From the Institute of Physics and the “children won’t know what snow is” department:
The likelihood of record-breaking warm years in England is set to substantially increase as a result of the human influence on the climate, new research suggests.
In a study published today, 1 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, an international team of researchers has shown that the chances of England experiencing a record-breaking warm year, such as the one seen in 2014, is at least 13 times more likely as a result of anthropogenic climate change.
This is according to climate model simulations and detailed analyses of the Central England Temperature (CET) record–the world’s longest instrumental temperature record dating back to 1659.
The results of the study showed that human activities have a large influence on extreme warm years in England, which the researchers claim is remarkable given England is such a small region of the world.
Lead author of the study Dr Andrew King, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of Melbourne, said: “When you look at average annual temperatures over larger regions of the world, such as the whole of Europe, there is a lower variability in temperatures from year to year compared with smaller areas.
“As a result of this low variability, it is easier to spot anomalies. This is why larger regions tend to produce stronger attribution statements, so it is remarkable that we get such a clear anthropogenic influence on temperatures in a relatively small area across central England.”
To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence, and then when there is both natural forcings and human influence. The change in the likelihood of warm years due to human influences on the climate was then calculated.
The researchers then observed the CET and picked out the warmest years from the record since 1900. The warmest years were then plotted onto a graph which the researchers used to calculate the likelihood of warm years happening now and warms years happening 100 years ago.
The model-based method suggested at least a 13-fold increase (with 90% confidence) due to human influences on the climate, whilst the observation-based approach suggested at least a 22-fold increase in the probability of very warm years in the climate of today compared with the climate of a century ago (again with 90% confidence).
“Both of our approaches showed that there is a significant and substantial increase in the likelihood of very warm years occurring in central England,” Dr King Continued.
According to the CET, 2014 was the warmest year on record in central England. It has been reported that during the last 60 years there has been rapid warming in the CET in line with the anthropogenic influence on the climate, with the highest average annual temperature of 10.93 °C recorded in 2014.
The Central England Temperature (CET) series, which is the longest instrumental time series of temperature in the world, has monthly recordings of average temperatures dating back to 1659 and recordings of average daily temperatures dating back to 1772.
The CET is designed to represent the climate of the English Midlands, which is approximated by a triangular area enclosed by Lancashire in the north, Bristol in the south-west and London in the south-east. The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control, making it an ideal resource for studying long-term temperature trends across the region.
As to whether these results can be seen to be representative of areas outside of central England, Dr King said: “I would expect that other areas near the UK would produce similar results.
“For larger regions, stronger attribution statements can often be made. For example, we performed a similar attribution study for Europe as a whole and found a 35-fold increase in the likelihood of extremely warm years using model simulations.”
###
This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government.
From Friday 1 May, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054002.
Full paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054002/pdf/1748-9326_10_5_054002.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Warmer weather for England? Yes please!
I’ll believe it when it actually happens, though.
Yep. I’ll have plenty of that, please. Bring it on!
30 years ago we were promised that London would have the climate of the Loire Valley in France by now. Warm, fruitful lazy long summer days. Mild winters. Luvverly.
I’m still waiting.
bring the vineyards back!
It would be great if it was true. However, using computer models, programmed to give the pre-determined results required for additional grants, does not provide much confidence.
More to the point, we need warmer weather to counteract the absolutely catastrophic effect of the UK’s current energy policy, which was crafted by the opposition leader Ed Milliband, who may shortly become the country’s next prime minister. Then we shall have to pray these models are correct.
5 years from now when the AMO is cold and the UK is cooler than normal, this article will be long forgotten.. only to be replaced by another one predicting the same thing.
As in climate, they cycle repeats.
Not sure if we know the AMO will be cold in the next 5 years. It could be 10
or 20 years. We do know that this weak solar cycle will be in what may be
a long minimum in just a few years. Will be interesting to see if that has
any effect or not. It does not seem to with other minimums, but with ice
increasing a bit and the PDO turning down, small decreases in TSI (or
other solar effects) could have a bigger effect due to coupling/feedbacks.
Researching the future implies omnipotence.
I wonder what God have say about that!
We’ll have to wait to find out, Mother Nature sure can keep a secret.
If I predict that when I drop a ball, it will fall until it hits the floor, am I claiming omnipotence?
So people in England no longer get cold? They sure did in the 1600’s.
I lived in England for two years and can’t believe that this is anything but a good thing for England if it happens, especially for those who cannot afford the expensive heating without sensible use of coal.
I tried one vacation to the South including Lands end an had to wear a winter coat on the 4th of July.
Got off the island for all subsequent Holidays to Tunusia, Greece, Spain or Italy and France.
That’s just daft! I’ve lived here for 56 years. The average temp is just under 10c (50f) and winter days average 3c (37f). We can see summer days of 30c (86f). The wind at Land’s End is a chill factor, as it’s coming straight off the Atlantic! Don’t make out England to be Iceland! We all wish it were warmer, but let’s keep this sensible.
Sorry we also visited Devon Torquay, and Cornwall on a one wèek trip. ALL COLD IN JULY.
http://www.london.climatemps.com/temperatures.php
Beyond my paygrade except that I would agree a small region seems more likely to vary than the whole of Europe. I wouldn’t try to compute national MPG based upon one car.
“When you look at average annual temperatures over larger regions of the world … there is a lower variability in temperatures from year to year compared with smaller areas”
Holy crap!, An “international team of researchers” made it out of fourth grade 🙂
then they write “The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control, making it an ideal resource for studying long-term temperature trends across the region.”
Sounds like what they do is study temperature trends, doesn’t it?
yeah but unfortunately someone gave them a computer “To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations … blah blah blah”
Sometimes I wish I had sweet fantasy gig like these people
Apparently, in their statistics, they suppose that years are independent. It is not the case, the outcome of one year would not depend on what happened the previous year. Actually, they don’t. Temperatures, as statistical variables, vary more in a random walk like way than like independent dice throws.
CET has not been quality controlled. It was not continuous, not from fixed stations, not read by trained meteorologists, not accurate, not measured with callibrated instruments.
Apart from that, use it.
… they write “The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control, making it an ideal resource for studying
long-term temperature trendsUHI acrossthe</strike a densely populated region.” …There, fixed it for them.
Oops – not quite!!
… they write “The CET has undergone thorough and extensive quality control, making it an ideal resource for studying
long-term temperature trendsUHI acrossthea densely populated region.” …There, fixed it for them.
They also claim a load of crap about the GHE and global warming!
Another example of negative feedback – warmer winters means less use of fuel for heating – don’t suppose they mentioned that.
“The model-based method suggested at least a 13-fold increase (with 90% confidence) due to human influences on the climate, whilst the observation-based approach suggested at least a 22-fold increase in the probability of very warm years in the climate of today compared with the climate of a century ago (again with 90% confidence).”
Well, that’s a switch. The model-based method suggested less probability of very warm years than the observation-based approach — almost half. Did they take the pause into account, or has there been no pause in warming in England? I’m also curious about how you get 90% confidence with both methods when the results are so far apart from each other. You can’t put 90% confidence in both results, can you?
Statistics , can give you any results you want if you ‘select’ the right method and data .
And in a world where CGW causes cooling and in area that considers ‘tails I win heads you lose ‘ to be a acceptable scientific approach , your yes/no problem is an none issue .
“And in a world where CGW causes cooling and in area that considers ‘tails I win heads you lose ‘ to be a acceptable scientific approach , your yes/no problem is an none issue .”
Well that sure does simplify the math too.
They had me at “…To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations…”
Exactly.
So they claim to know:
A) All of the natural forcings.
B) The magnitude of all of the natural forcings.
C) How the natural forcings have changed over the last three centuries.
D) The magnitude of the forcing from GHGs.
E) How the forcing from GHGs has changed over the last three centuries.
But they don’t know that. They just have an opinion.
And their opinion is no more trustworthy for being written in computer code as it would be for being written in Sanskrit.
well they didnt claim to know. All of these they have to estimate.
The nice thing is the observation based approach showed a 22 fold increase.
So I guess we can reject the model based approach.
In fact the two approaches test different things.
The model based approach has little to do with the actual data, it is only used from 1900 to selected the models to be used (and then only against a weak criteria of the distributions of anomalies between model runs and the actual being similar). From that point all the model based approach does is compare the probability of getting an anomaly beyond a certain threshold in runs without anthro forcings and in runs using RCP8.5 models (2006 – 2020). Not surprisingly the probability increases with greater forcing. The actual CET hardly features, it could be any areas of the globe that the models could have been run against, particularly since the analysis all begins in 1900 with no explanation (we perhaps get a clue as to why this wasn’t included – the paper later says the variation in CET pre-1900 gets much greater).
The observation based approach uses a simple linear model to detrend the observations (again only from 1900 so again no real reason to use CET) using CO2 concentrations (this incidentally is noted as a surrogate for global temp). They then model the distribution of observations 20% above this (using a generalized Pareto distribution), run a 1000 simulations (with scant regard for the uncertainty in their model of the distributions) and then asks what would be the probability of getting the 2014 observation if the CO2 concentrations were those of the early 1900s. No statistics are reported for the quality of fit for the CO2 concentrations or the a generalized Pareto distribution.
Different threshold, different comparison. The two are unrelated.
They are also largely unrelated to CET and any useful attribution of anthropogenic influences, despite the claims to the contrary, in both cases the influence is assumed rather than demonstrated from the observations.
More stuff from the marketing department of the Ozzie Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. Is their grant coming up for renewal?
However, you don’t need models. After having lived in Britain for many years, I am well equipped to make predictions without using computer models. Here are my predictions.
1. There will be a lot of weather.
2. Summer will be marginally warmer than winter. Perhaps even for two days in succession.
3. There will be some days on which there will be no rain. But not many.
4. It will be windy in Wales. This has nothing to do with the eisteddfodau.
5. In general, the climate will be cloudy and miserable. (The people will be miserable as well. This will be a great comfort to them, because, as a previous commenter noted, they know this is the natural and proper condition for humanity.)
Tell me how I’ve done at the end of a year.
Great! But we’re not really miserable, it just gives us a sense of humour!
I predict the future climate in Britain to be:
Sunny periods with scattered showers.
Their data appears to show about 3 times more warming than satellite data. UHI?
Yes. UK is more densely populated than much of Europe, with greater local UHI effects – 2 days ago a friend of mine 3 miles away in a village got wet snow falling, I got light rain in the town. The local UHI effects affect temperature and weather within very small distances, leading to almost microclimate pockets. Unless you factor in varying UHI, all you’re getting is a noisy signal.
So they’ve failed at predicting global weather and now they can predict accurately for a single country?
So now the prediction is that the British people will all melt in a stinking pile of flesh, whilst the island sinks beneath the waves…
No, the headline says “England”. Scotland and Wales will not be affected.
At last, at last. My Mediterranean climate in central England I was promised by the Met Office.
I don’t care if it comes from “Dr Andrew King, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of Melbourne”, just give it to me Andrew, give it to me.
More food production, less spending on heating. What’s not to like?
There isn’t a food production problem in the UK. Up to 40% of food, I am talking mostly veg, finds it’s way in to landfill. It’s mostly due to consumers wanting to buy perfectly shaped vegetables for instance. Many farmers can’t sell their “ugly veg” to supermarket chains and yet there is no difference, only the shape!
@Patrick did the English give up canning?
Warmer years ahead? That ought to help lower the death toll from the cold, pensioners wont have to spend as much money on heating. It’s a win for everyone. Let me know when the first Cab Sav vintage is ready for drinking.
You are going to be waiting a very long time for that Cab, I would wager ice beer is more likely.
‘simulations’ you say.
Imagine going to court with just a similation as ‘evidence’. Civil or crimnal case, the result would be much the same. A halfwit magistrate migh roll over for you to tickle his philosophical tummy but the appeals court would throw it out and into the garbage.
“the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence”
No one knows how to do this in any way, shape, or form!!!!
Seriously, how can you use unknown and poorly understood processes and variables to determine another unknown variable? These guys would die in the private sector.
Buy they couldn’t do it themselves. They had to enlist the underutilized folks from Australia. I am sure they are “experts” on CET climate as they are more than 100 km from home — “This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI), which is supported by the Australian Government.”
I lived in England (assigned to RAF Greenham Common as a USAF missile launch officer) from 1985- 1987 near Newbury, Hants. Coldest summers of my life. Never again. I lived in Florida, two hurricanes right over my house in the mid-90’s, lotsa damage. Germany too – windstorms and unusual snow in 1990-91. I now live in Tucson, Arizona now thank you. Sitting by my pool as I write this looking at a near full moon on a gorgeous warm last evening of April. I haven’t run my HVAC since March 10. Probably a still week before AC is needed. No blizzards, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no ice, no mudslides, no fires. When it floods the washes, I break out the kayak and have fun.
As for England with warmer years ahead, … since your climate is determined by the temp of the Gulf Stream, how does AGW via CO2 do that? Sunlight penetrating to water depth is what warms the Gulf Stream.
I froze my butt off in the summer of 1985 and 86 in Southern England. I would think warmer would be welcome. (BTW, the Iron Lady and Ron Reagan knew what they were doing in those days).
And I left England for good in 1974 following the winter of our discontent – 1973 (the Arab oil shocks and the three day week with the heating turned off) – now reside in Australia after many years in Africa – nothing like a bit of warm weather to settle the bones – No – I think we are all missing the main point here.
If we were to come up with some impact like this on a temperature series as evidence the world was not warming – or even a part of it – we would be howled down as extending the results of purely local data to the global case.
The graph also looks dodgy to me given that it appears almost completely to ignore the cold winters around 2011. Seems like another case of data torturing to get the ‘right’ result.
If my memory serves, 85, 86 and 87 were faily cold winters as I recall. Lots of cold, lots of snow drifting many feet think. Where I lived, there is a road called Drift Road. It’s called that for a reason! That was Hants, just north of Portsmouth. Newbury is in Berkshire, but its a minor point. Yes, I recall one night missiles were dlivered. GCHQ was just up the road too.
Seriously, I don’t know what Joe is on about. I remember ’87 being not so good. Average summer temps are here (in degerees C, remember, Americans!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7561411.stm
The winter of 1985/86 was an odd one. November was colder than usual but December was unusually warm with a max temp of 17.7 deg C in Devon. Then cold winter weather arrived in January dumping several inches of snow over the midlands. After another mild period the weather turned absolutely acrctic in Febuary with the month being the 5th coldest in the CET record. So in two months we had
The mildest CET maximum day: 14.4 2nd December
The coldest CET maximum day: -0.7 6th February
the coldest CET minimum night: -8.7 10th February
Dunno – if the weather got warmer we’d have to start serving cold beer.
It’s Newbury, Berkshire, but I concede it is very close to the Hampshire (Hants) border!
“To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence, and then when there is both natural forcings and human influence …”.
==============================
I detect the application of good old circular reasoning.
There’s no obvious human influence apparent in the complete, as opposed to cherry-picked, record.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CentralEnglandTempSince1659.gif
That’s not to say there is none.
Thanks . That was my immediate question . If they have records for 350 years , start by showing them .
I don’t see a hockey stick .
Doesn’t 350 years pre-date scaled? I think it does, as it’s 300 years.
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/History-Of-The-Thermometer.htm
I also wondered why they excluded the CET data available from 1659 to 1899 – too hard to get the models to model it?
Odd that 1659, 1676, 1754, 1902, 1956 and 2010 all have the same mean annual temperature in the CET and June 1676 was the second warmest June in the entire record including 2014 (beaten by 0.2°C by June 1846).
,
MSM have jumped on this immediately:
1 May: UK Daily Mail: Hannah Parry: Brace yourself for heatwaves: Man-made climate change will lead to more record-breaking temperatures across Europe
Commenting on the research, Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: ‘This new research adds another piece of evidence that human-induced climate change is increasing the chances of record-breaking temperatures around the world including in the UK.
‘At the Met Office we produced similar research late last year showing how climate change had made UK record breaking temperatures about 10 times more likely.’…
COMMENT by Kathy: If the ‘scientists’ spouting this drivel took the time to read the comments here, they would realise that no one believes them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063475/Brace-heatwaves-Man-climate-change-lead-record-breaking-temperatures-Europe.html
extend to see Hannah’s total output. how on earth is she equipped to write the CAGW nonsense for Daily Mail?
Journalisted: Hannah Parry
http://journalisted.com/hannah-parry
England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change …
The Guardian-54 minutes ago
Heatwaves ‘more likely’ in England
BBC News-2 hours ago
Record breaking temperatures ‘more likely in future’
ITV News-5 hours ago
get up close & personal with Dr. Andrew King. no surprise that David Karoly is involved!
2 mins 55 secs: 30 April: Youtube: Andrew King – England temperatures increasing because of climate change
posted by Science at Melbourne
Video Abstract by Dr Andrew King for from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, for the paper “Attribution of the record high Central England temperature of 2014 to anthropogenic influences” by Andrew D King, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, David J Karoly, Sophie C Lewis and Heidi Cullen in Environmental Research Letters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBttxI1H5w0
Frankly, like many here, I’m growing very tired of all these ‘because our models tell us so’ claims. The repeated formula goes along the lines of this:
“When I awoke this morning, it was 2 degrees centigrade.
Now, an hour later, it’s 5 degrees centigrade.
So, with this hourly warming rate, my computer model tells me it will be a blistering 35 degrees centigrade by tonight.”
On the assumption that we need to frighten everybody, we all know that under no circumstances will any ‘global warming claim’ quote basic facts – even if just for a sanity check.
Fact 1: Excluding CO2 for now, all the other atmospheric gas accounts for 99.96% of the sky.
Fact 2: CO2 represents only 0.040% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere (concentrated in the lower half of the sky up to about 12 miles – due to CO2 being denser than predominant Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon). That although CO2 may well be 400ppm, this is only ONE 2,500th of all the air we inhale (1M divided by 400ppm = 2,500).
Fact 3: Of the minute amount of CO2 up in the sky, 96.775% of it is Naturally Occurring i.e. produced from Photosynthesis, Respiration, Volcanoes & Geysers, Natural Wildfires, Marine Life, Micro-organisms, Plant Decay, Cellular Respiration, Flatulence, Decomposition, Calcification and Natural Fermentation.
Fact 4: This leaves just 3.225% of the total minute amount CO2 up in the atmosphere being Man-made (anthropogenic) i.e. burning of Oil, Oil Derivatives, Petrol, Kerosene, Paraffin, Diesel, Coal, Natural Gas, Peat, Timber, Crops, Wood & Plant Alcohols, man-made fermentation, Lime Kiln Processes, Industrial Waste Incinerators, large-scale burning of household and industrial waste, Limescale removal compounds, Liver Salts, Denture Cleaning Products, anything we throw out for garden composting and Cremation.
Why can’t they state that almost 97% of ‘evil’ CO2 is actually entirely natural. Whilst all our WUWT community already knows this, we continually question whether those hoodwinked in to the alarmist camp actually do understand it at all. Why is it that no ‘catastrophic claim’ starts by saying that “there is just a 3.225% man-made contribution to the ‘almost microscopic’ total amount of CO2 up there in the sky (when compared to all the other atmospheric gas)”?
Why can’t they admit that, in hindsight, any drastic measures taken to reduce man-made CO2 will make not the slightest discernible difference to how warm or cold it gets?
After all, human life evolved with CO2 levels 10 times or more than the present 400ppm.
Friend of mine said it best the other day–“Never let facts get in the way of a good story.” The politicos know damn well it’s just that, a “story”–but they’ve got too much invested in policy now to admit it. Personally, I’m just delighted to know I’m not committing a crime against nature every time I turn the key in my big-ass Tundra pickup. ; )
Then why do I constantly read that over 30% of current atmospheric concentration of co2 is completely from man. Especially in those brilliant debunk the denier articles or on the skeptical science website that many people take as gospel?
Fact 2: CO2 represents only 0.040% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere (concentrated in the lower half of the sky up to about 12 miles – due to CO2 being denser than predominant Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon). That although CO2 may well be 400ppm, this is only ONE 2,500th of all the air we inhale (1M divided by 400ppm = 2,500).
These tedious arguments are in no way helpful to the sceptic argument. Jack Barrett, a long time sceptic of CAGW and expert in the spectroscopy of small molecules, gives this response to the ‘puny’ CO2 argument.
The ‘Fact 3’ and ‘Fact 4’ arguments are equally ridiculous. It may be true that the relative proportion of human emitted CO2 is very small compared to that of the biosphere – in any given year but this ignores the fact that before fossil fuel burning the natural emissions and sequestrations were roughly in balance and, hence, the level of atmospheric CO2 remained broadly the same. Since humans began fossil fuel burning a small excess has remained in the atmosphere following each annual carbon cycle. This has accumulated over time CO2 levels are now around 40% higher than they were in the mid-nineteenth century.
To John Finn (May 1, 2015 at 12:55 pm)
Re Fact 2: Whilst mindful of the scientific expertise of Jack Barrett, his simple water analogy lacks detail. I disagree that my fact (quote) is a “tedious argument which is in no way helpful to the sceptic argument”. Allow me to qualify (as I have done many times during the last 6-years as a rational and logical supporter of WUWT):
With CO2 @ur momisugly 0.040% of total atmosphere, it roughly represents ONE unit of volume to every 3,200 units of volume (give or take a few minor decimal points).
Now, of this single ONE unit of volume, we already know that almost 97% is natural CO2 (96.775%) and over 3% is anthropogenic (3.225%).
So, if we now imagine that our ONE unit of volume is an imperial gallon of clear water (8 pints), then 97% of natural CO2 roughly translates to SEVEN and THREE QUARTER pints. This leaves the 3% of the man-made contribution as a QUARTER of a pint – or 5 fl. oz. Are you still with me?
Now let’s say that the 5 fl. oz (the man-made stuff) was a small bottle of the strongest concentrated dye known to man.
We originally had 3,200 units of volume. This now becomes 3,200 imperial gallons.
So please pour your 5 fl. oz. of concentrated dye in to the 3,199 gallons (plus the 7 and three quarter pints) of the purest clearest water imaginable. We’ll even provide a huge whisk so you can mix it up really well.
What colour would the water be?
Additionally, I fail to understand why my Fact 3 and 4 arguments are (quote) “equally ridiculous”.
Frankly, we really don’t know where all the CO2 sources and sinks are – all we see is the net result of all of them expressed in the average atmospheric concentration. Like your bank balance representing the net effects of all deposits and withdrawals without viewing your bank statement.
The increase in the level of CO2 since industrial times around 1860 has never been proven to be wholly attributed to burning fossil fuels. Much of the increase is natural from ocean outgassing, sequestration, changes in land use, increased oxidation of organic matter, deforestation and population growth. There is also a long-term natural imbalance between natural sources and sinks of CO2, which is also contributing to the observed increase. As you know, CO2 is thought to have been in the atmosphere for over 4 billion of the Earth’s 4.6 billion year geological history and in much larger proportions (up to 80%) than today.
I’ll just stick to common sense facts thank you. Man-made CO2 has a miniscule effect in ‘warming’ when compared to that great ball of fire in the sky. How I can survive a 20 degree change in temperature when walking between a freezing cold kitchen conservatory and a warm lounge is simply astonishing. Nuff’ said.
Re: GeeJam May 2, 2015 at 3:16 am
It’s not an analogy. A concentration of 500 ppm of milk in water significantly reduces the transparency of the liquid to visible radiation. A concentration of 400 ppm of CO2 in air reduces the transparency of the atmosphere to LWIR radiation.
Refusal to accept this basic fact simply denies the many observations of earth’s emission spectra. If you’re not convinced by Barrett then try this Climate Audit link
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
Scroll down to the section headed “Some Comments” where you will find an emission spectrum plot. Below the plot, Steve McIntyre writes
As far as Facts 3 and 4 are concerned you seem unable to grasp the concept of equilibrium. Here I will use an analogy. Consider a large bucket which is holding 5 gallons of water. Now add exactly 1 gallon of water per minute while at the same time unplug a hole in the bucket which allows exactly 1 gallon per minute to flow out of the bucket.
The result should be no change in the level of water in the bucket, i.e. the bucket will still contain 5 gallons of water.
Now add 0.1 (one tenth) gallons of water per minute from a new second feed. Now we have 1.1 gallons per minute . going into the bucket but still only 1 gallon per minute flowing out of it. RESULT: After 10 minutes the bucket will contain 6 gallons of water .
Although the second feed is only 10% of the original feed it has increased the .contents of the bucket by 20% . After 50 minutes the amount of water in the bucket will have doubled. This is similar to the way human CO2 emissions have caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.
Find out more about what goes on at Melbourne University here: “How Green Academics fill their days”.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/05/green-academics-fill-days/
John, thank you for replying. Although interesting narrative between us, two ‘climate skeptics’ (assuming you are) splitting hairs over these areas also does nothing helpful to unite our belief in the whole ongoing CAGW nonsense, but hey, we’ll continue our debate for now.
Regarding your perfectly reasonable ‘equilibrium bucket’ analogy, I agree. But many also consider the hole in the bottom of the bucket is now slightly bigger than it first was – mainly due to the overall increase in natural greening (thus photosynthesis) due to increased CO2. Can you answer that one?
To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence, and then when there is both natural forcings and human influence. The change in the likelihood of warm years due to human influences on the climate was then calculated.
I usually find the grammar police irritating but I find the use of “is” when it should be “are” even more irritating. Makes it look like a press release by an 8 year old.
That aside, they cleverly left out that the “human influence” is an assumed forcing of a given amount. No evidence to show it does, or what its magnitude actually is. So essentially they’ve done a study that amounts to proving that turning the dial on the stove from low to medium heats the pot of beans to a higher temperature. No sh*t. Given the scenario they’ve created for themselves, one can only wonder how they only managed to get to 90% confidence. I’d have gotten 100%. Or perhaps I don’t understand what the definition of “is” is?
How can they run a model with only natural influences when no-one knows how any natural influences work? (They don’t even know what all the natural factors are. AMO, PDO for example : the modellers know these exist but not how they work or what they will do in future. It’s a long list.) Well, actually it can be done in the world of climate science…
To get natural influences into the models, they think up a load of nice-sounding factors which they don’t understand and which don’t even have to exist, and parameterise them so that they get a historical estimate that gives a decent match to history. Anyone looking at the output would inevitably be impressed by the models’ accuracy.
The really strange thing is that the modellers themselves are among the impressed! And they are “scientists”?
david,
It turns out you might just be one of the grammar police when you say “it should be…”
Of the following two sentences, which form do you prefer?
There was a believer, a skeptic and a dog in a boat.
There were a believer, a skeptic and a dog in a boat.
No quarrel with your real point, however.
Then again, Bill said it depended on the meaning of ‘is’, not the definition of ‘is’.
“Lead author of the study Dr Andrew King, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of Melbourne,…”
And…
“To arrive at their results, the researchers firstly used climate model simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forcings on the climate and no human influence, and then when there is both natural forcings and human influence.”
GIGO!
Does anyone who actually lives in England recognise those graphs? What about the hot summers of 1975 and, especially, 1976, or even those in the mid-1990s – in a different league from the so-called “hottest ever year in 2014”. And what about those very cold winters we had only a few short years back eg 5 years ago when we got a foot of snow in parts of the south east? Where are they on those graphs?
There is a disconnect between reality and those, clearly modelled and adjusted statistics.
As a previous blogger wrote – GIGO!
Good point Ian. In the last one hundred years, us Brits have endured summer washouts on the whole – most recently in 2011 and 2012 when UK climatologists changed their predictions (again) to “Colder and wetter summers with an increased risk of severe flooding could become the norm for Britain.” The following year, 2013, was a beautiful scorcher of a summer (ha, ha) and joins the seven occasions when our century of summers were gorgeously comparable to southern Spain, namely, 1915, 1949, 1959, 1976, 1990, 2003 and 2013.
Incidentally, last year (March 2014), Met Office ‘scientists’ backpedalled on their original predictions and said “on average the UK will see hotter, drier summers in the long term due to global warming”. What’s not to like?
The summers of 1975 and 1976 were warm but, overall, those years were pretty average.
Warm? The summer of 1976 was the hottest in the entire 355 year record! However the hottest May and hottest June both occurred in the nineteenth century.
Of course the models show that, in fact the models show the “green” frauds everything they tell the models to show .. Fake data and tweaked data models do exactly that. Are they complete morons? (pardon my french ..)
Firstly, I’m not sure how much CET will have been directly affected by UHI – but I am certain that London especially, and the likes of Birmingham, Coventry, Oxford and such like have all expanded over the last 5 or 6 decades. UHI will have occurred. UHI will also likely have increased during the 60’s and 70’s as many more houses were built and ‘cheap’ gas central heating became the norm. I lived in Birmingham and our 30’s house was first fitted with gas central heating by us, in 1981 – and there was no loft insulation! I’m not sure on the population front – but I’d guess it also rose quickly. I’ll briefly mention cars too. In the 60’s the rise of the motorways and common car ownership began and has continued inexorably ever since. These mobile environmental heaters don’t seem to be ever considered as having affected measured air temps? I would ay that traffic today is 10 times what it was in the 70’s (but thats just a guess!)
This is make believe. Pure make believe.