planet had warmed!
My opinion, for what it’s worth.
[climatology]
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)
look its worse than we thought our computer models say so….what! you don’t feel hot!,take that jumper off wake up to yourself my computer model says you should feel hot…end of story!
¨Until the public gets so sick of it that they force their governments to stop giving money to these scammers, the con will continue¨
Sheep. Just sheep. So used to being fed lies by their media news apparatus that they believe what they read/hear.
As always, the team got its reply out very quickly…
Of course a lot of water vapour is produced by humans when hydrocarbons or carbohydrates are burned, but once you get a relative humidity of 100%, it condenses out as rain or snow. In theory, you can increase the CO2 concentration 10 fold, but you cannot do that with H2O.
It really is worse than we thought.
More of the same crap from this crowd…clear sky flux calculations that have to assume a global surface temperature and assume a constant water vapor optical depth that is actually constantly changing. This is complete BS and at odds with all of the founding work that points at the hydrological cycle as the controlling function that governs the earth’s OLR, not CO2, and from this they have to assume water vapor feedbacks are positive against those optical depths and from which there is no proof of in the record, in fact, the real data shows the opposite and supports the contention the feedbacks are actually negative.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
“If the observations don’t agree with the models, then the observations must be wrong.”
Lecture 1 – Climate science 101
Anto:
The pertinent logical principle is: “If the observations don’t agree with the predictions, then these predictions are false propositions.” Climate models, however, make “projections” rather than “predictions.” and a projection is neither a proposition nor a set of propositions. What’s wrong with global warming climatology is not that its models state false propositions but rather that they state no propositions. A model that states no propositions is not a scientific model, IPCC claims to the contrary not withstanding.
The man has written a paper with the wrong title. Here, let me fix it for him:
Shindell, DT (2014). How to put lipstick on a pig. Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate2136
Yes, and present CO2 and water concentrations already absorb nearly all sunlight in the CO2 infrared absorption spectra, so that theoretical CO2 climate sensitivity must approach zero.
I would like to suggest a paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven Laboratory, Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system. Schwartz S. E. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S05 (2007). doi:10.1029/2007JD008746
As I understand the paper Dr. Schwartz estimate climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 as 1.1 ± 0.5 K. He based his estimate on ocean heat content.
In my opinion, heat content of the world ocean is the key to climate sensitivity because the ocean acts a huge buffer that averages out the various short term variations caused by volcanoes, ENSO etc.
I don’t see any justification for using temperature of the atmosphere, since the heat content of the atmosphere is equivalent to only about 10 meters of the world ocean.
Plus, the tropical oceans absorb the vast bulk of the Sun’s energy. Just have a look at an equal-area map of the world and judge for yourself what percentage of the Earth’s surface between 23.5 N and S latitude is land. There are global maps that show the insolation for each latitude, but eyeballing an equal-area map will help to understand the point.
Sorry, that should be “the heat content of the atmosphere is equivalent to only about 10 meters DEPTH of the world ocean.”
“And so say al. of us!”
When you get the c-word “consensus” in the abstract, you know it’s not a scientific paper. Reading it all, you can really see it isn’t scientific at all.
Oops–I should have outdented that last line.
Wrong Baseline = Wrong Result.
Justification for a retraction?
And who peer reviewed such a whoopsy, anyway?
Being monitored is one thing,Back in the UK The Guardian , I am being pre-monitored.
That means they can wipe out any comments I make , leaving the gang of SS crushing crews to their own devices.
My last comment on the Shindell article was simply a response to some idiot who was insulting a fellow Skeptic.
( And you Sir are an Alarmist Puck , beaten too often around the head with a Hockey Stick)
Appeared briefly, deleted, condemned to the bin.
Ah well ,onwards and upwards!
This is why the GISS adjustments matter — all the models keep hindcasting to it. GIGO.
Steve Goddard is right, this has gone beyond confirmation bias and is now outright fraud.
“OT, but what’s up with Real Climate? I’m getting a 403 Forbidden message.”
Are you a licensed climate scientist? Be sure to enter your IPCC identification number when prompted!
The reason global warming has stopped is because there are more aerosol cans in the northern hemisphere than the southern? I like it, it shows imagination, no science but a good imagination.
Mike Webb says:
You are wrong for two reasons:
(1) There are always wings of the absorption lines that aren’t yet saturated.
And, more importantly, …
(2) The game doesn’t end when all the infrared radiation is absorbed. The point is that the more greenhouse gases you have, the higher in the atmosphere a photon has to be emitted so that it can successfully escape to space without being absorbed. This means the effective radiating level in the atmosphere increases. The surface temperature is determined by the constraint that the effective radiating level has to be at a temperature of ~255K (for the Earth system to re-radiate out into space the radiation it absorbs from the sun) and that the temperature then increases from there according to the environmental lapse rate (on average, about 6.5 C per km) as you go down to the surface. So, as that effective radiating level increases in altitude (due to larger concentrations of greenhouse gases), the surface temperature gets warmer and warmer.
Ralph Kramden says:
It has nothing to do with aerosol cans. Sulfate aerosols are produced from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal…and especially in places where there are not yet strict environmental regulations for scrubbers on smokestacks and the like.
So global warming will return and the climate models will be validated? Why stop there? What about finding bigfoot or proof of ancient aliens?
NRG22 says:
March 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm
“If governments can push though their agenda before some of these kids get a clue, the government can claim their policies were a success. The economy may be wrecked, and jobs may be hard to find, but imagine how much worse it would have been if the planet had warmed!”
Sadly, I must agree. Green Guards with Little Green Books and tasers, here we come, unless sceptics mobilise and evangelise a great deal more effectively.