This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
“ClimateofGavin”
Hmm… does that imply ownership on his part?
The day NASA goes to the White House and says “we were mistaken” is the day things change. Any bets on when that might be?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The day NASA goes to the White House the conversation will be more like “Um….they caught us….now what do we do?” and nothing will change.
Monday, January 23, 2017
“scortcher” ? That extra hundredth of a degree is a real zinger.
Now that the Paris conference is over, perhaps NASA has gone back to telling the truth, or at least less outright lies.
“Heateristical hotterism” is my new favorite phrase thanks to Abe!
Contrary to the tweet, it is only the satellite trend that diverges from the surface trend, the trend in the balloon data is very similar to the surface trend: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/
Even Mears (RSS) says the surface data are more reliable: i.e. less structural uncertainty. And if anyone doesn’t trust surface data because of adjustments, then they should be even less trusting of satellite data:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html#more
Read: http://www.usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer-1_0.pdf
Tamino is in there too with a wrong analyses see:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
No. The tweet was correct.
Back in February the UK Met Office was fairly sure there was a pause….
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/variations-rate-global-warming
Anyway researchers got stuck in and studied 15,000 years of simulated [!] climate change. and what ho chaps…….they “discovered” that you could get 20 year periods of cooling once every 100 years due to “natural variability”.
It seems that back in February they hadn’t come up with the idea to re-adjust older records [to coolerize them I suppose] in order to evaporate the “hiatus”…or the Met office hadn’t been told about the new approach
The real question is whether the earth will retain this heat or let it go again once the El Nino subsides. I cant see any wins for AGW either way. If the earth stays warm and its another step increase then the models are essentially falsified because they dont predict step warming as a result of ENSO and if the temperature falls again then…well it falls again and the hiatus continues.
Can,t see it hotting up in stratosphere any time soon. Not while humidity keeps falling anyways coz. No water = no ghg effect. At ground level the day max is higher and night mins lower…. Still zero, naught, Nada, zip, FA to do with CO2, just more like desert than tropical climes.
Its is useful to review that one of things that cam out of climategate was that although in public climate ‘scientists’ where making great claims of ‘settled science ‘ in private they [were] openly talking about the problems their theory had . Gavin is merely reflecting that issue years later , which suggest that in that time the theory as not become more ‘settled ‘ but is still ‘problematic’ , which may be because like the rest of ‘the Team’ his efforts have gone into defending the indefensible , rather than actually working on improving the science.
Still the pay cheques are rolling in and his landing a nice job, has Hansen’s hand-picked replacement, where he do further work ensuring the data remains ‘correctly adjusted’ so why should he give a dam . I wish him a long life , so he gets to see his and friends work held up has bad science and poor joke .
Nothing is a problem for the AGW theory as long as dissenters in the media can be sent on the appropriate re-education courses.
This from a paper published 4/2015 by B. Santer , with G. Schmidt as a co-author:
Paper Title “Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature”
“Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures show slower warming since 1998. Possible explanations for this “warming hiatus” include internal climate variability, external cooling influences, and observational errors,”… “Our analysis uses satellite measurements of changes in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) made by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites. Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast, global-mean trends estimated from surface thermometer records can be biased by spatially- and temporally non-random coverage changes”
So here the authors, Mr. Schmidt included recognize the warming hiatus post 1998, and recognize the satellite data as superior.
The paper itself tries to tie the hiatus to volcanic cooling, however after stripping out volcanic cooling effects, and El Nino from the satellite data, there is virtually no warming trend since 1995. See figure 1 , Page 22.
Link to full article..https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
Coming back to the original post and Luke’s misunderstanding (or disinformation), the lack of amplified tropospheric warming does indeed remain an unexplained discrepancy. Santer (among others) fought off this conclusion for a long time, but eventually even he had to admit it was true (especially after Syukuro Manabe, (one the godfathers of climate modelling) weighed in, saying “While satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results with tropical deep‐layer tropospheric warming faster than surface, it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades” (2011, Fu, Manabe, and Johanson, GRL).
Santer was forced to admit that the discrepancy remained, saying that “agreement between models, theory, and observations within the troposphere is uncertain over 1979 to 2003 and nonexistent above 300 hPa” (Thorne, et.al,A quantification of uncertainties in historical tropical tropospheric temperature trends from radiosondes, JGR, 2011). The more recent work by McKitrick as noted upthread shows this discrepancy between models, theory and observations continues, which is why Gavin has so little to say about it.
Gavin probably wouldn’t like this graph:
He likes his data sets tamperatured and cherry-picked.
The 2015 “scorcher” statement by Gavin is laughable -being both alarmist as well as a red herring. His version of; “Look! Squirrel!”
pdfs at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/quarc/Thorne-2011.pdf
What do you think are the biggest unknowns about future climate change? Where are the biggest surprises likely to come from?
Gavin Schmidt: :we are anticipating “unknown unknowns”. But, of course, they’re unknown, so you don’t know what they’re going to be. So, things where we don’t have a really solid basis – exactly what’s going to happen to clouds, exactly what’s going to happen to some of the extreme events that have the biggest impression on society and ecosystems – and we’re pushing things in a way that all of those systems are going to be affected – some will be affected more than we expect and some less – but I don’t know which!
which settles it……….
John Bils, what a strange quote. Since when does a scientist push things in a particular direction?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-gavin-schmidt
Could this clip from a Chris Farley film be sort of what Gavin is going through?
https://youtu.be/PQkGn9AI8ms
7kiwi posed a question with that last post. I’m guessing holding my breath waiting for an answer from Gavin would be a bad idea. although Gavin would applaud the move as a reduction in my carbon footprint.