By PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Currently, details are few, but apparently the results of a major scientific study on the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on clouds are going to have large implications for climate change projections—substantially lowering future temperature rise expectations.
In a blog post from the Department of Meteorology of the University of Reading, Dr. Nicolas Bellouin describes some preliminary results from a research study he leads investigating the influence of aerosols on cloud properties. The behavior of clouds, including how they are formed, how long they last, how bright they are, etc., plays a very large role in the earth’s climate system, and is considered the weakest part of global climate models. The climate model cloud deficiency results from a combination of scientific uncertainty about cloud behavior, as well as the modeling challenges that come from simulating the small spatial and temporal scales over which the important processes take place.
When it comes to the influence of human aerosol emissions on cloud properties, the scientific mainstream view is that aerosols modify clouds in such a way as to result in an enhanced cooling of the earth’s surface—a cooling influence which has acted to offset some portion of the warming influence resulting from human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, oil, and natural gas to produce energy). In the absence of this presumed aerosol cooling effect, climate models predict that the earth should warm at a much faster rate than has been observed. A large cooling effect from aerosols was thus introduced in the early 1990s as a way to “fix” the climate models and bring them closer in line with the modest pace of observed warming. Despite that “fix,”climate models continue to overpredict the observed warming rate—which is bad enough news for climate models already.
But the new results, reported by Bellouin, make things much worse for them. His team’s investigations show that the anthropogenic cooling impact from clouds is much less than “assessed” by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also much less than employed by climate models. Less enhanced cloud cooling means that greenhouse gases have produced less warming than the climate models have determined. Another way to put it is that this new finding implies that the earth’s climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s surface will warm from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much below that of the average climate model (3.2°C) and near the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5°C to 4.5°C assessed range. This result comports with the concept of “lukewarming” (which you can read more about here).
Bellouin summarizes his findings:
Radiative forcing is a measure of the imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget caused by perturbations external to the natural climate system, such as the emission of aerosols into the atmosphere by human activities. Our preliminary [research] estimate of radiative forcing due to aerosol-cloud interactions, based on satellite observations of aerosol amounts and cloud reflectivity, is –0.6 W m−2. The negative sign indicates a loss of energy for the climate system. The estimate of climate models for the same radiative forcing is stronger, typically larger than –1 W m−2. What causes that discrepancy? Over the past few months, I have discussed with experts in aerosol-cloud interactions, and there are reasons to expect that aerosol-cloud interactions are weaker than simulated by climate models – and perhaps even weaker than the preliminary [research] estimate.
Bellouin promises a more formal and detailed release of his team’s findings in August.
As they stand, the results of this new study seem to confirm the results of an analysis published last year by Bjorn Stevens of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology which also showed a much smaller anthropogenic enhancement of the cooling property of clouds.
When the Stevens results were incorporated into a determination of the earth’s climate sensitivity made by Nic Lewis, the result was a best estimate of the earth’s climate sensitivity of 1.5°C with a narrow range of 1.2°C to 1.8°C. This is a significant lowering and narrowing of the IPCC’s assessed range (again, 1.5°C to 4.5°C). The lower the climate sensitivity, the less future warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions, the smaller any resultant impact, and the less the “need” to “do something” about it. Also, Lewis’ narrow range of uncertainty increases our confidence that climate change will not be catastrophic—that is, will not proceed at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.
At the time, we wrote:
If this Stevens/Lewis result holds up, it is the death blow to global warming hysteria.
The findings being reported by Nicolas Bellouin show, in fact, the Stevens/Lewis result to be holding up quite nicely.
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
I might encourage my children to name a couple of my grandchildren: Nic, Steven and Tony.
Should have added that in the US: Lord or Viscount would not be a good name but Chris would be just fine. I know the list goes on but ….
I made a discovery today.
After yet another missionary had given a presentation to convince us that the temperature ‘pause’ was imaginary, I Googled ‘IPCC absorption’ to see if they had at last injected some science into their arguments. To my amazement I found that they had! At last there was an exposition of the ‘CO2 colours the atmosphere’ paradigm, rather than the ‘reflecting layer’ so loved by followers of Al Gore.
I might suspect that realisation is breaking through and they are trying to construct an exit strategy. However the report summary made no mention of anything that could be construed as a physical explanation.
My personal theory is that the ‘trend’ is in fact two steps, lagged in the control theory sense. The first around 1960 might have been the result of concerns about ‘acid rain’ and the installation of scrubbers in power station chimneys to remove SO2. The second, starting in 1980, could have resulted from the banning of CFCs, boosting the ozone layer and cited in Harries’ 2001 paper as a contributor to temperature rise.
But maybe you can help me with a conjecture. The effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 has been estimated as a forcing of 4 W/m^2. Now I believe that the mean irradiation is a little over 1,300 W/m^2, so that would give an increase of around a third of one percent. Power lost by the Earth’s radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so this would be compensated by a rise of some one-twelfth of a percent. Taking the mean temperature as some 278K, this would be around 0.23 degrees. Why are much greater values quoted?
The value of 1,300 W/m^2 is for a circular cross-section of the Earth. Since the total surface area of a sphere is 4 times the cross-sectional area, the flux per m^2 for outgoing IR radiation at the TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) must be 4 times your 0.23 degrees, or 0.92 degrees, if we accept the value of 4 W/m^2 for forcing.
.
Little amounts mean a lot. The latest TSI is measured by SORCE is at 1360 and some tenths. Any calculations from 2001 have to be redefined as those numbers relied on a higher TSI from 1368 to 1370 w/m^2.
At 1300 w/m^2 we’d have a cooling of about 3C. As it is, roughly a 1/3 to 1/2 of current global warming that was attributed by the IPCC is wrong.
It will be interesting to see if the TSI declines during a prolonged solar minimum or if there are other unknown factors. It’ll be interesting to see if the Stefan Boltzmann formula is right, or small increases and decreases of TSI have larger impacts on temperature.
Compare the stated temperature or observed of Venus with the measured using 1360. Or Mars.
I’ve mentioned this before, microwave radiation zips right through cloud cover. One frequency heats water specifically. The same as in your microwave at home.
If we enter into a modern minimum. Which looks like we might be.
From the blog post By Nicolas Bellouin
“I thank Graham Feingold, Johannes Quaas, Annica Ekman, Leo Donner, and Ilan Koren for interesting discussions on current understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions.
Note that they do not all agree that aerosol-cloud radiative forcing is weak: some argue that a value of up to −1.2 W m−2 remains consistent with scientific understanding.”
So the takeway here is that we can add another modeling result to the hundreds of reported results, and that this new modelling result falls within the spectrum of all the other modelling results. So, literally nothing new to see here. Except perhaps that using the phrase ‘death blow to global warming hysteria’ is pretty ridiculous, considering that this result falls within range of IPCC predictions.
But lets look at the bright side, it seems that WUWT is coming on board with at least the lower end of the IPCC predictions. Welcome!
Cheers,
Ben
I admire your stoicism, after all the cancellation of thermageddon must be very disappointing.
You’ll need to convince the rest of the world that thermageddon has been canceled, they have not accepted that statement.
Chris,
Do you mean that part of the world that is clueless and can be led around?
Perhaps you mean the rest of the world that looked at your rhetorical tactics and said hold on!
“Settled Science”, “97%”, “Ever Recorded”.
That part of the world which then examined the modeling and manipulated data and all the rest which confirmed their knowledge that when an agenda was cloaked in myth and promoted with snake oil, it came from the tent of The Big Lie? That the promoters’ paychecks depended on their lies?
Is that what you mean?
‘You’ll need to convince the rest of the world that thermageddon has been canceled, they have not accepted that statement.’
That’s because people have been lied to for a long time. But a lot of people are tripping to it now.
The rest of the world could care less about climate change. Most Americans rank it dead last in any context, and if not asked wouldn’t bring it up. And the people that do think about it in China, India, or Russia, think it’s a scam. And how we benefit from it from the stupid Americans.
well, that was exactly my point. How exactly does a modelling result (which you guys don’t trust anyway) that falls squarely within the previously reported IPCC boundaries change anything? The fact that it falls within the boundaries means that there are already other models that have the same outcome.
Basically, it changes nothing, neither pro or con either of our positions, but I find the interpretation given to it fairly strange.
Alan, your opinion is that the rest of the world is clueless and can be led on. By “the rest of the world”, we are not just talking about scientists (corrupted!) or governments (power and money grab!). We are also talking about the largest oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxon), we are talking the Fortune 1000. We are also talking about countries like the Philippines – if the CAGW movement results in lack of energy and perpetual poverty for places like the Philippines, why do they say it is real and happening now? How do they gain by that? How does Walmart gain by saying AGW is real? How does BP?
I love it when a leftists decides that he and his buds constitute “the rest of the world”.
Ego much?
“I love it when a leftists decides that he and his buds constitute “the rest of the world”.”
Tell you what, Mark, enlighten me with 5 countries whose public position is that AGW is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Enlighten me with 5 companies whose public position is that AGW is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Take your time, I’ll wait.
BenBen Good to see you.
I am glad you come by from time to time. Over time, perhaps you will convince me that the warmist side is correct. Perhaps you will see that the position of the skeptics has merit.
In any event, I respect you for arguing your case.
Only a tried-and-true Kool Ade-guzzling cognitive dissonance-plagued Believer could say that WUWT is “coming around” to the IPCC’s faux science “predictions”, ben. So congratulations, on staying true to your humanity-hating economy-destroying cause to the bitter end.
TonyL,
Really? Goebbels argued for his agenda. Would you publicly gush about him, too?
Do you think that the ultimate aims of the powers behind the whole CAGW meme are any less dangerous to mankind than the ideas promoted by Riefenstahl?
Hey TonyL, thanks a lot for the kind words! We’re all humans in the end 🙂
“So congratulations, on staying true to your humanity-hating economy-destroying cause to the bitter end.”
Hey Bruce, you might want to give the Philippines a heads up – they didn’t get the message that belief in CAGW makes you humanity hating and economy destroying. In fact, they say just the opposite: “For the Philippines, climate change means sorrowful catalogues of casualty and fatality; the countless voices of the homeless and the grieving – their very tears and screams carried to us by the winds and the waves that blew their homes away…. we are all aware of how the discourse on development and inequality, within and among nations, is intertwined with climate change. Invariably, those who have the least bear most of the burden.”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/747138/full-text-paris-agreement-philippine-statement-cop21#ixzz4B0a4uCYY
A politician trying to increase the power of government.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Chris: Well, I’ve seen your comments, and benben’s, and the other [snip], and figured it was all a scam, but if the Philipino gov’t puts out a statement, call me alarmed! Appeals to authority are not so persuasive, but appeal to non-authority, who can argue with that? What makes it so convincing is that you didn’t just take some gov’t press release as fact, you went to the Philippines and got the feel of the people there, right?
Could the moderators please say something about these kind of statements above? Its really unpleasant when people say things like ‘hitler youth’
[snipped .mod]
Paul Courtney said: :What makes it so convincing is that you didn’t just take some gov’t press release as fact, you went to the Philippines and got the feel of the people there, right?”
As a matter of fact, Paul, I have done that, I’ve been there more than 20 times on business and holiday trips, and have had the exact discussions you referred to. The same for Indonesia, Thailand, Mynamar, Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, India and Sri Lanka. How about you?
MarkW said: “A politician trying to increase the power of government.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.”
Got it, so nothing said by a scientist, scientific organization, or government is to be trusted. Of course, if a scientific paper somehow casts doubt on CAGW, that’s a different story – then the work is rock solid. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/06/study-worsening-drought-from-climate-change-may-be-considerably-weaker-and-less-extensive-than-previously-thought/
That still doesn’t explain why companies such as Walmart and BP say that AGW is a serious issue. How do you explain that away?
Sorry to the mod, thought my reference to a Monty Python line made clear I was not refering to that 40’s youth group, sorry to benben too since that’s how he took it. Chris, you’d be more credible about your world-traveling conversations if you weren’t playing the anonymous tr@ll. Far as I can see, you post a link to a press release and expect to persuade. But keep trying.
Paul, my name is Chris, I’m curious why it is important that you know my full name. I don’t claim to be a climate scientist, I don’t claim any position of authority or influence. When I post here, I try to use supporting links as much as possible, rather than just saying stuff. So how am I a troll? Just because I disagree with your position? That’s rather weak of you, if I must say.
As far as my “claims” about SE Asia, I’m an American who has lived in Singapore for 20 years. I have regional sales job and so travel often to all of the countries I mentioned. Once again, specifically how much time have you spent in ASEAN, or other poor regions of the world, whose thinking you claim to represent?
And as far as “just one link”, that’s a whole lot better than the zero links you post. Or is Paul Courtney such a worldwide authority that we are supposed to accept at face value whatever you say? That’s laughable.
Benben
WUWT has been on board with the possibility of AGW from the beginning its CAGW that was and is the issue. CAGW is a fraud that is being perpetrated for political reason, this study is just more proof and benben is a fraud for self ego gratification and pseudo-science/pseudo-Religion and your commentary is proof of that, though there is no doubt in my mind you don’t see it, but stooges are always so.
Yeah, but at 1.5 degrees doubling the results of burning all that carbon would still be pretty bad, so this results doesn’t change that. All it does is give us a few more years to transition to renewables, which we would need anyway.
Again, I’m not saying this particular paper will change anyones position, its just the interpretation of it is weird. A lower bound modelling result still confirms the IPCC range, it’ll just lower the average a bit. Nothing to see here?
Benben
“Yeah, but at 1.5 degrees doubling the results of burning all that carbon would still be pretty bad, so this results doesn’t change that”
Really the world has been hotter in the past with no catastrophic results so where is your evidence for this?
Whens the next doubling 300 years or more? There is zero evidence that even if the temps did increase another 1.5c that it would have any negative impact and quite probably it would have a very beneficial impact on our ability to live on this planet. So even if we take your scenario as gospel CAGW is dead and you just admitted it. Greener, warmer, wetter, less savvier weather all of these are the apparent results of the warming since the LIA, not base on models but on actual observations so where is the “pretty bad” your religion is dead.
Benben, do you have any evidence that a 1.5C warming would be pretty bad?
We’ve already seen 0.8C of that 1.5 and nothing bad has happened, in fact the world has been getting better.
The Holocene Optimum was at a minimum 5C warmer than today, and things were great back then.
There is not, and never has been any need to transition to renewables, which still don’t work.
Haha, MarkW were you around in the holocene? there is quite a bit of evidence pointing towards the idea increasing CO2 levels drastically in a very short time is possibly a bad idea. But anyway, let’s not get into that discussion with you guys.
You have to agree with me that this particular blog post we are commenting on is a bit weird, no? It says that a modelling result which falls into IPCC range sounds the death knell of climate alarm. That is just not true.
You have a point; we should be skeptical. It’s just another model. So instead of taking drastic action maybe we should just wait and see what happens.
benben, I realize that you specialize in making stupid look cool, but sheesh.
First off, there have been dozens and dozens of studies regarding the many warm periods over the last 10K years. All of which were warmer than it is today.
As to your evidence that rapid increases in CO2 are bad. Models are not evidence.
As for the real world, there isn’t a scintilla of evidence that indicates that CO2 increases, even rapid ones are bad.
Heck, a few million years ago, CO2 levels were in the 5000 to 7000 ppm range, and life flourished.
benben says:
“You have to agree with me that this particular blog post we are commenting on is a bit weird, no?”
Yes. And I’m glad benben said “we”, not “you guys”. In benben’s case, he must be using the royal “we”, because his comment here is certainly weird:
“Haha, MarkW were you around in the holocene?”
benben doesn’t understand that he was also ‘around in the Holocene’. I’ll help the youngster: We are still in the Holocene. All of us, right now. Even benben.
And:
“…there is quite a bit of evidence pointing towards the idea increasing CO2 levels drastically in a very short time is possibly a bad idea.”
Let’s see your ‘quite a bit of evidence’, benben. Post it right here. Opinions don’t count.
Next, benben says:
“But anyway, let’s not get into that discussion with you guys.”
benben, you don’t want to discuss your “evidence” because you would lose that debate. There is no convincing evidence that the rise in CO2 (by only one part in 10,000, over the past century) has caused any measurable changes in global temperature, or that it has caused any other negative effects.
On the contrary, there is plenty of verifiable evidence showing that the increase in (harmless) CO2 has been a net benefit.
I can post that evidence, benben. But you first: post “quite a bit of evidence” showing that increasing CO2 is “a bad idea.” And remember, opinions don’t count.
Well DB, you are right, but some would argue we are currently in the Anthropocene 😉 Anyway, I obviously meant to comment on the fact that he was not around when it was +5.0C warmer.
Its kind of ridiculous to demand ‘evidence’ that emitting half a trillion tons of CO2 has negative effects on the long run, when you could just go and follow any MOOC or get a recent textbook with exactly that. Obviously you haven’t done it so you’re not interested in seeing what evidence there is. This insistence of ‘proving the entire AGW hypothesis one blog comment or go home’ is somehow disingenuous, and really not relevant to my initial comment. You really just want to pull the debate into stuff that you want to talk about, instead of contribute to the topic at hand.
More of interest is to debate the SPECIFIC claim made in this blog post, namely that a modelling result that lies within the IPCC boundaries can be seen as the death knell of climate alarmism.
This is what I commented on, and that is what I am interested in hearing your opinion on, my dear DB.
Cheers,
Ben
“Well DB, you are right, but some would argue we are currently in the Anthropocene ;)”
You can call it the Idiocene for all I care, but you’d still have to define the exact time frame to which you are applying the name. Since the “Anthropocene” has never been official recognized, defined, or quantified, it seems a little odd to argue about whether we are currently in it, or not.
“Anyway, I obviously meant to comment on the fact that he was not around when it was +5.0C warmer.”
Well since NONE of us have been alive in any other Epoch besides the Holocene/Anthropocene/Idiocene and at no point has that Epoch ever been +5.0C warmer than it is today, your point is the exact opposite of “obvious”. What was it specifically?
“Its kind of ridiculous to demand ‘evidence’ that emitting half a trillion tons of CO2 has negative effects on the long run, when you could just go and follow any MOOC or get a recent textbook with exactly that.”
Really? I cannot think of one officially sanctioned textbook which contains empirical evidence that emitting CO2 has already had negative effects, in the short run…probably because emitting half a trillion tons of CO2 has never been directly, indisputably, empirically linked to any effect currently taking place that is negative. And of course “evidence” of it’s effect over the “long run” cannot be known until the long run has occurred.
Now what you originally said was-“…there is quite a bit of evidence pointing towards the idea increasing CO2 levels drastically in a very short time is possibly a bad idea.” Something that is “possibly a bad idea” is not the same thing as “something empirically proven to be bad”.
“Obviously you haven’t done it so you’re not interested in seeing what evidence there is.”
Mind reading, logical fallacy, cognitive bias. You have zero means for knowing that db has, or has not done, or what db is or is not interested in. THAT is obvious to any sane person.
“This insistence of ‘proving the entire AGW hypothesis one blog comment or go home’ is somehow disingenuous, and really not relevant to my initial comment.”
Show us all, exactly where, ANYONE “insisted” that! Or even anything close to that! Do you even know what the word disingenuous means? It means-“lacking in candor, frankness, or sincerity”. I cannot think of anyone here who is MORE frank or has MORE candor than dbstealey. Making up wild insinuations about what you think people are “insisting” is illogical, as well as pitiful.
“You really just want to pull the debate into stuff that you want to talk about, instead of contribute to the topic at hand.”
You’re the one who brought up “evidence”…do you want to talk about evidence or not? If you do, PROVIDE SOME. If you don’t, don’t bring it up.
“More of interest is to debate the SPECIFIC claim made in this blog post, namely that a modelling result that lies within the IPCC boundaries can be seen as the death knell of climate alarmism.
This is what I commented on, and that is what I am interested in hearing your opinion on, my dear DB.”
Let’s see if you can follow this…
An alarmist is defined as- “someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.”
Climate change is the norm. The climate has always changed, and most likely, always will.
Climate ALARMISM is the idea that changes in the climate are alarming! (weird huh?) The only reason any changes would “alarm” a rational, reasonable person, is if there was evidence/proof/verification that those changes were going to cause something dreadful, tragic, horrible, dangerous, unnatural etc. to happen.
So, when studies show that climate changes are NOT going to cause ALARMING things to happen, (that there is no danger, no reason to worry or panic) alarmism, by definition, should die…stop existing….no longer live. That’s what we call rational behavior. Reasonable. Logical.
If what results from current climate changes lies within the LOW END of the IPCC boundaries, then no one here sees any rational, logical reason to be alarmed. The article DID NOT SAY that this was a “death knell” for climate change. Or AGW. Or anything else outside of climate ALARM.
We are back to in big letters … 38 billion tons … Ta da…. beneficial ben.. so in the spirit of climate science , maybe and if , it could, what happened to 19 billion of it last year ? Why that’s 1 and half times produced in all of 1965. Why don’t you enlighten me/us on how that happened. I’ll bet you have a dandy explanation on how in 1998 the co2 increase 2.93 ppm and the next year dropped to 0.88. WOW when I think about it, 1999 the amount of co2 came in less than 1965, which was 0.98 . And every year following that was well below 1998 despite a constant increase of over a billion metric tons a year. I’m just all ears!!
I’ll bet you are just chomping at the bit to tell me how the global warming matched up at 1368 w/m^2 and not at the actual level of 1360. I can’t wait to hear how did you do that? !!
Ah! Ha! The co2 is hiding somewhere! Maybe we will find it in an imaginary tropical hotspot.
benben says:
Its kind of ridiculous to demand ‘evidence’ that emitting half a trillion tons of CO2 has negative effects on the long run, when you could just go and follow any MOOC or get a recent textbook with exactly that.
In other words, benben posts opinions, not the “evidence” he claimed.
Next, benben says:
You really just want to pull the debate into stuff that you want to talk about, instead of contribute to the topic at hand.
Please quit deflecting, and post the “quite a bit of evidence” you claimed to have.
benben doesn’t understand that without providing for skepticism of scientific claims, the alternative becomes Lysenkoism: the state’s authority determines whether a scientific hypothesis is true or false. It is not arrived at by falsification per the Scientific Method, but rather, by government bureaucrats.
We’re not there quite yet, but we are pretty close, with certain groups and government officials demanding judicial punishment for scientists skeptical of the ‘dangerous AGW’ conjecture.
People like benben are enablers of Lysenkoism. As we see, he can’t produce “quite a bit of evidence”, or any credible evidence at all to support his opinion that “CO2 has negative effects”.
At this point all that is left for benben and his fellow travelers are government decrees stating that his climate alarmist faction has the only correct answer and conclusion. It’s already started with the EPA’s preposterous designation that CO2 is a “pollutant”.
When people like benben cannot back their opinions with facts, evidence, observations, and measurements, they’re no longer discussing science; they’ve lost the science debate. Now they’re enablers of rule by a nameless, faceless, and unaccountable bureaucracy.
Thanks a lot, Comrade benben.
*sigh* sure DB, whatever floats your boat. But once you’re done preaching about communism, I invite you to take a look at the other side of the fence. I’m here, why wouldn’t you go take a look in my backyard? Go read a book. Any one of the recent general introduction to environmental sciences books should do just fine. At least it’ll give us a shared base from which to talk.
Three days later, and benben still has no evidence to post. That’s because there is no credible evidence to support the man-made global warming scare. As benben demonstrates, his opinion is baseless.
Why do some folks continue to argue about something that exists only in their imagination? It’s certainly understandable why ‘benben’ hides behind his anonymous screen name. The way employers vet applicants these days, benben’s chances of landing a job that requires any more thinking than waiting tables would be close to zero if he used his real name.
IPCC models and predictions look ridiculous.
benben,
I have no idea who you are, but I’ve seen the twists and turns in your words, so therefore have a question for you:
does your paycheck depend upon your promotion of AGW and your rebuttals against skeptic points of view, etc.?
Not in the least. Does your paycheck depend on your promotion of the skeptical cause? It’s pretty closed minded to believe that someone with a different opinion of your own can only hold that opinion because he or she is forced/payed/lied to.
And anyway, what we are doing here is very much falsification: throw your theory against the hardest wall possible and if it’s still standing afterwards, it’s a stronger theory.
An article as above for example, that tries to pass off a normal IPCC result as something indicating the ‘death knell of climate alarm’… let’s be honest, that is pretty detrimental to the skeptical cause 😉
I should also mention, the main thing keeping me (and probably many others) away here are the frequent and very unpleasant references to events in the 1940s (see above for example).
Cheers,
ben
My guess is that he is a subsidy farmer.
A big problem I have in the issue of GW and public policy is this: (This thread is very appropriate)
Not long ago, the issue was CAGW, and the theory was based on “H2O feedback”. The argument was that CO2 would raise the temperature to some extent, which would not, in itself, be harmful. But that higher temperature would cause more water vapor to go into the atmosphere. Because H20 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, it would cause a feedback loop. More H20 would cause more warming which cause more H2O, and off to catastrophe. This feedback also gave rise to the notion of a “tipping point”, where water vapor effects become dominant. So water vapor was invoked to do something which CO2 could not do on it’s own.
But: BUT: BUT:
If the theory was to work, the ECS of CO2 had to be above 2.5, the higher, the better. Hence the IPCC values of “Most Likely” from 3.0 – 4.5. If you have an ECS of 2.0 or less, the H2O feedback does not develop, and CAGW goes *poof*, up in a cloud of black greasy smoke. As evidence piled up that the all critical ECS is 2.0 or less, the response was to not move the goalposts, but to rip them down and build new ones. CAGW became “Climate Change”, and an ECS of 3.0 or more became “Temperature Rise” of 2.0 deg. or more.
I would engage benben to explain how and why all this happened. If benben can be forced to work his way through this, he might be brought to *think* about this. My understanding is that benben has an advanced degree in Environmental Science, and so provides a good view on how the alarmists are thinking. I would expect benben to be fully indoctrinated in the alarmist point of view, and so hard to reach. Also, is CAGW a paycheck issue for benben? Possibly, straight up, very possibly.
If benben can be turned to the Dark Side, he is well positioned to raise havoc inside the enemy camp. Consider me treating an alarmist with decency and respect is just the subversive side of my better nature.
Tony L, that is exactly the picture that CAGW drew.
Beyond that is the w/m^2 I’ve been hammering about. I purposely didn’t divide by 4 in another post. No one from the warmest side argued. The reason they probably didn’t argue is that if they had done the math, it lowers the real calculation of the rise from co2 0.5 C. I can see them telling me I’m wrong about the 2 to 3 C but right about the 0.5 C. That’s wipes out the entire story.
Then there is this. As a skeptic I’m wondering about the 1368 to 1370 w/m^2. There was supposed to a problem with the equipment. Well, maybe, suppose in the CAGW world that’s what they said and the TSI has really declined to 1360 w/m^2. That’s not a pause, that’s a decline. I can see the efforts made to keep adjusting the temperature. ( and I so totally trust CAGW ÷÷÷÷ sarc on the trust)
Most of the warmest are still cutting and pasting arguments that use the 1368 on here. In the public view number was rounded up to 1370. I’m curious as to how they will answer.
TonyL
“If benben can be turned to the Dark Side, he is well positioned to raise havoc inside the enemy camp. Consider me treating an alarmist with decency and respect is just the subversive side of my better nature.”
Seriously? He’s a stooge paid or otherwise nothing you say or anyone says will make a difference to him, you could get Michael Mann to scream “I was wrong” in his face it would have zero impression. He doesn’t care about anything other than whatever he is getting for playing his games here whether its money, an internship or just the chance to lick the boots of his favorite Communist talking head that’s it.
If he is educated in anything its political science and he probably managed to get his degree by cleaning his professors BWM between classes. Don’t waste your time thinking he is worth anything.
“He doesn’t care about anything other than whatever he is getting for playing his games here whether its money, an internship or just the chance to lick the boots of his favorite Communist talking head that’s it.”
Bob, have you considered taking an anger management class?
Chris, I guess if you want to talk to people on this blog you’ll just have to live with nasty and unpleasant comments like those from Bob. Whatever.
TonyL, I think I looked into this some time ago and it was all satisfactory accounted for in the models (H20 feedback loops are relatively quick, so they are quite well modeled and understood because you need them for short term weather modelling as well).
BUT, how about this. Even though I don’t do anything related to climate change myself, my flatmate is doing his PhD in climate models (e.g. he actually programs the models and does that work y’all hate so much here). He’s away for the summer, but if you get back to me with that exact question in a couple of months (august?), then I’ll get him to answer.
Incidentally, I asked him why he never takes time to come to a site like WUWT to answer any questions himself, he said its because of the incredibly unpleasant tone many commenters here have. So, thanks Bob!
Cheers,
Ben
@rishrac
Now I am getting really confused. The usual variation for TSI is generally given as 0.1%, way too small to make a difference. Therefor solar is a constant and cannot be a driver of change on Earth.
Well 0.1% of 1370 w/m^2 is 1.3 w/m^2.
Now I see:
So 1.3 is insignificant, and the difference between 0.6 and 1.0 is critical? I think we have lost the plot somewhere.
Closed minded? Hardly…it’s hard nosed reality. We’ve seen paid commenters here repeatedly. The airwaves are full of them. NPR (gov’t radio) regularly features them on it’s CAGW indoctrination programs. If you knew anything at all about the debates, you would know what I’ve said is true. Perhaps you know it but are trying to deflect attention from that fact. If you do know it, then you are performing exactly as do the paid propagandists, so what’s the difference?
Newsflash! You’ve already made a number of putdowns of the readership in this thread, but yet you’re still here. Anyone with alternate viewpoints is quickly banned/censored/words edited at most of the sites which support your agenda. Gov’t officials at many levels are making attempts to suppress the speech of skeptics and worse.
Twist your way past that!
“higher temperature would cause more water vapor to go into the atmosphere. Because H20 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, it would cause a feedback loop.”
In other words, 0.04% CO2 will make the powerful water do something that the existing 4% of water simply refuses to do to itself.
That’s why it’s called a ‘forcing’, then, because water vapor won’t feed itself back voluntarily.
What’s confusing me the most is why doesn’t somebody simply pass a law to provide a sanctuary atmosphere where it can escape the bullying of CO2 – wouldn’t that be the best way to achieve social justice?
It’s all so esoteric!
Obviously everyone should do without to provide funding for more study because the science can only be settled by sensitive souls who can’t decide what bathroom to use.
I’ll have to review this while I pee so it makes sense…
Chris
“Bob, have you considered taking an anger management class?”
Benben has been spewing nonsense on this site for ever in god knows how many different names its a game to him,. I don’t have any issue with honest people making whatever comments and I am usually the one trying to make people except differing points of view and I try to understand where everyone is coming from. But I have no time for Benben its just a game to him he doesn’t mean anything he says (if fact he probably does stand for anything) here he’s just trolling for his own amusement, he plays classic poli-sci divide and confuse games and he think he is fooling everyone.
Benben
“So, thanks Bob!”
Your welcome
Wow, some nice conspiracy thinking on display here. Good work guys!
[Could “benben” please say something about the suitability of these kind of statements? Its really unpleasant when he says things like ‘conspiracy thinking’ .mod]
“Incidentally, I asked him why he never takes time to come to a site like WUWT to answer any questions himself, he said its because of the incredibly unpleasant tone many commenters here have. So, thanks Bob!”
benben, no one asked or desires for you or your flatmate to come to WUWT “to answer questions”. What is, or is not, “an incredibly unpleasant tone” is subjective. But if there is a tone here that keeps thin skinned, unskilled, incompetent people from posting their personal opinions, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases on a regular basis, I am THANKFUL for it and all who create it.
To whomever is modding at the moment-
“[Could “benben” please say something about the suitability of these kind of statements? Its really unpleasant when he says things like ‘conspiracy thinking’ .mod]”
I haven’t laughed that hard for days! Thanks for the grin as I head for bed. 🙂
Honestly, mods should probably not engage in the debate like this, but fairly obviously that a person interjecting himself in the discussion to call one of the participants part of a certain organization from the 1940s is crossing a line, which the mod rightfully snipped.
On the other hand, when someone completely out of nowhere accuses me of “spewing nonsense on this site for ever in god knows how many different names” then it’s fair to characterize that as conspiracy thinking, especially in light of the fact that this person also says I’m being paid to be here (I wish!)
Incidentally mod, you know I’m not posting under various names since you have access to IP addresses, so if anything you should have shut that down as well, instead of encouraging that kind of behaviour.
Cheers,
ben
[when your email address contains the word “spammer”, you hide behind a fake name, and many of your comments here are negative, it does make one wonder about you. /mod]
benben,
You have hijacked this thread repeatedly, and so far, extremely tolerant mods have allowed it, despite the WUWT policy page clearly stating that off-topic comments can be deleted at will. Might I suggest that continual whining and pouting about what the mods are not doing to your satisfaction, might result in them having unpleasant feelings towards you that might result in all of your off topic, irrelevant comments disappearing forever?
Just a thought…
Mod, I respectfully ask you not to share parts my private e-mail address here on this forum. If you have any concerns that this email address is somehow fake, just send me an e-mail and I’ll reply.
Aphan, that is a rather peculiar interpretation of the above thread. If you would go back to my original comment you’d see that it was very on-topic, and that I thereafter requested multiple times that the other commenters also stay on topic.
Cheers,
Ben – who’s actual name is ben
benben-
“And anyway, what we are doing here is very much falsification: throw your theory against the hardest wall possible and if it’s still standing afterwards, it’s a stronger theory.”
Wrong. You seem to totally misunderstand what falsification means in science-
“The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper’s scientific epistemology “falsificationism”. Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.”
You throw your theory against every single wall that currently exists, ALL of them, not just the hardest wall. And if its still standing afterwards, it still does not prove that your theory is correct, or even stronger. It only improves the chance that it MIGHT be correct. It only takes one wall-even a soft, padded, fabric covered wall to destroy a theory. That wall might not exist yet. Or we might not have found it yet. But the lack of a destroying wall does not mean your theory is indestructible.
Anthropogenic this, that and another
Most likely all nonsense
Before the Anthropoids started interfering with global climate it was never hot, never cold, never cloudy, never sunny, never wet, never dry, no snow no ice, there was a snowball earth, there was a fireball earth.
We have to be grateful forever to the Anthropoids for making our climate so benign.
There you have it, science is settled.
Another cut. CAGW is suffering a death by a thousand cuts. It’s going to be painful, lingering and hence a memorable death.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Right, a thousand cuts. That’s why China is rolling out a carbon tax nationwide, that’s why France (just this week) mandated green or solar roofs on new buildings, that’s why Australia has rolled out the Energy Efficiency Certification Scheme, which puts a price on carbon. All in the last year.
It hardly seems necessary to remind readers that Governments can be wrong . . and/or corrupt . . and or power/control freaky, Chris . . (but I did anyway ; )
And, I feel it is wise to remind readers that the UN is a coming together of the most powerful people in each country. Not “countries”, in the general population sense, just the most powerful few. Therefore, it’s very easy to get something agreed to, which promotes more power/wealth for those “elite” few in each country. “Climate Change” is just the sort of thing that “hands” the ruling elites a convenient way to justify more taxes, more control over speech, and education, and finances, etc., while maintaining the appearance/cover that they are doing it all for the “general welfare”.
(yer welcome, Chris ; )
John, thanks for making respectful replies, much appreciated. To your comment; “And, I feel it is wise to remind readers that the UN is a coming together of the most powerful people in each country.”
I respectfully disagree on that one, I think the UN has relatively little power, though there is lots of grandstanding (and wasted money). Let’s look at a few cases.
IPCC – there is a very small full time team, they rely almost entirely on outside scientists for the research that is done. There is little in the way of enforcement mechanism behind COP21, yes, the countries have agreed to targets, but what happens if they don’t make them? The UN has no enforcement mechanism.
Free trade – all the big agreements – TPCC, NAFTA, the new one being negotiated in the EU – have almost nothing to do w the UN. In fact, those agreements reveal that big companies are the real power brokers, not the UN.
Conflicts – when is the last time the UN played a major role in resolving a major conflict? Almost everything happening in the Middle East is outside of UN control, it is individual countries (like Russia in Syria) or coalitions.
Chris,
I said nothing about how much power the UN has, so this makes no sense to me
“I respectfully disagree on that one, I think the UN has relatively little power…”
It certainly had the power to form/facilitate the UN IPCC, and “hand” the most powerful people in each country a very convenient way for THEM to justify more taxing, restricting, indoctrinating, crony capitalizing, etc., while playing the part of world saviors.
John, you said: “And, I feel it is wise to remind readers that the UN is a coming together of the most powerful people in each country. Not “countries”, in the general population sense, just the most powerful few. ”
To me, that implies the UN having power – yes, you said people, but they if they are not exercising their power on behalf of the UN, then there is no connection. And in any case, I don’t know which specific powerful people you are talking about. Can you give me 3 names of powerful people that are part of this group?
Chris,
“And in any case, I don’t know which specific powerful people you are talking about. ”
Well, people like Mr. Obama, or Mr. Mugabe . . whom those they send to the UN either obey, or they are replaced . . It’s hard for me to believe you don’t know about how people end up representing “countries” at the UN. The most powerful people, meaning the people who can tell the army what to do, for instance . . powerful, like wielding power . .
Oh, and speaking of a thousand cuts, what are some of the key skeptic tenets? 1) The Pause – oops, that has ended. 2) Arctic ice is recovering – oops, no it isn’t. 3) Antarctic ice is growing – still true, though some areas are shrinking. Oh well, you still have 1 out of 3.
There are key skeptic tenets? Is there a list somewhere? And here I am thinking that being a skeptic of something is just withholding judgement until empirical evidence demonstrates that a position can and should logically be taken. For example, being a “Chris” skeptic just means I’m not taking any certain position on who/what Chris is, or isn’t, until I gather enough evidence to make a logical and reasonable judgement about that. Every rational person knows that stereotyping and making sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people is illogical, irrational, and evidence of a cognitive bias. 🙂
And the climate has always changed, (there’s nothing BUT empirical evidence of that) so pauses coming and going-normal, ice melting and growing and melting again-normal, growing more in some areas and not in others-totally normal. Temps rising during interglacial periods, and dropping during glacial periods-normal.
Maybe Chris is so confused by all of the terminology changes and attempts to redefine words that he doesn’t know that CAGW stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming…which is different from regular old Anthropogenic Global Warming….and natural Global Warming…and other changes that are not CATASTROPHIC. Killing off the “catastrophic” kind doesn’t affect all of the other kinds at all. So he still has those.
Aphan, my point, which I guess I will need to make more literally, is that climate skeptics often point to the pause, the Arctic ice not melting by 2013 and the growth in Antarctic ice as proof points that AGW is not happening or is too small to worry about.
You mention temperatures rise during interglacial periods, such as now. What is the reason for that?
As far as the C in CAGW, if the oceans rise by 1m over the next 100 years, would you consider that a catastrophic event?
Steven
“the costs have come down ( yes they are cheaper to make… econ 101, make more, and you learn)”
Maybe but most of the companies producing these panels are going out of business because they are slowly losing their government subsidies.
The amount of subsidies going to renewables is much higher than reported in most of these studies and the production of most of these systems is theoretical and not actual output.
Bob Boder said: “Maybe but most of the companies producing these panels are going out of business because they are slowly losing their government subsidies.”
No, just like in any maturing industry, there is a shakeout, and this has been particularly true in solar due to extremely aggressive Chinese panel manufacturers. So yes, some consolidation, but the overall market is growing rapidly: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/ihs-increases-2015-pv-forecast-to-59-gw–2016-to-65-gw_100021513/#axzz4B5bn5lz2
Chris-
What “climate skeptics often do” does not mean that all skeptics all believe/think/feel the same way about everything. I believe it’s possible that humans can and could even now be affecting Earth’s climate, but the fact that it is possible, does not mean that anyone has proven that we are to my satisfaction.
The Earth changes. It always has. Sometimes it has changed slowly, and sometimes it has changed rapidly-in less than a decade, long before humans were around to be blamed for such changes.
(See the report- “Abrupt Climate Change-Inevitable Surprises” written by the National Committee on Abrupt Climate Change and published by the NAS in 2002. 244 pages with over 500 scientific references)
So the idea that humans have caused some abrupt changes already, or will in the future, can only be entertained if all possible mechanisms from which Earth has produced such changes on it’s own in the past, have first been eliminated. AGW is a theory based on correlations that may or may not be causally related to one another. Natural GW and GC and climate change is a known and evidence based FACT.
“You mention temperatures rise during interglacial periods, such as now. What is the reason for that? ”
Ask the “experts”-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html
“As far as the C in CAGW, if the oceans rise by 1m over the next 100 years, would you consider that a catastrophic event?”
A catastrophe is defined as- “an event causing great and often sudden damage or suffering; a disaster.” Current mid range estimates are that sea levels have been rising by 3.5 mm per year since the early 1900’s. Clearly not catastrophic there. And should it continue at the same rate, we’re looking at 350 mm in the next 100 years, which is about 1/3 of a meter. Again, not great or sudden, and certainly not a disaster.
(Of course they measure sea level rise with satellites which we’ve recently been informed are inaccurate and prone to drift and algorithm problems. And then there’s this-http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/11/broken-altimetry-225-tide-gauges-show-sea-level-rising-only-1-48-mm-per-year-less-than-half-the-satellite-claimed-rate/#sthash.UX2Vtku2.qtNNlyDh.dpbs which shows that “The average SLR at those 225 gauges is +0.90 mm/yr. The median is +1.41 mm/yr. ” So we could be looking at 141 mm in the next 100 years…which is even LESS of a non-disaster)
But, surely you DO understand that human cities exist on land that scientists have known for centuries was once under water, and yet humanity has made zero efforts to pull those cities back from the coasts…you know….to prevent the inevitable return of those waters to the same levels they were during previous eras in which the ice caps retreated completely or almost completely? I’d think that smart humans would learn from the past geological evidence they are surrounded by and stop building civilization on top of future submerged property, and fault lines, and near volcanoes and known tornado paths if they truly want to limit the amount of damage/suffering that we know comes from natural disasters. But nope, hurricane after hurricane wipes out coastal cities and what do we do….we rebuild. Again.
Aphan, there are a number of papers that have been published showing links between AGW and extreme events. Here is one: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/00ca18a19ff194252940f7e3c58da254.pdf
As far as ocean level increases, I was asking a question – if ocean levels increase by 1m over the next 100 years, would you consider that a catastophic event?
Chris
And how are ocean levels going to increase by 1 meter in 100 years?
2 mm/year x 10 years = 20 mm (3/4 inch) in 10 years
2 mm/year x 100 years = 200 mm = 20 cm = 8 inch in 100 years.
[Your] projected (imaginary) “threat” requires 5 TIMES the current rate!
But, to avoid this projected imaginary threat, you FORCE the world to 100 years of death and starvation and misery by artificially and deliberately restricting fossil fuel use.
And, worse, your artificial and deliberate restrictions on fossil fuel use would have NO effect on the imaginary threat you have exaggerated into impossible future sea level rise!
Chris said-
“Aphan, there are a number of papers that have been published showing links between AGW and extreme events. Here is one: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/00ca18a19ff194252940f7e3c58da254.pdf”
Chris, there are a number of papers that have been published showing no link between AGW and extreme events. I don’t care about links. I care about facts. Evidence. Empirical, duplicatable, verifiable facts. Correlation is not causation. Not even perfect correlation.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/fewer-heatwaves-for-9-million-australians-in-sydney-darwin-hobart-melbourne-thank-co2/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/eight-reasons-the-australian-heatwave-is-not-climate-change/
“As far as ocean level increases, I was asking a question – if ocean levels increase by 1m over the next 100 years, would you consider that a catastophic event?”
I answered that question.
Chris says:
…climate skeptics often point to the pause, the Arctic ice not melting by 2013 and the growth in Antarctic ice as proof points that AGW is not happening or is too small to worry about.
Chris, why do you keep claiming that skeptics have something to prove? The onus is on you to produce credible evidence showing that your catastrophic AGW scare is anything more than a fantasy. And for the umpteenth time: skeptics have nothing to prove.
And you keep asking:
As far as the C in CAGW, if the oceans rise by 1m over the next 100 years, would you consider that a catastrophic event?
I would consider that worrisome. If sea levels continued to rise at that rate and begin to accelerate p[ast one meter like all those failed predictions, I would call it catastrophic.
But there is no evidence whatever that sea levels will rise by one meter over the next hundred years, and plenty of evidence that they won’t. That’s just another alarmist “What If” scenario, based on rank speculation.
That scenario is no different from all the other scare tactics your side uses. You try to alarm the public with that kind of evidence-free nonsense because you don’t have anything else.
Not one of your alarming predictions has ever come true. In science, when predictions like yours are wrong 100.0% of the time, your conjecture fails. It has been falsified by the real world.
The rent-seeking alarmist crowd’s arguments would have been laughed out of the lab and off the campus long ago, except for one thing: the huge piles of grant money being shoveled into the CAGW scare.
Your scare is bought and paid for. That isn’t science. And when the money runs out, your “dangerous man-made global warming” nonsense will look as ridiculous as phrenology.
But until then, it’s fun ‘n’ easy picking apart what passes for a rational alarmist argument — like your baseless “what if” conjecture that sea levels will rise by one meter over the next hundred years. As if.
my favourite one has to be ‘renewables are so much more expensive than fossil!’ until – oops – now renewables are cheaper and developing countries are massively investing in them.
Except, Denmark just stopped building them and Britain, Germany and Spain are paying the price… how’s that lower cost, again?
I’d have to see some evidence of lower cost from renewables, i.e., wind and solar. Your assertion doesn’t make it so.
When the facts on hand don’t fit the narrative, benben does what trolls world wide always do. He just makes it up.
haha, yes did you notice I said developing countries? It would be nice if you could respond to what I actually wrote, instead of debate your own hypothetical green communist. Would make things much more interesting all around.
Denmark stopped building those windturbines because the EU forced them to stop, over illegal state subsidies. Now doesn’t that go against your usual narrative that the EU is a renewable energy pushing subsidy monster? I find it infinitely interesting to see how you guys interpret these facts to fit your own preferred world view.
Evidence, you could have just googled it but sure:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels
“While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.
“One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). ”
Just spend 5 minutes googling and you will find any statistics your heart may desire.
benben
That you would actually link that Bloomberg piece (and expect anyone with a clue to believe any of it) is enlightening. Scanning the article is more enlightening, still.
You have completely convinced me that propaganda is your thing.
Ps While you tried to ascribe more than one viewpoint to me, astute readers and you, can do any number of searches and will find zero evidence that I’ve ever said any of those things. Just more propaganda on your part.
pffff, man, just google for prices paid for either solar or wind in any of the large scale auctions held in the six months or so. What do you want me to do? Buy a GW of wind turbines and send you the invoice? It’s really strange trying to talk to guys like you.
Hmmmm how about… IEA reports?
https://irenanewsroom.org/2015/01/17/renewable-power-costs-plummet-many-sources-now-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-worldwide/
Report highlights:
In many countries, including Europe, onshore wind power is one of the most competitive sources of new electricity capacity available. Individual wind projects are consistently delivering electricity for USD 0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) without financial support, compared to a range of USD 0.045 to 0.14/kWh for fossil-fuel power plants.
The average cost of wind energy ranges from USD 0.06/kWh in China and Asia to USD 0.09/kWh in Africa. North America also has competitive wind projects, with an average cost of USD 0.07/kWh.
Solar PV module prices have dropped 75% since 2009 and continue to decrease.
Residential solar PV systems are now as much as 70% cheaper than in 2008.
benben says:
Residential solar PV systems are now as much as 70% cheaper than in 2008.
I only minored in Econ, but it’s clear that benben doesn’t have a clue about economics. Residential customers pay less for PV for only one reason: windmill and solar power is heavily subsidized. Many of those subsidies escalate annually, and will eventually reach 50¢/kWh.
Clean coal power costs 6¢ – 9¢/kWh net of taxes, while wind and PV requires massive tax subsidies. Does benben really believe that solar and windmills can compete with fossil fuel power without their immense subsidies? It wouldn’t surprise me.
People like benben seem to suffer from two deficiencies: their inability to be scientific skeptics, and their economic illiteracy. No climate alarmist is ever a skeptic, and the naive and credulous ones believe those pie in the sky claims that wind and solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel power.
The first is necessary for science to progress, and the second is concentrated in the Ivory Tower. Didn’t benben say he’s at Yale?
benben
That renewables are getting cheaper, is not the same thing as renewable BEING cheaper than fossil fuels. You can understand that right?
The Bloomberg article shows that INVESTMENTS in fossil fuels are dropping while INVESTMENTS in renewables are increasing. Well DUH. Fossil fuels were hot investments when they were “new” as well. Cheap and efficient and in great supply, prices to purchase them have dropped over the years…as they SHOULD have. They got so cheap that companies aren’t making as much money as they used to, and people are taking their investing dollars elsewhere. That’s why the article states-
“Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.”
And
“Oil and gas woes are driven less by renewables than by a mismatch of too much supply and too little demand.”
Investing in a product or end result does NOT automatically guarantee that those products will work, or that the end result will be what you hoped it would be. It’s a risk. Remember the real estate market? The housing bubble? The .com bubble? Investments in companies like Kmart, JC Penney etc used to be HUGE….now they aren’t.
The article shows a chart in which is shows that in the 15 years since 2000, solar has gone from 0% of the global power generated to a whopping….1.6% of it! Woah. And wind has gone from 0.% of the global power generation to 3.1%. If both market keep growing at their current rates….in another 30 years, combined they’ll equal…15% of the world’s global power generation! And 30 after that?…30%.
I wonder if those developing countries understand that if renewables continue their meteoric rise, in another 60 years, 70% of the world’s fuel will STILL be coming from something other than renewables? benben apparently doesn’t.
benben apparently doesn’t actually dig far enough for his “truth” either-
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Electricity_prices_for_households_consumers_2014s2.png
This chart shows that Denmark (DK) pays the highest price for it’s household energy than any other EU country does. More than HALF of that cost is in “other taxes” and “VAT”.. Denmark is also the country with the MOST wind generated power in the EU. So much for it being “cheap” benben.
IRENA? HaHaHaHa!
“With a mandate from countries around the world, IRENA encourages governments to adopt enabling policies [SUBSIDIES] for renewable energy investments, provides practical tools and policy advice to accelerate renewable energy deployment, and facilitates knowledge sharing and technology transfer to provide clean, sustainable energy for the world’s growing population.”
http://www.irena.org/Menu/index.aspx?PriMenuID=13&mnu=Pri
Bennie: I thought you wanted to stay on topic, the death of CAGW?
Well, at least we have an easily falsifiable statement here. I give plenty of reports saying X, DB fervently believes Y, but can’t really back it up except referring to my supposed stupidity. I thought you wanted evidence DB? I gave you plenty of evidence! And all you have to do is literally search in google for ‘2016 renewable energy costs’ to find dozens more. Now you show me the evidence that at this moment, in 2016, utility scale wind and solar is still extremely expensive compared to fossil fuels.
(Paul, this is a different thread, here I replied to someone else’s comment, but fair point)
benben-
“Now you show me the evidence that at this moment, in 2016, utility scale wind and solar is still extremely expensive compared to fossil fuels.”
Since 2016 isn’t even half over, I googled “2015 renewable energy costs”.
“The median cost of producing so-called baseload power that is available all the time from natural gas, coal and atomic plants was about $100 a megawatt-hour for 2015 compared with about $200 for solar , which dropped from $500 in 2010. Those costs take into account investment, fuel, maintenance and dismantling of the installations over their lifetimes and vary widely between countries and plants. For instance, commercial rooftop solar installations generate power for $311.77 a megawatt-hour in Belgium and $166.70 in sunnier Spain, the findings show.”
Finding– The median cost of Solar in 2015 was TWICE the price of fossil fuels and nuclear. It also depends on where one lives-commercial solar in Belgium costs DOUBLE what commercial solar in Spain costs. I’d call that extremely expensive solar to solar comparison…wouldn’t you?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-31/solar-wind-power-costs-drop-as-fossil-fuels-increase-iea-says
“In China, onshore wind is cheaper than gas-fired power, at $77 per MWh versus $113, but it is much more expensive still than coal-generated electricity, at $44, while solar PV power is at $109. In the US, coal and gas are still cheaper, at $65 per MWh, against onshore wind at $80 and PV at $107.”
“Luke Mills, analyst, energy economics at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said: “Generating costs continue to vary greatly from region to region, reflecting influences such as the shale gas boom in the US, changing utilisation rates in areas of high renewables penetration, the shortage of local gas production in East Asia, carbon prices in Europe, differing regulations on nuclear power across the world, and contrasting resources for solar generation.”
Finding – Again, depends on where you live and what’s going on, but coal and gas are still cheaper in many regions of the world. In the US (even after leveling) wind is 20% more expensive than coal and gas, and solar PV is 40% more expensive.
http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost-competitiveness-versus-fossil-fuels/
Check out page 7- and figure ES-1
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63604.pdf
“Figure ES-1 shows the unsubsidized LCOEs for wind, centralized utility-scale solar PV, natural gas combined-cycle, and coal in the United States, Germany, and China for the year 2014, and projections for 2025 based on 2014 estimates of changing costs.”
Finding – Renewables, more expensive, for a long time.
benben
You seem to have missed the last paragraph from your IRENA link-
“The report goes on to explain that renewable energy price improvements are not universal, and that costs range widely according to resources and the availability of financing. Offshore wind and concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies are in earlier stages and deployment costs remain higher than those of fossil fuels. These technologies will however become more cost-competitive in future, especially where low-cost financing is available.”
“Residential solar PV systems are now as much as 70% cheaper than in 2008.
I only minored in Econ, but it’s clear that benben doesn’t have a clue about economics. Residential customers pay less for PV for only one reason:”
minor in econ, but logic fail.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62558.pdf
“customers pay less for PV for only one reason:”
err no. They pay less today than in 2008 for MANY REASONS.
1. the costs have come down ( yes they are cheaper to make… econ 101, make more, and you learn)
learning curve… maybe econ 201
2. incentives in some states.. In cali we. however, pay more.
3. Polyisilicon supply was TIGHT in 2008 where benben pegs the start of his comparison
here db
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53347.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65872.pdf
see figure es-2 for example
http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/downloads/role-advancements-photovoltaic-efficiency-reliability-and-costs
Here’s an example: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-low-for-wind-energy-costs-morocco-tender-averages-us30mwh-81108
So Aphan, Steve Mosher,
You’re saying that in 2015, utility scale on-shore wind and solar was cheaper than fossil in some places and more expensive in others, depending on stuff like supply lines (for fossil, e.g. a tiny island is more expensive than next to Rotterdam), and wind and solar resources. And small scale solar is more expensive all around, except for some small exceptions (e.g. Hawaii, because of above reason), and experimental renewables such as concentrated solar or wave energy are also more expensive.
Good! I agree with that. You see, what a little googling can do for our common viewpoints?
The main gist of my argument is that prices of renewables are falling very rapidly (just look at the prices in 2010 or before, exactly as Steve says, learning curve). So 2016 will be cheaper and 2017 even more so. But sure, if you refuse to look at prices quoted in 2016 (see link by Chris above), lets just wait until the 2016 reports come out.
Cheers,
Ben
Benben,
I can’t speak for Steven. But what I said, and demonstrated with supporting links, is that while solar and onshore wind are becoming cheaper and cheaper, they are still more expensive for consumers at the utility level when all costs and subsidies and taxes are examined. They currently make up a very small portion of the overall energy production, and it remains to be seen what costs will occur if the entire grid moves over.
There is no argument that they are rapidly growing, and that costs have dropped enormously since the technology became available, especially on the solar panels and installation costs themselves. Had those prices NOT dropped as they have, there would have been little growth. The question still remains unanswered: Will their use ever become as cheap and efficient to ALL consumers, in all regions, as fossil fuels like coal and natural gas are? Will people who live in less sunny areas, and less windy areas, ever know the same low cost utilities they do now with fossil fuels?
You seem to be saying that they already are. I AM saying that the links you provided, and those I posted, say otherwise.
Dear Aphan,
No need to be so combative AFTER I already said we agree with each other. Dropping prices will expand the number of situations in which renewables are cost competitive, and I fully agree with you that only time will tell how far that will take us. For now at least we can let go of the tired old argument that renewables are terrible under every circumstance, and move the argument forward to seeing where they make economic sense and where they don’t. Just to be clear, there are plenty of places where anno 2016 they don’t make sense from a purely economic perspective.
I’m just happy to see someone on WUWT acknowledge that wind turbines can make competetive energy without subsidies! (again, provided they’re built in appropriate places)
Cheers,
Ben
Steven Mosher,
I was quite correct, subsidies make alternative energy costs competitive with fossil fuel costs. But without those subsidies, there would be no residential or commercial markets for their overpriced, unreliable energy.
Don’t you read your links? They refer to “models”, and report retail prices for “residential and commercial” customers. That’s like saying Solyndra had sales of $500 million booked, so they’re very profitable.
Wrong. Solyndra burned through far more money than they ever made, so they went bankrupt in less than a year.
Same-same when you compare retail “residential and commercial” costs — while completely disregarding the obscene taxpayer subsidies that keep windmills and other ‘alternative’ energy schemes afloat. Take away those immense taxpayer subsidies, and windmills would go the way of Solyndra just as fast, if not faster.
Only one of your links even mentions taxpayer subsidies:
This highlights the challenges that remain before solar energy can compete with incumbent electricity technologies without subsidy.
Your other links sing the praises of ‘alternative’ power while completely ignoring the subsidies. And you’re questioning my understanding of economics?
If those subsidies were removed or even substantially cut, there would be dozens if not hundreds of Solyndra-style bankruptcies. It was recently posted here where some subsidies for wind power will increase annually, and eventually top out at more than 50¢ per kWh. When clean coal power can be wholesaled for well under 10¢/kWh, you can see that without those enormous subsidies there would be no retail demand for anything other than fossil, nuke, and hydro power.
The other links you posted never considered the gigantic taxpayer subsidies that keep windmill power and similar energy sources afloat. Without those huge taxpayer subsidies, the lanscape wouldn’t be littered and defaced with raptor-killing monstrosities, which are a direct result of the “dangerous AGW” scam that permeates government, academia, and a legion of rent-seekers cashing in on the hoax.
Clouds WARM the earth…everybody knows that. (arc) This elfin spell check won’t let me write (sarc)!
I don’t think the indicated preliminary CAMS estimate of aerosol-cloud interaction forcing implies a smaller total aerosol forcing (which includes radiation as well as cloud interaction) than the IPCC AR5 median estimate of –0.9 W/m^2 (between 1750 to 2011). However, it is further evidence that many CMIP5 models have excessively negative aerosol forcing, and it likely does point to the AR5 –1.9 W/m^2 negative bound (of the 5-95% range) being some way too strong. Moreover, Bellouin hints at future revisions to reduce the estimate being likely. I suspect that recent findings about natural aerosols being able to seed clouds to a greater extent than previously thought will lead to further reductions in estimated total aerosol forcing
IMO this new research reported by Bellouin gives greater assurance that the lowish observationally-based estimates of TCR (1.3 to 1.4 K) are correct, supporting substantially lower estimated warming to the final decades of this century than per the CMIP5 multimodel mean.
Last post got panned for some reason ,
Has anyone noticed the closer Donald Trump gets to being the Pres the more confessions and back peddling from the alarmists , this can only be a good thing .
Its just soooo ingrained into everyday folk-lore – Clouds at Night Keep You Warm.
Does not the actual cloud and its temperature obey the local prevailing lapse rate – if not – why not?
Hence, a cloud at (say) 1000 metres above you will be typically 10degC cooler than you.
How the fook is that cold object going to radiate energy to the surface, the warm object. It breaks every rule in the book.
So, what’s going on. Maybe, as per climate science all over, cause and effect have been totally interchanged. Maybe the cloud is simply an (other) indication that you have been overtaken and engulfed by a blob of warm & moist air that has rolled in from somewhere else.
As if the temp rise wasn’t enough to tell you that, the cloud bubbles up where the warm air interfaces cold air above you. The cloud is not radiating net energy to you – it cannot – its colder than you simply because its up in the sky.
The cloud is not keeping you warm any more than hauling blocks of ice into your Canadian winter living room and expecting it to be toasty and warm.
Certainly the cloud radiates, everything with a temperature above zero Kelvin radiates, EVEN supposedly non-greenhouse gases like oxygen and nitrogen. Polar molecules do NOT have a monopoly on radiation.
so, take similar containers, attach them to The Surface Of The Earth. Short of going to Planet Zog, that happens automatically. Arrange for one to contain more CO2 than the other.
How much does its temperature change, if at all?
And PLEASE, do not give me any of that guff about microwave ovens and what happens in there. It is an entirely different mechanism and if you don’t understand that, keep out of this discussion until you do. You probably wont re-enter it, certainly ion the warmist side anyway.
OK so ypo want trapped heat in the form of radiation. right, so put an illuminated light bulb between 2 mirrors then switch off the bulb. Does the light remain trapped. does the bulb seemingly keep glowing for minutes, days or even centuries. do the mirrors even have an effect that lasts for nanoseconds?
If we can photograph ligtning in slow motion this is surely a trivial problem. Fine, show me the you-tube videos.
As NASA supposedly said, in God we trust etc etc,
I say and we all should, Show Me Pictures or, It Didn’t Happen
While I’m on… I’ve got a little CO2 meter running in my garden. A small PC logs its data every 15 minutes.
About an hour before sunrise today, that meter recorded a peak of 670ppm CO2
An hour before sunset yesterday, it recorded a minimum of 404
There is hardly a breath of wind, the nearest power station, large factory or main road are 10’s and hundreds of miles away from here.
It is late spring, things round this very rural area are growing like exploding fireworks. Some brave if not misguided soils are actually growing corn and you can see it move from day to day. The land should be a massive sponge for CO2
So where did that 670ppm of CO2 come from?
I say it came from my neighbour’s field half a mile away, after he took crop of winter fodder silage yesterday morning.
First of all you have to understand and ideally see what happens to a patch of ground when crops are removed and until you do, I’ll continue to talk gibberish, won’t I? you need to fully grasp how soil fertility almost entirely depends on the decomposition of ancient and not-so ancient plant material and NOT what farmers acquire from sales-people and merchants in sacks, erroneously labelled as fertiliser.
Until then, my theory that CO2 is coming from agriculture will be and remain, utter nonsense.
I’d suggest you do not Pass the Buck, declare yourself as ‘Can’t Be Bothered, nor to refer to The Consensus or ask someone in Authority, either to point to external websites or perpetuate the deluge of tedious little graphs with relentlessly rising lines on them.
ok?
Using current cAGW computer modelled analysis I foretell/hindtell that your garden experienced unprecedented and extreme warming destroying life as we know it (or it will any-time in the future or past with proper negative temporal adjustments, Soviet style). /sarc
Daytime photosynthesis uses CO2 and releases oxygen. Night time respiration uses oxygen and releases CO2. Some forests release more CO2 than they use. Young forests and plants consume CO2. It’s a complex issue. Many interesting canopy studies. Surprising results.
1) Clouds reflect light. They don’t have to absorb it and reradiate it as black body radiation.
2) Unless there’s warm air advection, your air temperature should be dropping at night. Neither the reflection above nor the cloud’s black body radiation can prevent that.
On a cloudless night, the sky’s black body radiation drops way off. Even if the CO2 and H2O IR windows are completely saturated, there’s lots of space for ground radiation to escape to space and cooling proceeds much more quickly.
While you have to be aware of the processes going on, it’s interesting to take a IR thermometer and display the “temperature” of both clear sky and clouds. Clear sky, even during the day, can be the equivalent of a surprisingly cold blackbody.
Today in New Hampshire at 1030, I get -22°C. aiming at the zenith.
Have you seen the articles about using IR thermometers to estimate precipitable water in the air column? Some produce very good results.
That’s right. If clouds reflect light from the source (the sun) during the day, then they also reflect light from any other source. At night, that source is the earth.
Any northern temperate gardener who has to cover his tomatoes to protect them from a frost, welcomes clouds because they help keep it warm.
Yes, point an IR thermometer at the sky at night when it’s clear and when it’s cloudy.
That is empirical proof. It’s so easy there’s really no excuse for faith.
gnomish said-
“That’s right. If clouds reflect light from the source (the sun) during the day, then they also reflect light from any other source. At night, that source is the earth. Any northern temperate gardener who has to cover his tomatoes to protect them from a frost, welcomes clouds because they help keep it warm. Yes, point an IR thermometer at the sky at night when it’s clear and when it’s cloudy.That is empirical proof. It’s so easy there’s really no excuse for faith.”
Let’s be a little more sciencey/specific. Part of the reason that clouds are so poorly represented by models is that clouds are never exactly the same-in density, altitudes, accumulation rates, dissipation rates, what they are made of, how long they remain, or what weather conditions will spawn them and which ones won’t. In other words, it’s not exactly EASY to explain clouds, or how they affect climate specifically.
Clouds reflect visible, short wave radiation, from the Sun during the day.
The Earth does not give off visible, short wave radiation. Not at night. Not ever. The Earth gives off infrared, long wave radiation, that is absorbed and re-emitted by clouds, not reflected.
Clouds both prevent the Earth’s surface from heating more than it would in a cloudless atmosphere (aka cooling) as well as keeping the atmosphere warmer than it would be without clouds (aka warming). Subtracting the net cooling (of about 12C) from the net warming (about 7C) = a cooling of about 5C at the surface.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Frost forms on the ground, not in the sky. A gardener covers his tomatoes to protect against frost, which occurs at or below freezing at the surface. Clouds form in the sky at different altitudes, and warmer clouds are closer to the surface than colder clouds are. So, it really depends on what TYPE of clouds form, and where in the atmosphere they are, rather or not your tomato plants could actually be “warmed” or protected by them. Most gardeners rely on temperature forecasts, and thermometers rather than cloudiness. The gardener covers his plants to retain as much heat/ slow down their heat loss, and that of the ground around them, to space on ANY night where surface temps might dip below freezing.
http://www.wfmz.com/weather/Why-do-clouds-form-at-different-heights-in-the-atmosphere/180022
all very nice theory and modelling, aphan.
are you, for some good reason, unwilling to go put your IR thermometer to work and find out what’s real?
everything i said was true and accurate and empirically demonstrable,
whether you care to acknowledge that or not is irrelevent to the simple fact that it’s all that matters in the real world.
perhaps you didn’t understand that a warm body radiates a spectrum of frequencies?
I think you do get it that water or co2 absorbs very specific wavelength(s) which is(are) only a subset of what a black or gray body radiates.
so you should have no problem understanding that the very specific subset is NOT all there is in the radiant spectrum.
there is no point in quibbling.
facts are facts
they don’t care what anybody says.
here, dear Aphan- this may improve your understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smudge_pot
read uP, little smudge pot.
gnomish,
I’m not sure where/why you disagree with me. I understand what smudge pots are, and I grew up on a farm. From your link-
“This artificial smog forms a “blanket” that blocks infrared light, thereby preventing radiative cooling that would otherwise cause or worsen frost.[1] (Low clouds can have a similar “infrared blanket” effect, which is why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear-sky nights.)”
The first sentence reply- Did you read where I wrote-
“The gardener covers his plants to retain as much heat/ slow down their heat loss, and that of the ground around them, to space on ANY night where surface temps might dip below freezing. “???
Radiative cooling=heat loss. Smudge pots, like covering your tomatoes, work by keeping the “radiative heat” given off by the ground and the plants close to the ground- ie “they prevent radiative cooling”.
The rest of that quote says…(bold mine)… “( Low clouds can have a similar “infrared blanket effect, which is why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear-sky nights.)” LOW clouds, not all clouds. Which is why I also clarified prior- “Clouds form in the sky at different altitudes, and warmer clouds are closer to the surface than colder clouds are. So, it really depends on what TYPE of clouds form, and where in the atmosphere they are, rather or not your tomato plants could actually be “warmed” or protected by them.”
From NASA- (bold mine) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/
“The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud’s altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.”
“The shortwave rays from the Sun are scattered in a cloud. Many of the rays return to space. The resulting “cloud albedo forcing,” taken by itself, tends to cause a cooling of the Earth.”
“Longwave rays emitted by the Earth are absorbed and reemitted by a cloud, with some rays going to the surface. Thicker arrows indicate more energy. The resulting “cloud greenhouse forcing,” taken by itself, tends to cause a warming of the Earth.”
So, to clarify further-these are not MY theories or models or whatever gnomish, they are standard scientific facts that even NASA agrees with. 1) clouds both warm AND cool the Earth-it depends on what the cloud is made of, where it’s at etc. 2) Shortwave radiation from the Sun gets scattered (reflected=albedo) and longwave radiation gets absorbed and re-emitted. 3) Cloudy skies CAN be warmer than clear-sky nights, BUT the temperature in the AIR high above the plants you are trying to protect from frost does not matter nearly as much as the GROUND temperature does…because frost forms on the ground, not in the sky.
Yes, ma’am. I was not disputing what you have just repeated.
I was on about what you just now left out, to wit:
” The Earth gives off infrared, long wave radiation, that is absorbed and re-emitted by clouds, not reflected.”
That is incorrect because the a warm body does not radiate exclusively at the absorbtion frequency of CO2 which is relatively narrow spectrum and a small fraction of the radiated spectrum.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
Most of the IR radiated by earth that is returned by any cloud is done by reflection not reradiation, mmk?
gnomish,
I can’t help it if you do not accept the terminology and the differences between something that reflects energy and something that absorbs (and re-radiates) it. I cannot make you accept the terminology accepted and used by NASA and other scientific organizations. But I can point out your lack of specificity and attempt to correct what you keep saying.
You said-
“That is incorrect because the a warm body does not radiate exclusively at the absorbtion frequency of CO2 which is relatively narrow spectrum and a small fraction of the radiated spectrum.”
I never said a warm body DOES radiate exclusively at the absorption frequency of CO2 with it’s relatively narrow spectrum. The Earth’s surface absorbs short wave radiation from the Sun, and then heats, and then releases LONG WAVE radiation to cool itself in the form of infrared radiation. But not ALL long wave radiation falls within the narrow spectrum absorbed by CO2!!! Some of what is radiated is at the absorption frequency of water vapor-a key component of CLOUDS and the greenhouse gas there is the most of in our atmosphere.
Learn something-
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dargan/111/111_02.pdf
“Most of the IR radiated by earth that is returned by any cloud is done by reflection not reradiation, mmk?”
FALSE. And the link you posted talks about ABSORPTION and EMISSION (re-radiation), not REFLECTION. It supports my point as well.
Can we see photographs of their models, complete with aerosols?
Tony, I sent this earlier, but may be in moderation?? But an aerosol that does not seem to appear in the models.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants
Saharan dust gets plastered over all of Europe too. Plainly visible in the Alps during the melt season.
So Pres Obama can show this study to claim his legacy is complete, He has reduced warming induced by release of industrial CO2 below the 2C ‘tipping point’! If this study is to be believed, WELL below, in fact, it looks like there is no amount of industrial CO2 that would be conceivably released in the next 150 years that would cause temps to reach the dreaded 2C tipping point.
Where does he go to collect his Nobel Peace prize?
So I’ve read all this… and I have a theory.
Just spittballing here, random brainstorm. Ignore me if you like.
But if the total gain from CO2 is something like 1.5C to 1.8C… That would explain the hiatus since 1998, right?
No.
Using UAH/RSS data and the 1998-2016 Super El Nino nexus delta, the last 18 years show about a +.045 C per decade sensitivity. After the 2018 La Nina maximum the pause/stop sensitivity over the past 20 years may be 0.0 C or negative (using the 2000-2018 La Nina nexus delta).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2016_v6.jpg
Error Alert:replace the word “sensitivity” with “delta” in the above speculation.
“Using UAH/RSS data and the 1998-2016 Super El Nino nexus delta, the last 18 years show about a +.045 C per decade sensitivity.”
you cant calculate sensitivity from short time series.
Period.
Real world observation:
Dry air over my region, clear skies with radiational cooling, cool Moist air over my region, cloudy skies no radiational cooling, warm and muggy.
Conclusion:
water vapor, water vapor, ya, ya , ya
CO2, CO2, na, na, na
WE NEED FUNDS OR THE WORLD DIES !
1682 was a cloudy year in Ireland (still v.cloudy here)
http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2016/06/head-in-clouds.html
No need for these worthless theories, the experiment has been done. We’ve put huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 20 years with no effect (It’s still 1/4th normal, BTW). Either added CO2 causes no warming or fossil fuels just prevented another LIA.
Why are clouds not a problem in the climate model hindcasts, which are always very accurate?
Small potatoes. What counts is how much water vapor is being added to the atmosphere from El Nino-like conditions (yes El Nino-ish conditions can even occur in the Atlantic). An over-charged ocean likely interacts with winds to layer up and send evaporation, aka water vapor, into the atmosphere. That process likely dwarfs anything else. We are in a net evaporation point along the seesaw stadial/interstadial pendulum that is in charge and has been over the past 800,000 years. Somewhere at this peak, the oceans will have disgorged all their excess heat and we begin the stair-step slide down to frozen hell.
We’ve all known for quite some time that CAGW’s demise would descend from the clouds…
CAGW’s requiem:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbn6a0AFfnM
What a stroke of genius it was to change the meme to CACD
From my abstract socio-political-philosophical perspective, this seems to be an example of the widening gap between academia and politics. The academics are looking for ways to save face, rather than go along with the increasingly untenable utterances of political and environmental lobbies.
I.e. Academia is looking for a stance of plausible deniability: ‘the data showed what we said then, and its new data that is gradually causing us to reassess our position, and that’s your grant money well spent’ rather than ‘the data never said what we claimed, and we basically lied and bent science out of shape to get our hands on funding and career enhancing publicity’.
If more energy leaves ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will cool down. If less energy leaves the ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will heat up. The GHE theory postulates that GHGs impede/trap/store the flow of heat leaving the ToA and as a consequence the atmosphere will heat up.
340 W/m^2 arrive at the ToA, 100 W/m^2 are reflected straight away leaving 240 W/m^2 to continue into the atmosphere (80 W/m^2) and surface (160 W/m^2). In order to maintain the existing temperature (not really required) 240 W/m^2 must leave the ToA. Leaving the surface are: Thermals, 17 W/m^2; evapotranspiration, 80 W/m^2; LWIR, 63 W/m^2 totaling 160 W/m^2 plus the atmosphere’s 80 W/m^2 making a grand total of 240 W/m^2 at ToA.
The S-B BB temperature corresponding to ToA 240 W/m^2 OLR is 255 k or -18 C. This value is compared to a surface temperature of 15 C. The 33 C higher surface temperature is attributed to/explained by the GHE theory.
This is an incorrect comparison.
The ToA temperature of 255 K should be compared to the ToA temperature of -80 C not the 1.5 m above land surface temperature of 15 C. The 255-193=62 difference is explained by the earth’s effective emissivity. The ratio of the ToA observed temperature to the S-B BB temperature gives the emissivity: (273-80) / (273 – 18) = .767.
Because the +33 C difference between ToA 255 K and 1.5 m 288 K doesn’t exist the GHE theory/explanation is non-solution to a non-problem.
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com and commented:
It’s looking like Climate Sensitivity is even lower than the last Nic Lewis estimate of 1.5ºC and way below the hysterically wrong and oft-repeated IPCC gross exaggerations. New results reported by Nicolas Bellouin could spell the end of global warming hysteria.