From the “language gives away the intent of the study” department comes this clear attempt at a headline.
Long-term global warming not driven naturally
Study “debunks” argument that warming is driven by natural factors
DURHAM, N.C. — By examining how Earth cools itself back down after a period of natural warming, a study by scientists at Duke University and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirms that global temperature does not rise or fall chaotically in the long run. Unless pushed by outside forces, temperature should remain stable.
The new evidence may finally help put the chill on skeptics’ belief that long-term global warming occurs in an unpredictable manner, independently of external drivers such as human impacts.
“This underscores that large, sustained changes in global temperature like those observed over the last century require drivers such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations,” said lead author Patrick Brown, a PhD student at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Natural climate cycles alone are insufficient to explain such changes, he said.
Brown and his colleagues published their peer-reviewed research Feb. 1 in the Journal of Climate.
Using global climate models and NASA satellite observations of Earth’s energy budget from the last 15 years, the study finds that a warming Earth is able to restore its temperature equilibrium through complex and seemingly paradoxical changes in the atmosphere and the way radiative heat is transported.
Scientists have long attributed this stabilization to a phenomenon known as the Planck Response, a large increase in infrared energy that Earth emits as it warms. Acting as a safety valve of sorts, this response creates a negative radiative feedback that allows more of the accumulating heat to be released into space through the top of the atmosphere.
The new Duke-NASA research, however, shows it’s not as simple as that.
“Our analysis confirmed that the Planck Response plays a dominant role in restoring global temperature stability, but to our surprise we found that it tends to be overwhelmed locally by heat-trapping positive energy feedbacks related to changes in clouds, water vapor, and snow and ice,” Brown said. “This initially suggested that the climate system might be able to create large, sustained changes in temperature all by itself.”
A more detailed investigation of the satellite observations and climate models helped the researchers finally reconcile what was happening globally versus locally.
“While global temperature tends to be stable due to the Planck Response, there are other important, previously less appreciated, mechanisms at work too,” said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke. These other mechanisms include a net release of energy over regions that are cooler during a natural, unforced warming event. And there can be a transport of energy from the tropical Pacific to continental and polar regions where the Planck Response overwhelms positive, heat-trapping local effects.
“This emphasizes the importance of large-scale energy transport and atmospheric circulation changes in restoring Earth’s global temperature equilibrium after a natural, unforced warming event,” Li said.
###
Jonathan H. Jiang and Hui Su of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, managed by the California Institute of Technology, co-authored the new study.
Funding came from the National Science Foundation (#AGS-1147608) as well as the NASA ROSES13-NDOA and ROSES13-NEWS programs.
CITATION: “Unforced Surface Air Temperature Variability and Its Contrasting Relationship with the Atmospheric TOA Energy Flux at Local and Global Spatial Scales,” Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Jonathan H. Jiang, Hui Su, Feb. 1, 2016, Journal of Climate; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0384.1
Wahoo, Cruz is ahead of Trump..so far !
All that stuff about Ice Ages? Even better… we ran our computer model and it showed that Neanderthals caused them and the Neanderthals are now extinct. More evidence that our computer models are valid. Can’t argue with facts.
Ahhh fellas, this is a brilliant illuminating essay to warm the heart of any skeptic. You see it states
“Scientists have long attributed this stabilization to a phenomenon known as the Planck Response, a large increase in infrared energy that Earth emits as it warms. Acting as a safety valve of sorts, this response creates a NEGATIVE RADIATIVE FEEDBACK that allows more of the accumulating heat to be released into space through the top of the atmosphere.” (capitals mine). It is thus admitting, nay stating!, that earth’s climate system exhibits net negative feedback but CAGW relies on Earth’s climate having strong positive feedback. After all, both sides agree what without feedbacks the impact of doubling CO2 is about 1C of warming. Its positive feedback that is claimed to take it to 3C, 4C …………….. – pick a number. So if the overall climate system exhibits negative feedback then doubling CO2 will give LESS THAN 1C of warming. Would you like me to replace your cup of storm with tea or coffee?
The warming in the last 150 years is not due to internal climate changes which some call chaos. The planet resists forcing changes.
The warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.1C.
Comments:
1) The base so called 1 dimensional without feedbacks warming calculation for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 neglected to take into account the fact that the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the planet is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere. Taking the overlap of water vapor and CO2 into account reduces the warming for a doubling of CO2 to roughly 0.15C.
2) The second deliberate error in the 1 dimensional without feedbacks warming calculation for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is the lapse rate was held constant which is equivalent to assuming convection cooling no longer functions in the atmosphere. As it is fact not a theory that hot air rises which causes cold air to fall an increase in atmospheric CO2 will reduce the lapse rate which reduces the surface warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 by roughly a factor of four.
3) Due to issue 1 and issue 2 the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.1C, which is so small, the without feedbacks warming is the same with feedbacks warming.
The warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud and reduced wind speed over the oceans due to solar cycle changes.
Observations continue to support the assertion that solar cycle has been interrupted as opposed to a slowdown in the solar cycle.
If the above assertions are correct, global warming is reversible. The planet will significantly cool.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.1.2016.gif
Unfortunately, we are preparing for the wrong thing ! Global Cooling will wipe out Canada as a nation !!
William Astley says:
The warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud and reduced wind speed over the oceans due to solar cycle changes.
Observations continue to support the assertion that solar cycle has been interrupted as opposed to a slowdown in the solar cycle.
If the above assertions are correct, global warming is reversible. The planet will significantly cool.
——————-
Those are some big ifs.
I’d be interested in your proofs, as they would seem to be unique and sure to win you some sort of prize.
While we wait for observational evidence of in your face cooling.
As the planet had warmed, we all assumed the cult of CAGW’s fundamental calculation (done more than 20 years ago by a half dozen specialists led by the founding father of CAGW, Hansen) of how much surface forcing a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will produce without ‘feedbacks’ is reasonable, in the right ball park. We all assumed the problem why the IPCC’s general circulation models (GCMs) predicted warming does not agree with measured warming is due to incorrect modeled cloud feedback, incorrect assumed water vapor amplification of the forcing, and delay in forcing response not the fundamental AGW calculation, itself. The general circulation models have more than a hundred adjustable ‘feedback’ parameters so any answer is possible (i.e. A key parameter that is adjusted is reduction of wind speed over the oceans which causes 30% of the warming.)
The without ‘feedbacks’ cult of CAGW’s calculation (this is the calculation that predicted 1.2C to 1.4C surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) incorrectly held the lapse rate constant to determine (fudge) the estimated surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and did the calculation with a dry atmosphere (no water vapor). There is no scientific justification for fixing the lapse rate to calculate the no ‘feedback’ forcing of greenhouse gases and as the planet is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Convection cooling is a physical fact not a theory and cannot be ignored in the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation. The change in forcing at the surface of the planet is less than the change in forcing higher in the atmosphere due to the increased convection cooling caused by greenhouse gases (reduction in the lapse rate). We do not need to appeal to crank ‘science’ that there is no greenhouse gas forcing to destroy the cult of CAGW ‘scientific’ argument that there is a global warming crisis problem to solve.
There is a forcing change due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 however that forcing change is almost completely offset by the increase in convection. Due to the increased lapse rate (3% change) due to convection changes (the 3% change in the lapse rate, reduces the surface forcing by a factor of four, the forcing higher in the atmosphere remains the same) therefore warming at the surface of the planet is only 0.1C to 0.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, while the warming at 5 km above the surface of the planet is 1C. As a warming of 0.1C to 0.2C is insufficient to cause any significant feedback change, the zero feedback change for a doubling of CO2 is ballpark the same as the with feedback response.
Comment: The 0.1C to 0.2C warming is reduced to less than 0.1C as the 1 dimensional calculations were done (fudged) with a dry no water vapor atmosphere and with a fixed lapse rate. As there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere and as absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap doing the calculation correctly (with water vapor rather than without water vapor) reduces the surface forcing again by roughly a factor of 4.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1
Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.
In addition to ignoring the fact that ‘greenhouse’ gases increase convection which reduces surface warming by a factor of 4, the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation also ignored the fact the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropics.
Redoing the double atmospheric CO2 level, no feedback calculation with a atmospheric model that takes into account the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the radiation effects of water/CO2 absorption overlap reduces the surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 3.7 watts/meter^2 to 1.1 watts/meter^2 ( also reduces surface for a doubling of CO2 by a factor of four). The increase in convection cooling and the reduction in the lapse rate both reduce the surface warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to reduce the surface warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to less than 0.1C.
Check out figure 2 in this paper.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Comment:
This paper notes there are 342 warming events in the paleo record. The planet warms cyclically. Other papers note the cyclic warming correlates to solar cycle changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
…OMG..Bernie wins Iowa !!
[But every coin-flip in all six ties went to Hillary. .mod]
Is there nothing that CO2 can’t do.
“While global temperature tends to be stable due to the Planck Response, there are other important, previously less appreciated, mechanisms at work too,”
So, the existing climate models have not included important mechanisms. Go on…
It’s so easy to shred this stuff, eh? Don’t forget, they were “less-appreciated” mechanisms. Verbiage as grout, between the tiles of speculation.
Then the ending of ice ages over the past 800,000 years was caused by Man’s use of fossil fuels and the ice ages themselves were caused by Man’s conserving on the use of fossil fuels. Sounds great but Man has not been using fossil fuels for that long. How was the Eemian warmer then today yet CO2 levels were lower?
A few adjustment Eemian temp and CO2 level will explain
I went out on a date with a model last Friday and we created some anthropogenic global warming.
Hallelujah! 15-years of “Model Data and a bit of Data” and a splash of Vodka in RockStar add a dash of Cocaine injected by an enema pump refute 4.85 Billion years of Earth History.
No.
From the definition of IPCC that the increased global average temperature anomaly since 1951 has two parts, namely (1) one caused by the greenhouse effect and (2) the other caused by non-greenhouse effect. The former’s contribution to the global average temperature since 1951 is extremely likely that more than half; and thus the latter’s contribution is less than half. Also, at the same time the anthropogenic greenhouse effect component has two components, namely (1a) the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and (1b) the other anthropogenic forcings. (1b) is associated with volcanic erruption associated aerosols — a natural phenomenon — and man induced aerosols. (2) for this a new entry is filth — covering oceans & land surfaces –. However, IPCC is not sure of the quantitative contribution of these three groups on the global temperature. Also, the global average is not a global phenomenon but it is sum and total of location-region specific changes in temperature associated with the local conditions including the impact of natural cycle in precipitation. Even the greenhouse gases are location-region specific. We don’t have good global network prior to 1950 for both temperature [surface and ocean] and greenhouse gases. They were extra-intra-polated. Also, IPCC goes on changing the sensitivity factor but reports suggests that all the light emitted by the surface in the strongest carbon dioxide bands was completely absorbed at pre-industrial levels and thus the Earth stabilized at 15 oC. Over and above, what we observed at some places are associated with changes at local conditions only.
Thus, global average temperature contains natural variation component also.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“Large, sustained changes in global temperature like those observed over the last century require drivers such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations”:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/humlum-2011.png
“Proxy temperature reconstruction and forecast from the GISP2 ice core, Greenland. The current temperature rise attributed to the modern warm period does not look out of place set in the context of past climatic fluctuations referred to by Richard Lindzen. We strongly suspect that a component of recent warming is down to CO2 but we do NOT know what that proportion is compared with the natural warming cycle”.
On the face of it nothing about the global temperature changes of the past century needs explanation.
The effect of human CO2 emissions on the global av. temperature can only be a concern if there is an a priori belief that whatever the effect it must be necessarily ‘unnatural’ and therefore dangerous.
“global temperature does not rise or fall chaotically in the long run. Unless pushed by outside forces.
The new evidence may finally help put the chill on skeptics’ belief that long-term global warming occurs in an unpredictable manner, independently of external drivers such as human impacts.”
Who got to make the determination that humans are “outside forces”? Are we not a part of nature? What planet did the scientists at Duke University and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory come from?
This is just another, start with the result you want and work backwards, study. There are hundreds in the trash bin already.
“Unless pushed by outside forces, temperature should remain stable” Should it? And what kind of outside forces? Basically a constipated study from the first paragraph.
Anthony, i love this statement of yours:
* From the “language gives away the intent of the study” department *
Its so true, very often you can just see in the headline or the first words if there is an intent in a “study” or if an article is actually science.
Bob T, i love your statement as well:
“Climate model-based study: disregard.”
And then George E Smith with a brilliant phrase:
“So humans are having wonderful success in keeping the earth’s Temperature constant for the last 18 years and eight months”
Spot on: If nature cannot alter temperature trends, then the pause is suddenly hard to explain.
I am sure that in the long and varied history of the earth (measured in the billions of years) there has never been a situation found outwith the conditions measured in the past 15 years……
To say that any self-regarding referee to such a paper should make the word ‘coruscating’ seem rather conciliatory is perhaps to forget that the term ‘science’ no longer applies to funding publication writing in the area of weather studies…….
Note my use of the words: ‘funding PUBLICATION WRITING’.
Not ‘funding science’.
All administrators of taxpayer funding dollars should ask whether that is what they wish to fund or not……
Very Strong earthquake – Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia on January 30, 2016
Most important Earthquake Data:
Magnitude : 7.2
Local Time (conversion only below land) : 2016-01-30 15:25:10
GMT/UTC Time : 2016-01-30 03:25:10
Depth (Hypocenter) : 162 km
It causes explosions of the volcano.
http://earthquake-report.com/2016/01/30/very-strong-earthquake-kamchatka-peninsula-russia-on-january-30-2016/
Fears of the ‘big one’: Volcano explodes 1.8 miles high hours after massive earthquake
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/640052/Fears-of-a-big-one-Volcano-explodes-1-8-miles-high-hours-after-massive-earthquake
January 24, 2016 (10:30:30 UTC)
Quake Location
Magnitude 7.1 Southern Alaska
A magnitude 7.1 earthquake knocked items off shelves and walls in Alaska early Sunday. The earthquake was widely felt because it was close to Alaska’s population centers.
“to our surprise we found that it tends to be overwhelmed locally by heat-trapping positive energy feedbacks related to changes in clouds, ….” are they claiming to have sorted out cloud feedback?
Does this mean we can expect an update to all GCMs and they will now hindcast and forecast?
“Unless pushed by outside forces, temperature should remain stable.”
That was the hope of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Not to mention the Ming in China and all those people who got chilled (and droughted) from their homes in the migration periods and Bond Events through history.
Now it’s the hope of some guys who are supposed to be propelling jets?
Turncoat has announced there will be a federal election here in Australia within 6 months. Wave goodbye to the head job Turncoat ‘coz Labor (Democrat (I think) in US speak) are likely to win (Sadly).
Mann & Company are at “fault” … he/they made the faulty models and cherry picked data.
“The new evidence may finally help put the chill on skeptics’ belief that long-term global warming occurs in an unpredictable manner, independently of external drivers such as human impacts.”
Meh..,not so much….
Skeptics fully understand climate can be influenced by external drivers, and also appreciate: 1) climate is not overly sensitive to tiny changes in earth’s energy budget, 2) any drivers that may occur are somewhat mitigated by feedbacks, 3) CO2’s tiny logarithmic forcing effect is too insignificant to worry about…
What this paper actually shows is that earth’s climate is MUCH less sensitive than CAGW hypothesizes because of the Planck Response it refers to..
The strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years is certainly sufficient to account for most of 20th century’s warming recovery, and it’s interesting to see when ended, so did the global warming trend….
It’ll be very interesting to see what happens to global temp trends during the next solar cycle starting around 2022, which is expected to be as weak as the Dalton Minimum (1790~1820)…
It should also be hilarious to see what happens when both the PDO and AMO are in their 30-year cool cycles from 2020….
CAGW is so screwed..
And weakening of El Niño.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.1.2016.gif
+10
“Study claims there is no significant natural component to global warming, i.e. ‘it’s all your fault’ “
Well, since all the warming comes from faked data produced by the minions of the western governments, I guess the “warming” does come from mankind. Or is that coward-kind?
FOOBAR. disregarding .acknowledged.
MONSTER ERUPTIONS: Panic as two volcanoes EXPLODE causing mass evacuation
EARTHQUAKES struck today in a volatile region that saw TWO massive volcanic eruptions less than 24 hours ago.
By JON AUSTIN
PUBLISHED: 09:23, Wed, Jan 20, 2016 | UPDATED: 11:46, Wed, Jan 20, 2016
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/636082/Fears-erupting-volcano-could-kill-hundreds-as-people-given-gas-masks-and-ordered-to-flee